Roll call: Gulf War II stance

[Kaak]

spraybear...i think you are being a little negative here. I think the kill ration in the last war was about 250 to 1. and good number of our losses were friendly fire...

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


Cite please. I've read the text of 1441, and nowhere does it give any authorization of military action if its terms are not met. It simply says Iraq faces "dire consequences" should the UN not be satisfied with its compliance. And it's up to the UN to decide what those consequences should be.

I also like the fact that he thinks the US has been delegated the responsibility of judging Saddam's compliance or lack thereof.

[Sprayber]

Originally posted by Kaak
spraybear...i think you are being a little negative here. I think the kill ration in the last war was about 250 to 1. and good number of our losses were friendly fire...

If only the war would be the last of it. We will be apart of whatever occupation force ends up in Iraq after the war. When the Marines went into Lebonon during the 80's it was going to be so easy. Didnt turn out very well though.

[KrazyHorse]

Be safe, Spray.

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by Sprayber
Since I'll be giving a year of my life (maybe the rest of it if the winds happen to be right) for this enterprise, I think I'll say lets get the damn thing done with.

Get the deed done.

[MOBIUS]

Don't worry Sprayber, chances are you'll just get gulf war syndrome - unlike however many Iraqi civilians are killed thru so called 'collateral damage'...

Coalition fatalities last time around were less than 1% and that includes all the friendly fire cases.

I really wish that people would stop calling Blair Bush's lapdog because, much as I think that Blair is a git and a slimeball - he is the only reason the US hasn't gone to war on at least 3 seperate occassions.

Blair is the lone voice of reason in the Pro War camp as without him the US hawks would have already run amok like a bull in a china shop!

As for war, what's the rush!!? Rushing things and hamfisting the Al-Qaeda link 'evidence' like a bunch of amateurs has got the Turkish parliament and the British public telling the US to F*ck off. Also countries like France and Germany throwing their toys out of the pram because of US bully tactics - they're acting unreasonably as well because they're saying they will automatically nix a 2nd resolution because they can. I think the UN needs to agree just what constitutes starting a war and using that as the 2nd resolution - saying 'no' to war, not even as a final resort is crap IMO. But then so is using the words 'dire consequences' as an excuse for war - though the US has already declared an airwar now after stepping up attacks (many unprovoked) on Iraqi positions.

Slow and steady wins the race - let Saddam be disarmed (as is currently happening) or hang himself.

My biggest fear is that there ARE WoMD stored in secret bunkers all around Iraq and as Saddam's power collapses from a US attack all those guards decide to enrich themselves by fleeing with these WoMD straight into Al-Qaeda's arms - wouldn't that be the ultimate irony, the US being responsible for Al-Qaeda acquiring WoMD!!?

So, while we're able to twist Saddam's arm and force him to disarm as we are, there is no hurry IMO. Things are working.

If he decides to resist (as opposed to caving in as he has been at every turn during these inspections), then by all means bomb the sh*t out of him...

Hell, I applaud the success of capturing the Operations guy for Al-Qaeda the other day, way to go AND without killing thousands of innocent civilians either!

But as things stand, might does NOT make right (quite how the hypocrisy of such an action is lost on the Pro War camp I'll never understand), the US needs to play by the rules of civilised society otherwise it will end up like the schoolyard bully who has no friends...

So my opinion is the UN has to agree a final and unequivocal line in the sand where there is no alternative to force - if/when that is crossed, then we get him.

So Non US only pro war after all due process is exhausted. We need more inspectors to speed things up and assent for Saddam that they stay there indefinitely, evidence or not.

[Sprayber]

Originally posted by Frogger
Be safe, Spray.

Oh I will. It's just that we have been so busy getting stuff ready that the reality of being gone for so long hadn't sunk in yet until yesterday. My best friend is going with me and he has a son due on the 29th. All those things you meant to do and hadn't are comming back to haunt us.

There are different views on weither or not this is necessary, but one view we all share is that we need to get over there and do what we have to do and get it over with.

Some of you say this is getting old. Just think for a second how we feel about this. There are people already over there sitting in the desert waiting for one word or another. My unit has been extremely lucky in that we were initially supposed to be called up earlier but were not. A lot were not as lucky and have been sitting at some Army post or worse yet over there in the desert. I think most of the military would be highly pissed off if all this was called off and nothing came of it. One way or the other, this needs to be settled.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Lancer
Didn't the Brits send some 20,000+ troops? That's significant...

Actually, the last I heard, the Brits had committed 42,000 people to the Gulf (including naval personnel). A sizeable contribution indeed, especially once you consider that Britain is about 1/5 the size of the US in terms of population, and even less in terms of GDP. That would make for an equivalent US contribution of over 200k (or, roughly what the US is committing).

[SlowwHand]

Dear Mobius,

President Bush is constitutionally obliged to take action against adversaries who threaten national security.
I.E. Iraq.

"I am not surprised by anti-Americanism, but it is a foolish indulgence. For all their faults, and all nation's have them, the U.S. is a force for good.---Tony Blair


Stick that in your ditty bag.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
President Bush is constitutionally obliged to take action against adversaries who threaten national security.
I.E. Iraq.

Define threat to national security. Prove Iraq is such.

And where does it say in the Constitution the President is obligated to undertake foreign wars for any reason?

[MOBIUS]

Iraq is no threat to national security because for a start we all know that there is no concrete link between Iraq and Al-Qaeda.

Secondly as I said earlier:

I actually believe that Al-Qaeda has more chance of getting these weapons if Saddam's regime disintegrates through the US attacks, and whoever's guarding any WoMD decides to skeddadle with the gear and sell it to Al-Qaeda...

Tell me why this scenario isn't likely to happen, and then remind just why it is you want to attack Iraq again...?

[Az]

After the briefings we had this weekend, any illusions of a good year were brought back to cold reality. Lets just say that after it was all over with, I added some more onto my insurance just to be sure my family would be protected. Thankfully what I added was really cheap since I got it through my National Guard Association and they pay out within 24 hours upon notification of death. That way my family won't have to be in a bind until my other insurance makes it's way through the paperwork.

hey stop it! You'll do just fine!

take care...

[Lancer]

We're just waiting for the troops to be in place. If we have to wait for the forces that have to reposition themselves from Turkey, well then we have at least 2 more weeks. For one thing I don't know if they are on their way to the Gulf yet. If we don't wait for them, then they could go pretty much any time.

With Turkey going south on us, I see nothing standing in the way of an independant Kurdish state. That deal was bugging me anyway.

[SlowwHand]

Mobius and Boris need those tanks on their street before it's "proof".

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by Sprayber
Since I'll be giving a year of my life (maybe the rest of it if the winds happen to be right) for this enterprise, I think I'll say lets get the damn thing done with.

Mobius and Boris need those tanks on their street before it's "proof".

naw, they're just cynical as hell... and perhaps justifiablely so...

[Sikander]

Originally posted by MOBIUS

I actually believe that Al-Qaeda has more chance of getting these weapons if Saddam's regime disintegrates through the US attacks, and whoever's guarding any WoMD decides to skeddadle with the gear and sell it to Al-Qaeda...

Tell me why this scenario isn't likely to happen, and then remind just why it is you want to attack Iraq again...?

For starters, how are they going to get the WMD out of an Iraq collapsing from U.S. military pressure? Sure people can walk out, but vehicles aren't as easy to sneak through. And where will they go? Turkey, and Kuwait are on board against the Wahabbi terrorists, as is Iran to some extent. In any event, Iran already has WMD and I can't really see them being anxious to be fingered for proliferation to terror groups as they work their way up to nuclear weapons while trying to keep the Great Satan at bay. Especially with such a large force so near at hand. That leaves Syria, which is left in a tough position against the Turkish - Israeli - U.S. alliance. Whether they will want to play it tough or seek a detente at this point is an open question. If they merely want to keep their options open then I think we can assume that they don't want to be caught assisting terrorists moving chemicals or biological agents.

IMO the chemicals are too much trouble for the weight anyhow, at least for terrorists. They are tough to apply effectively, though I'm sure there is a way to do so. The bio weapons seem to have much more bang for the weight, and they can spread themselves to some degree. A much better terror weapon.

[Drake Tungsten]

Sikander's arguments are as cogent as always...

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
President Bush is constitutionally obliged to take action against adversaries who threaten national security.
I.E. Iraq.

Bush would better declare war to the entire world then. Even Canada is a potential threat to US security, if Iraq is

[Boris Godunov]

Bush would have declare war on himself, first, though.

[Spiffor]

So true Boris.

[Jaguar]

**** France. But the rest of the UNSC is important. We should discuss with Russia and China and come to an agreement.

Reasoning for "**** France:"
I think there is a huge difference between what Russia is doing and what France is doing. Russia is advising us in private, as a friend, to change our plans. France is criticizing us publically to earn brownie-points with Europe. Holland and Monaco and whatnot want have say in things. They want to counterbalance the US. Obviously they can't do it by themselves, but they will be happy if a Central-West Europe coalition stands up to the US on something. They can't affect Washington's decisions, but they can affect decisions made in Brussels. If a major EU member disagrees with the US, this finally gives the minor ones some power. That makes them happy with the dissident major EU powers like France and Germany. It also serves another purpose. The terrorists will hit New York, London, Manchester and Washington long before they go after Paris.

[Spiffor]

Jaguar : you are mostly right

However, France's radical position doesn't only come from its will to get bargaining power within the UN or EU. It has also much to do with the overall radicalization of international diplomacy lately, whose apex was during the "old Europe / new Europe" week.
French diplomacy wanted to postpone the war (not avoid it) in order to further its agenda, but also because it thinks the west shouldn't give the impression it's waging war against the muslim world.
Originally (before 1441), France tried to convince the US to avoid war because such a war would only result in more support (i.e money and manpower) to terrorism. The war in Iraq is contrary to the war on terrorism, in which France takes part.

1441 shows the past willingness of France and US to conciliate their views. Unfortunately, as warmongers continued to hassle America, and as the French and European population became almost unanimously anti-war, the gap widened. And we got the declaration of Chirac-Schröder late January, the letter of "European Eight" a week later, and the whole "Old Europe / New Europe" week after, which led to the mess we now know.

France tried to advise the US to calm down, for both countries own interests. There could have been an agreement on France's imperialistic interests in Iraq (return to pre-Gulf War 1 status quo).
It was and remains part of De Villepin's rethoric : "A true friend doesn't follow you blindly. A true friend warns you when you're going to make a mistake".

If the antifrench hysteria abates in the US, and the mild raise of antiamericanism abates in France, the relationship between the two countries would become healthy again. It would be utterly stupid from France to lose support from the only superpower of this world, and it would be stupid from the US to alienate the 2nd most influent country of the EU.
Especially over small matters (realpolitically) like the war in Iraq.

[Agathon]

I don't know what I want. I oppose the war as I've tried in the company of others to find some good reason for it using every reasonable political ideology and the worst possible motives and I still think it's a fools' errand.

On the other hand, this makes me think that a war that ends up in the humiliation of the US and the Republican party would be a huge shot in the arm for progressive causes and even if it doesn't end up a major disaster it will open the eyes of ordinary people throughout the rest of the world to what the US really stands for. I'd have never believed that my parents' friends would be endorsing beliefs that accord with Chomsky's, but they are and it's changed the political climate at home; something I thought I would never see happen.

Perhaps the war will force a "crisis in democracy".

Be careful Sprayber, don't try to be a hero. You are more actually likely to end up a hero by accident.

[VJ]

In reality parlence, the roster for Europe.
Support US:
All-Minus France and Germany.

Oppose US
France and Germany.

Could you switch this jackass generalisation into an one-liner? You see it would be signature material.

I'm serious, respond quickly, because I'm eager to use it.

[Comrade Tribune]

I wouldn´t support the war *even with* UNSC approval. Therefore, no vote.

The UNSC has no business, nor the right, to legitimize wars.

[Ned]

I would have liked to wait for the UN, but France has turned the SC into a farce. France is no longer concerned about Iraqi disarmament. France is concerned about twarting the US and leading the anti-Americism world.

We should have expect this. However, the turn of events has shown just how really useless the UN really is.

[David Floyd]

I'm a US citizen, and I oppose the war under ANY circumstances.