Author Topic: Good Antiwar Argument (Read 2288 times)

JB42 · « **Reply #30 on:** February 27, 2003, 10:30:28 AM »

Umm Toad, you do know that the French helped the Americans during the revolution? Without their help and support I doubt the Revolution would have worked.

The issue I think is we are quick to forget that our country was attacked. We made immediate retribution in Afghanistan and sent a message to the rest of the world that these acts and support thereof will not be left to go on. Iraq, a known support of such acts, has been given the options and time to comply with the worlds (UN) demands. Yet it not only scoffs at these demands, but out right lies about them.

How many more civilian lives need to be lost before it becomes ok to act on Iraq? Does the Eiffel Tower need to be bombed? Does a dirty nuke need to be detonated in Berlin? Does Isreal need to be contaminated with chem/bio agents before its deemed a correct response. Does the USA have to attacked one more time? I say NO!

Iraq has been given every opportunity to save a conflict against them and they're just putting their nose up to us. Well America has takin enough blows to the chin, I say lets break that turned up nose of Iraq's.

2stony · « **Reply #31 on:** February 27, 2003, 10:36:44 AM »

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ

Quote

I just paid $2.09 a gallon for 87...

Did you read my thread titled "who need oil"? Hydrogen fuel would be $.76 in peak times and $.38 during the Spring runoff. Also, the only residue from burned hydrogen is water vapor(which equals no pollution).

Quit whining and push for hydrogen.

Toad · « **Reply #32 on:** February 27, 2003, 10:40:07 AM »

Dowding,

No, don't take it as a comparison of a "colonial war" to a civilian uprising to replace a perhaps unpopular government. I meant it as a comparison of an uprising with bleak prospects for success.

I hope the British public can accept British soldiers remaining in Iraq for the long haul and being sniped at by all sides, in their desperation to murder each other. I think we're both in the mess together now. Do you guys want the Kurds v Turks & Iraq in the North or do you want to handle Sunni v Shiite in the South?

As I said, wrong war at the wrong time but probably for the right reason. I think you basically agree. Am I wrong?

Dowding · « **Reply #33 on:** February 27, 2003, 10:46:30 AM »

Yes, I think we do. Can't remember the last time that happened.

Blair and Bush have set out their stalls; I don't think there will be any going back without a major loss of face - and that will never happen.

I'm extremely concerned about our guys (US and UK) who are going to be on the ground, trying to keep a peace where there is no peace. It could be Bosnia all over again - inaction due to fear of reprisal and escalation.

I think 2003 has the potential to be a memorable year for entirely the wrong reasons.

Toad · « **Reply #34 on:** February 27, 2003, 10:56:26 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by JB42
Umm Toad, you do know that the French helped the Americans

I'm aware that D'Estaing, with a French fleet, arrived in the Delaware on the 8th of July, 1778.

I'm aware that these battles were fought and that horrible winter at Valley Forge was survived before the French arrived.

Battle of Lexington and Concord
Capture of Fort Ticonderoga
Battle of Bunker Hill
Olive Branch Petition
British Evacuation of Boston
Invasion of Quebec, Canada
Battle of Long Island
Battle of White Plains
Battle of Fort Washington
Washington crossing the Delaware River
Battle of Trenton
Battle of Princeton
Battle of Brandywine
Battle of Germantown
Battle of Oriskany
Battle of Bennington
Battle of Saratoga
Battle of Monmouth

I'm certainly not denigrating the contribution of the French. I said before in another thread that we wouldn't be here without them.

The point is that Iraqis, like colonial Americans, should have to take the first serious steps to remove an unpopular government. I never intimated that doing so would be easy or bloodless. But it seems clear to me that unless THEY are willing to risk their lives, their fortunes, their sacred honor for freedom.... and do so in a clearly defined, extended, irrevocable effort..... then OUR sons shouldn't be asked to do it for them.

And, while I hate to sound like some of those folks reknowned for their inability to accept obvious fact, I have yet to see an incontrovertible linkage of Iraq to 9/11. If there were one, I would happily join in the rush to war, but I haven't seen one as yet.

Iraq's disregard for the UN is quite obvious. However, I personally don't find that a cause for an attack on a sovereign nation by the United States that could possibly be justified by "just war theory". Now, WITH a UN mandate to make Iraq comply, that would be different.

But without that, I can't support it. The US is about to become an "aggressor" nation in the same way Iraq did when Iraq invaded Kuwait without provocation. That's my opinion, and it sickens me to think that the US is going to become what we have fought against for so long.

What US civilian lives lost can you trace directly to Iraq? I'll step up and say we need a definitive "traceable" act against us in order to justify this war.

UNLESS the Security Council asks the US to make Iraq comply with the UN/SC resolutions. And that obviously isn't going to happen.

I'm sorry, much as I hate the idea of Hussein remaining in control and murdering and starving his own people..... I don't want to see the US become an agressor nation.

john9001 · « **Reply #35 on:** February 27, 2003, 11:01:01 AM »

you people make much out of nothing, the only problem in iraq is somebody called saddam , when he is gone there will be peace.

Toad · « **Reply #36 on:** February 27, 2003, 11:17:36 AM »

Yes, I'll admit it.

I make VERY MUCH out of these United States going to war without a legitimate cause under "just war theory".

We're becoming what we fought against for so long.

2stony · « **Reply #37 on:** February 27, 2003, 11:23:49 AM »

Originally posted by TOAD

Quote

Battle of Lexington and Concord

All these battles you mentioned TOAD were over two hundred years ago and were beneficial to the French because they were at war with Britain and it served their interests. Much like their interests in Iraq.
Ever since then, the U.S. has been saving their tulips at places like WWI, WWII, Viet Nam, etc. The French never really "saved" our asses, only perfumed their own.

Toad · « **Reply #38 on:** February 27, 2003, 11:38:50 AM »

If you meant that seriously, you need to do more research.

Start here if you are truly interested:

The Revolutionary Road

In any event, your comment has nothing to do with my point that I'd prefer to see the Iraqis irrevocably pledge THEIR lives, fortunes and sacred honor towards their own freedom before asking OUR sons to do it for them.

john9001 · « **Reply #39 on:** February 27, 2003, 12:02:38 PM »

" those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable" JFK

Rude · « **Reply #40 on:** February 27, 2003, 12:19:51 PM »

I'm of the school that the same bug now infecting Iran's citizenship can be caught by the Iraqi citizenship(if it already hasn't) and that an open door with support for the freedom to live your life in a manner which affords opportunity and peace, is not that far fetched.

This is a bold and daunting concept.....sort of like our revolution or Germany and Japan after WW2.

It's time for the status quo to go.....no effort made or worse yet, complacency towards these nations is a formula for trouble.

Like was said earlier, these are interesting, exciting and dangerous times. I guess my point is this....life without risk is not really life....bold ideas and actions have brought about great reward and great trouble....let's hope for a reward in Iraq.

2Slow · « **Reply #41 on:** February 27, 2003, 01:09:18 PM »

Iraq is an artificial nation, created by the British drawing lines on a map.

They don't like themselves, let alone anyone else.

The fair thing to do would be to create at least 3 nations from the mess. But I doubt the Turks would tolerate a Kurd nation.

SirLoin · « **Reply #42 on:** February 27, 2003, 01:42:36 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by 2Slow
Iraq is an artificial nation, created by the British drawing lines on a map.

They don't like themselves, let alone anyone else.

They didn't like the British when they used mustard gas on them to kill thousands during demonstrations.

beet1e · « **Reply #43 on:** February 27, 2003, 02:23:41 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Mr. Toad
I'm sorry, much as I hate the idea of Hussein remaining in control and murdering and starving his own people..... I don't want to see the US become an agressor nation.

Mr. Toad, I don't think that going to war with Iraq would make the US an aggressor nation. Saddam could have avoided the conflict, were he to have complied with UN resolutions and weapons inspectors. He has had 12 years to comply. He has chosen not to. Instead, he secretly pursues the development of WMD. Even since 911, when Dubya warned that the war on terror would not be confined to Taleban/Afghanistan, Saddam has had almost 18 months to co-operate. He has been warned of the penalty for non-cooperation. He has been given every chance.

As to no clear link between Iraq and 911, there doesn't need to be. Dubya made it quite clear that sponsors of terrorism would be sought, wherever they may be in the world. Far from being an aggressor, I believe Dubya/the US is being pre-emptive. Of course, he could wait for Iraq to drop a dirty nuke on Tel Aviv and then say "oh yeah, maybe there IS a link between Iraq and terror. Maybe we could be next, what with all the Jews we have in NY state. I'd better phone Tony, and see if we can't get some troops together to send out there"...

Naso · « **Reply #44 on:** February 27, 2003, 02:47:00 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Toad
Yes, I'll admit it.

I make VERY MUCH out of these United States going to war without a legitimate cause under "just war theory".

We're becoming what we fought against for so long.