War or No War --- The Dispute

by hornetsnest 14 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Eric

  Lonewolf or hornetnest or whatever,

  The National Post article by Mark Steyn (if that's not a nom de plume, his parents had a great sense of humour) had some fairly well reasoned points that the writer tried to back up with historical precedent. I can appreciate that, I had read it elsewhere previously, in fact.

  As for what you wrote preceding the attached article, well I'll start with the fact that you claim that people bringing their problems to you number in the "10s of thousands", and that you are 62 years of age.

  62 x 365(days in a year) = 22,630 days. What kind of career have you had where people bring you their problems at a minimum average rate of one every other day since the day you were born? If you're not a therapist, practising psychiatrist, or a bartender, I put this claim under hyperbole. Hysterical hyperbole even. Not even a bartender expects his advice to be followed.

  I put your other claims of 90% of this and 48 hours of that under the same category: hyperbole, commonly known as utter bullshit.

  Abbadon:

  You are absolutely on the mark about the protests and the protesters.

  Yes, CCRyder&others, Sadam must go. But it must be with a united front of international agreement, and not seen as the US against the world.

  Example: a recent poll of Canadians:

  War support hits new low

  Canadians want U.N. support: Poll American motives found to be suspect

  GRAHAM FRASER

  NATIONAL AFFAIRS WRITER

  OTTAWA—Support in Canada for a U.S.-led war on Iraq has reached a new low, a poll done for the Toronto Star shows.

  According to a poll conducted by EKOS Research Associates for The Star, La Presse and the CBC, 74 per cent of Canadians would oppose Canadian participation in a war without the "full support" of the United Nations Security Council. Only 25 per cent would support a war without it.

  With Security Council approval, 63 per cent of those surveyed support Canadian participation, with 35 per cent opposed.

  ____________

  Do you see the difference in the numbers even among one of your closest allies?

  The job seems clear, get the Security Council onboard and then go nuts on Saddam or be viewed as a country that breaks any rule it sees fit, whenever it sees fit.

  Eric
• 

  DakotaRed

  Back2dafront, the simplest terms I can put it in would be to equate it to dealing with a schoolyard bully. If one kid stands up to him, most likely, they will fight. If the entire class stands up to him, he will back down, being faced with superior numbers.

  As long as Saddam sees some pressing for him to be left alone, he will continue arming, hiding arms, or whatever else he is doing. Recently, Hans Blix ordered them to destroy all of a certain type of missle as it flies firther than allowed by UN resolutions. Iraqs answer was, "we will study the order." Is that compliance?

  Also, they claim the destruction of chemical and biological weapnry. How? They claim to have poured it out in desert and will now dig trenches to have the soil examined for verification. Does that determine if all of the chemical or biological agents were poured out? Or, just a little? I see it as stonewalling. On another note, where is the public outcry for the pollution that may have been caused by simply pouring these agents out somewhere in the desert?

  If Saddam were faced with worldwide condemnation and demands that he totally comply and actually had complied, the sanctions would have been lifted long ago, Hans Blix even says so. If all the nations stood side by side, demanding he comply or face dire consequences, my money is on he would comply. As long as he is empowered by nations as France, Germany and others allowing him to continue as he is, he will not comply.

  By the way, it is France and Germany who armed him and purchase the bulk of his oil, not the US. Makes me really wonder what their true motives actually are.
• 

  back2dafront

  Dakota,

  Right on. I dunno though - I think USA = the entire class in the schoolyard bully scenario. We have the capabilities to destroy Iraq 10 times over - the support of other countries is totally unnecessary. The reason why USA should have world support is not because we need it but because it becomes a world issue and mandate, not a personal Bush vandetta as a lot of people in the world, justified or not, view it. Granted, the day the whole world can agree on ANYTHING will be a cold day in hell.... :-)

  As far as the pouring out of chemicals into the desert - that's not cool at all. Just recently I read about how he is destroying the marshlands in southern Iraq. Definitely not good - I don't think the public is very aware of it, that's why no outcry as you mentioned.

  By the way, it is France and Germany who armed him and purchase the bulk of his oil, not the US. Makes me really wonder what their true motives actually are.

  Not sure. Good question. It does appear that they have something going on w/ Iraq that they're trying to keep secret.

  Is there anyone from France or Germany on this board that could enlighten us on what political talk is going on in their countries? It would be interesting to get their input on the world scene, from the European side....do they know what their countries are really up to?
• 

  DakotaRed

  Just recently I read about how he is destroying the marshlands in southern Iraq. Definitely not good - I don't think the public is very aware of it, that's why no outcry as you mentioned.

  At the risk of suffering the ire of the anti-war left, I submit that many are unaware of this due to not looking beyond the claims of American Imperialism and "It's All About Oil," coming from their leaders. If any did a real search of information, they would see these claims as bogus as can be. Of course, they would need to seriously look at the other issues and not necessarily their preconceived notions.

  Yes, the US does have the capability to annhilate Iraq many times over, with help from no one. That we haven't and instead, are seeking support from others and involving the UN blows holes in many claims of the protestors.

  To be properly informed, one needs to seriously look at both sides of an issue. Many, from both sides, look at only views they agree with. If you are really going to protest, at least be accurate about what you are protesting and realize that others may again pay dire consequences for your actions.
• 

  back2dafront

  Dakota,

  Coming from someone who does not consider himself to be in any particular political category whatsoever, I've looked at as much information as possible and what I've learned is that the USA is NOT dependent on Iraqi oil. In fact, this war will be far more costly than any oil proceeds they may hope to gain when they take over shop. Maybe 5 years down the road they may see profit.?? Who knows.

  What I have learned however is that Iraq is not reaping the full benefit of the goldmine they are sitting on because they lack the money and technology needed to devote to it. Either that or Sadaam chooses to use the money for other selfish ambitions. At any rate, the USA could very well take advantage of this fact after setting up in Iraq after the war.

  Yes, the US does have the capability to annhilate Iraq many times over, with help from no one. That we haven't and instead, are seeking support from others and involving the UN blows holes in many claims of the protestors.

  You and I both know Bush would be a fool to charge into Iraq without the compliance of the UN. He knows he's accountable to the world for his actions, superpower or not. He's got enough problems, the last thing he wants is the world taking action against him for taking out Iraq prematurely. And what claims exactly does this blow holes in?

  If you are really going to protest {or support this war}, at least be accurate about what you are protesting and realize that others may again pay dire consequences for your actions.

  Interjection mine.