[OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.

[Thermodyne]

Guys, I think we should put together a game around this, complete with a diplomatic organ like the UN. The purpose would not be to win in the shortest period of time, but instead it would be for the diplomacy. It would be a long slow game, so only those who are truly interested should join. Personally, I think we would all have many heated debates along the way, and in the end, have enjoyed it very much.

[geoschmo]

Originally posted by Ruatha:
That won't succed.
There can be nowar that terrible that people won't cry for revenge.
The way is to stop it and back off.

I don't know about this. There aren't too many people in Germany, Japan and Italy crying for revenge over the way WW2 ended. Backing off and leaving the people that cause these problems in power is exactly the kind of halfway thinking that ended wars for centuries, and caused the persistant cycle of violence. If WWI had ended the way WW2 ended, one might have been enough.

Geoschmo

[ March 15, 2003, 17:26: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

[Ruatha]

Originally posted by geoschmo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ruatha:
That won't succed.
There can be nowar that terrible that people won't cry for revenge.
The way is to stop it and back off.

I don't know about this. There aren't too many people in Germany, Japan and Italy crying for revenge over the way WW2 ended. Backing off and leaving the people that cause these problems in power is exactly the kind of halfway thinking that ended wars for centuries, and caused the persistant cycle of violence. If WWI had ended the way WW2 ended, one might have been enough.

Geoschmo

---

Yes, That is the difference.
The second WW wasn't bad enough to stop future wars.
WW1 ended with a bad deal for the loosers who had to follow several conditions.

WW2 ended with a good deal for the loosers, they got aid and support from the winners. They didn't need to cry out for revenge!

I do not belive it was the horrors of WW2 that inhibited WW3, it was the good post-war behaviour that did it.

btw, the cold war might have been involved in avoiding ww3 too

Some wars must be fought. That doessn't mean that in many cases there are other solutions!

[ March 15, 2003, 17:37: Message edited by: Ruatha ]

[rextorres]

I am sick and tired of everyone linking 9/11 with Iraq. W and his gang have been wanting to take out Iraq since 1998!! Read the letter below.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

9/11 was simply an excuse!!

Saddam's weapons of mass destraction are also a bogus excuse - witness that some of the main "evidence" was actually fabricated (so well in fact that it was almost not discovered - hmmm) If the evidence is so strong why did they have to make things up!!?

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/14/sprj.irq.documents/

When W was campaigning to be president he was adamantly against nation building - now all of a sudden he wants to go in and save the Iraqi people. That's is another a bogus excuse. Where was he two years ago!?

You guys complain about peaceniks - but the protests against intervention in Afghanistan were small at best. It's only since this reckless war that people have come out on the street.

All you people that support the would probably jump off of a bridge if W. wanted you to.

The two main reason for this war are:

Distraction from W's failed presidency - the war talk didn't start until October of Last year right before the election. The GOP needs to finish this war in time for the next election cycle - that's why they are so hot to invade now.

Money - It's no coincidence that a huge rebuilding contract was awarded to a company that Cheney is associated with.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...8/MN242495.DTL

Oil companies stand to make a lot of money when they can resell Iraqi oil if they can dictate the terms to a pliable Iraqi government.

[ March 15, 2003, 19:45: Message edited by: rextorres ]

[Wanderer]

I thought this article is a pretty good response to some of the "it's all about oil" arguments.

Its basic premise is that whilst Iraq has huge oil reserves, she doesn't have the production capacity to have the effects some people are talking about.

There is one rather large assumption made half-way through, though. See if you can spot it.

[rextorres]

Originally posted by Wanderer:
I thought this article is a pretty good response to some of the "it's all about oil" arguments.

Its basic premise is that whilst Iraq has huge oil reserves, she doesn't have the production capacity to have the effects some people are talking about.

There is one rather large assumption made half-way through, though. See if you can spot it.

The guy you quoted is an arch conservative who supports the war. There are differing opinions. Here is a quick article contradicting your source and it is not an editorial which yours is.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/824407.asp?cp1=1

The fact is Cheney and his gang are already figuring out how to get profit. See my post below.

[ March 15, 2003, 19:55: Message edited by: rextorres ]

[Gryphin]

Folks,
We can debate this till the bombs stop falling and not change one aspect of the outcome.
Perhaps we should be coming up with ideas on what we might do in the aftermath.
A bit fatalistic an cynical of me but also a bit practical.
I hope I'm wrong.

Side note: One of the most signifigant aspects of this debate is that it concerns the lives of those who will "defend untill death your right" to do so.

[ March 15, 2003, 19:56: Message edited by: Gryphin ]

[rextorres]

Wag the Dog - war talk starts right before an election

Fabricated Evidence - http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/14/sprj.irq.documents/

Graft to friends -
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/03/08/MN242495 .DTL

War plans since 98 - So 9/11 has nothing to do with it. (three of the people who signed the letter are in W's white house)
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

Change of heart about nation building - W. campaigned against what he's doing

Loss of good will - the whole world is against the u.s. now

What's to debate? I think all of you that support the war should take a hard look.

[ March 15, 2003, 20:41: Message edited by: rextorres ]

[Wizarc]

Who sold Iraq their supplies for Chemical Weapons? Who sold Korea their nuclear material to make nuclear weapons? Who sold Saddam his weapons to wage war?

[DavidG]

One question that never seems to get answered is this: If you are opposed to war what do you propose as an alternative?

While it may be debatable that Iraq has WMD's it is pretty clear they would very much like to have them and will continue to work to get them.

I believe it is also public Iraqi policy to support terrorism (as in them offering cash to the families of paLastinian suicide bombers)

So what do you do? Everyone knows war is bad. It's a no brainer. But would Iraq be better off in say 10 years with a quick war or with leaving Saddam in power?