An open letter to all anti-war liberals, from a fellow liberal

[Naso]

It's not exact, shuckins.

Stop a moment, and think on the long run, on the big numbers.

And you will realize how important is to leave as much as possible the "home reserves" untouched, and use the "outbound ones"; how much can be done by acquiring the control of the 50% and more of world's oil reserves, and decide where, when and for who raise or drop the prices.

World is steering in a direction that will force our children to wear a black uniform and kill the "untermenscht", or face their revenge.

And this is not the bright future some of our heros died for.

Signed: Cassandra.

[Shuckins]

Naso,

We BUY 50% of the world's oil, but we don't own it, or even control it.  Remember that the next time OPEC raises the price of a barrel of crude.

By the way, the rest of the world would raise hell if the U.S. seized permanent control of Iraq's oil, and this administration knows it.  So the argument that this is a war about oil is spurious.  Opposing the war because it IS a war makes more sense.

Nevertheless, deposing Saddam not only can be done but it SHOULD be done.

Regards, Shuckins

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by lord dolf vader
bush has gone from the worlds largest coalition to the smallist in two years. the guy could and has screwed up a wet dream. this war will be no different. god bless the troops but dethrone the deserter responsable for the mess. this war wasent nessasary its bushes bumbling idiocy that make it nessasary. i wont accept and argument we should pretend it was for the best all along, it wasen't

Obviously you were not in Communications department of the Navy, what exactly *did* you do in the Navy?

[Dowding]

If you want to compare Saddam to a historical figure, then the closest simile is Muammar Kadafi. He was once an major threat, but he was slapped down and he has been a marginal player ever since.

Except for Lockerbie, of course.

That heavy handed approach to terrorism worked just fine.

[Wanker]

However, this war against Saddam is contrived and is unnecessary at this time. Saddam has been militarily marginalized for the past 12 years. Saddam is no where near Hitler's level...Hitler had a plan and twisted vision. To say that Saddam is anywhere near Hitter's league disrespects the millions who died at that madman's hands. Is Saddam a cruel leader who uses all the tactics of a dictator to stay in power...yes. Should we be the ones to overthrow him for the sake of the Iraqi people...no.

Crow, of course Saddam is nowhere near the threat that Hitler was. I never said he was. But I was using the Hitler example to demonstrate how dangerous it is to let a proven madman run loose. Hitler went so far as to tell the world of his plans in "Mein Kampf". Saddam told the world of his plans by attacking Iran and then Kuwait. And did he not use chemical weapons againt his own people, the Kurds? How much more proof do you need?

There was no smoking gun in WW2 when the Allies were given intel that the Germans were killing people in the concentration camps. However, as proven once those camps were liberated, the smoking guns did exist. We just didn't have proof. The same sort of thing *could* be happening with the WMD in the current Iraqi situation. Do the Iraqi's have WMD, and will they use them? The countries against the war are gambling that they don't have them. America and her allies in this war and not willing to take that gamble. Too much is potentially at stake. Time will tell who is right.

[SaburoS]

Originally posted by crowMAW
However, this war against Saddam is contrived and is unnecessary at this time.  Saddam has been militarily marginalized for the past 12 years.  Saddam is no where near Hitler's level...Hitler had a plan and twisted vision.  To say that Saddam is anywhere near Hitter's league disrespects the millions who died at that madman's hands.  Is Saddam a cruel leader who uses all the tactics of a dictator to stay in power...yes.  Should we be the ones to overthrow him for the sake of the Iraqi people...no.  If they don't like him, let them do it.  It has been done before in the region.  The Iranian people did not like the Shah (who was arguably just as cruel a dictator as Saddam) and they revolted.  I don't like the theocratic government that replaced the Shah, nor do I like that during the revolution our embassy was invaded...but I do respect that the people made their own choice about their leadership and did not require an outside country make the choice for them.

If you want to compare Saddam to a historical figure, then the closest simile is Muammar Kadafi.  He was once an major threat, but he was slapped down and he has been a marginal player ever since.  Saddam has already been slapped and he is also a marginal player and will continue to be one.  We have not been sitting by idly...we have imposed and enforced and can continue to enforce UN 1441.  I agree we have not done as good a job as we could at enforcing 1441, but if given a chance to do better at enforcing the UN sanctions he will continue to be a toothless junk yard dog.

If you say that Saddam has WMD...where is the proof.  And don't point to a set of vague intercepted messages that may indicate WMD if you interpret the wording in a certain way.  I want a smoking gun.  And so far the UN inspectors have not been able to find it and the Bush Administration is either unwilling or unable to present it.

We are a nation whose judicial system is not built on imposing penalties based on suspicion alone.  Nor is it based on penalizing someone who has not yet committed a crime but might commit a crime because people think he is a bad person.  And unfortunately that frequently means that we can only act after a crime takes place.  Why are we invading a country that is only suspected, based on very weak evidence, of having WMD.

If you say that he may secretly have WMD and give them to terrorists...tell me who Saddam would possibly trust enough to give WMD?  Weapons which could just as easily be used against Saddam and Iraq as it could against the US.  Al Queada?  BS...UBL does not like Saddam any more than we do and would be just as likely to use WMD against Saddam as he would against the US.

If you say that this war will deter terrorism you are wrong.  It will increase terrorism.  What would make you think that a war of aggression against an Arab state that Muslims identify as an Islamic country would do anything but incite more Arabs and Muslims against the US and create more terrorists willing to die to kill us?

crowMAW,
Bravo! ~S~! Saved me some typing.

******************

banana,
If we're to draw parallels, The US, not Iraq, is closer to Nazi Germany (not in ideology). The negotiating tactics that Bush and Hitler used are very similar in that keep demanding more and more as concessions are granted. They both keep upping the anty until they get the war they want. In Hitler's case, he got a country as all his concessions were met. BTW, who supplied Sadaam with his Chems? Who turned a blind eye (or even supported his wars against the Kurds and Iran? Why don't we condemn Turkey for killing the Kurds? Hell, we even sided with Iraq after they almost sank one of our ships! I guess Lincoln was a war criminal too, eh? After all he's responsible for killing a lot of fellow Americans, no?

Perhaps it is you that need to brush up on history.

[BGBMAW]

Crow..your wrong...


So i guess when saddam admitted to the  tons of VX/anthrax gas in 1991..and he said its gone with no proof we beleive him?
Was isreal Wrong attaking the Nuke Plant a decade ago Crow?

Its veryhard for me to understand people think he only has tanks and mortatrs...

Hell fuk it..I could care less about his WMDs...lets test soem new weapons..lolol ya you libs will liek that 1..lololoLMFAO

Owell..we will see in a few days  ehh?


And diddly  LIBERALS....hows thats...feel free to run our country into the ground...Yes...We are cutting all the school spending for war..WHAT A crock of LIES and roadkill..How can you guys support theses guys???  

Your former Leader Daschle makes me sick....DIe and go to hell


DASHLCE IS A MaGGOT politican..everytime i hear him speak it makes me sick..and pissed off...good thing I cant do more then note support the freak show liberals..yes..Welcoem to California..

Straight from my heart:)

Love
BiGB
xoxo

yes..spelling is for secrataries you biches

[lord dolf vader]

ohh sorry i dont live up to the stirling level of grammar in you delusional idea of our navy.


back to your crack pipe mr professional flamer.

[ghostdancer]

As for the idea of a smoking gun .. the Israeli's bombed a "suspected" nuclear facility created for developing the ability to make nuclear weapons. They did not have a smoking gun at the time. They were criticized at the time. Up until that time the International Atomic Energy Association had been giving Iraq flying colors for compliance to the non-proliferation treaty. While in truth the Iraqi's had a very active program going on to develop nuclear weapons.

After the Gulf War we found the smoking gun / the evidence that Iraq had been trying to develop nuclear weapons, that the facility that Israel hit was being used for the purpose. That if they had not hit it when they had in previous years that it was possible that Iraq would have had some nuclear weapons in 1991.

I personally don't like how Bush has tried to handle the diplomacy with other nations on this issue. I think it has been heavy handed and brutish. Would a few more months make a difference one way or another .. who know. But they have been trying to get him to comply since 1991. Nobody has said they believed Iraq has complied and has gotten rid of its WPM or the ability to produce them. They are just disagreeing about what to do about it. At some whether now or later somebody has to say enough is enough after 12 years.

I do agree with banana on this ... look at the history of the man and his regime. Look what they did try to develop, look how they used what they developed (they gassed Kurds and Iranian troops), look at their evasions in the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, 2000s. Yes, Iraq has been marginalized and is not a conventional threat to us or probably even Iran or Saudi Arabia any more. However, think on the fact that a nuclear or biological weapon does not have to be delivered by a jet fighter but can be walked into a country. He has a history of using whatever means he has at his disposal to accomplish his goals and then trying to gain access to more deadlier weaponry.

Do we have a smoking gun .. no. Did the Israeli's no. Did Britain, France, and the world have a smoking gun on the holocaust in World War II. The gun was found afterwards.

The question is simple are we willing to gamble that if he ever does develop it and he was desperately trying that he won't use it or pass it on to another to use.

[Wanker]

The negotiating tactics that Bush and Hitler used are very similar in that keep demanding more and more as concessions are granted. They both keep upping the anty until they get the war they want. In Hitler's case, he got a country as all his concessions were met.

Saburo, there are two big differences, though. Hitler's ultimate intent was to enslave Europe by conquest. Our intent is to overthrow a tyrannical and potentially dangerous government.

The other small difference you over-looked is that we are a Democracy and Germany was a totalitarian state. That fact alone makes your comparison spurious.

I will grant you, however, that America is not always in the right. There are many instances of unfortunate American imperialism(The Indian wars, the war in the Phillipines at the turn of the 20th century, etc.)

[ghostdancer]

banana you are correct .. America has made blunders. We are currently reaping what we helped to build in the 1980s when we supported and equipped Iraq versus Iran.

We rationalized our support saying we were using one evil that we could control or influence to stop another evil (Iran). And by evil I mean evil in our opinion. We supported and armed and gave intel to a despot and it turned around and finally bit us in the hand hard.

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by lord dolf vader
ohh sorry i dont live up to the stirling level of grammar in you delusional idea of our navy.


back to your crack pipe mr professional flamer.

I just don't believe you were in the Navy.  The Navy as I remember after visiting a recruiter, had much higher education level they allowed in...frankly speaking..you don't seem like you'd fit their type of recruit.  Maybe your generation dipped so low in academics that they were forced to take what they could get?

[midnight Target]

banana - Nice post.

hi Ghost.

[Dowding]

You guys must wish you had Blair for President. A man of integrity and words.

[crowMAW]

Did the Israelis do the right thing by hitting the Iraqi nuke plant before it went online?  Yes...that is a smoking gun in my opinion...read my post again and see that I would support airstrikes against the similar plants being built in NK.  But where is the nuke plant in Iraq that is making weapons grade plutonium?  You think it is hidden well enough that our satellites can't see the heat plume?  Do you realize how nearly impossible that is to do even for a country as technologically advanced as the US let alone a technologically handicapped country like Iraq?!

I also supported the air strikes in late 1998 of Iraqi chemical plants that were obviously designed to manufacture chemical weapons.  Those were smoking guns.  There is no evidence that Saddam has had time to rebuild those facilities or even gather the equipment that would be necessary, all of which would need to be purchased from other countries.  And it is not like we haven't been watching for that kind of activity.

What has happened to the missing anthrax?  First, from what I understand it is not actual anthrax that is unaccounted for but rather the yeast that can be used as a growing medium for anthrax.  If this is not correct please point me to documents that show otherwise.  However, the problem is in production and then storage of anthrax.  Iraq was never able to perfect the drying process and had always kept anthrax in a slurry form, which has a limited shelf life.  By now any slurry anthrax produced before the Gulf War that Saddam might have successfully hidden from UN inspectors in the early '90s would be useless.  As far as the UN inspectors could determine, Iraq has still not figured out how to create dried anthrax.

As for the holocaust...none of the allied combatants went to war with Hitler because they suspected the holocaust.  The smoking gun for Europe was a blitz on Poland.  And for the US the smoking gun was Pearl Harbor.  Did the US seriously suspect that Japan was going to attack...yes...was the US prepared to carry out a preemptive strike against Japan based on that suspicion alone...evidently not.

And BiGB...honey sweetie pie...I hate to break it to ya but Tony Blair is not a member of the Conservative Party, he's one of those damn Labour Party liberals...kisses.