whoa! just found this on pbnation!

[Jack_Dubious]

"1984" was such a great book. I think everyone should read it. It blows my mind how Orwell totally predicted the later half of the 20th century (and into the 21st). Cold War, Vietnam, politically correct speech, the manipulation of history, privacy...etc..

"War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength"


JDub

[Collegeboy]

I love that word, Anti-American. Used by many to mean, I hate this group with a passion. Don't know much about them, so I can't criticize them, and I desperately need people on my side, so I will say they are Anti- American.

[aaron_mag]

Originally posted by banzaimf
During my time in I knew one truth, that I was expendable to save others lives. You really can't quantify a hypothetical situation, but how many American lives would you have sacrificed to prevent the wholesale slaughter of 12 to 15 million people?

A noble sentiment but in the opinion of the majority of US citizens misguided. We can't police the entire world and send in our troops for everything. There will be times when it is necessary. The previous Gulf war where Kuwait was invaded was probably justified. This is not so clear cut.

To US citizens our troops (including you) are not expendable. We would rather they be at home with their families eating hotdogs and watching baseball rather than risking their lives without proper cause. This is not an argument against military strength. The symbol of our nation is an eagle with an olive branch (the peace symbol) in one talon and arrows in another talon (war symbol). The eagle's head, however, is turned towards the olive branch symbolizing that we favor peaceful resolutions first with military action taken only when it can't be avoided.

[banzaimf]

Originally posted by aaron_mag


A noble sentiment but in the opinion of the majority of US citizens misguided.

Which is why our political system is setup as it is. Sometimes the majority is wrong. Often because of a lack of information, but wrong nonetheless.

We can't police the entire world and send in our troops for everything.

So we do not have a moral obligation to keep innocent people from getting murdered? Are we only to step in after CNN shows hundreds of bodies of women and children laying on the ground? Maybe it's a bit of a god complex on my side, maybe a little superhero in me, but the deaths of innocent people is abhorrent to me. I see no problem with whichever country that can, doing something about it.

There will be times when it is necessary. The previous Gulf war where Kuwait was invaded was probably justified. This is not so clear cut.

This is an extension of that same act. Remember, part of the ceasefire agreement was the DISARMAMENT of Iraq. The "war" has never actually concluded afaik. I went into the military in 94 and got a ribbon for service related to the "Iraq Conflict"

To US citizens our troops (including you) are not expendable.

Thanks, but I am out of the Mil now, I will go back in if the fit hits the shan.

argh, this is hard for me to put into words. It boils down to the word that you used, Expendable. Sacrifice is a more appropriate word in my mind. The lives of US military personnel aren't expendable, but they sometimes have to be sacrificed to make the world a better place.

...This is not an argument against military strength. The symbol of our nation is an eagle with an olive branch (the peace symbol) in one talon and arrows in another talon (war symbol). The eagle's head, however, is turned towards the olive branch symbolizing that we favor peaceful resolutions first with military action taken only when it can't be avoided.

I agree completely. The question that I would like answered is, how would you get Saddam to fulfill his obligation to disarm in the wake of the attack on Kuwait?

[aaron_mag]

Originally posted by banzaimf
I agree completely. The question that I would like answered is, how would you get Saddam to fulfill his obligation to disarm in the wake of the attack on Kuwait?

First off I'd like to give weapon inspectors time. The weapons inspectors made a recent report which was not favorable to Iraq. It could be that the UN might vote for unilateral action after all.

Second I'd like the US to put their convincing evidence of weapons of mass destruction to the security council. If we truly have concrete proof that would convince our allies we shouldn't hide it.

Third I think the US should maintain a strong military arm. In my younger days I thought that military spending was probably being wasted but now I see it as necessary to threat to preserve peace (the eagle analogy again).

Fourth I think we really need to reduce our dependency on oil. I know there is the argument that the large oil interest won't stand for such changes but why don't these companies profit from the change rather than resist it. The founders of these companies were pioneers after all.

[banzaimf]

Originally posted by aaron_mag


First off I'd like to give weapon inspectors time. The weapons inspectors made a recent report which was not favorable to Iraq. It could be that the UN might vote for unilateral action after all.

I would like to start out saying that I am enjoying this discussion Aaron. You seem to be about as far from center to the side of peace as I think I am to the side of conflict. Makes for interesting discussions that don't end with "oh yeah, well you suck"

Now, onto the meat of the issue. I presume you have read Blix's statement, I am working through it right now. The rush in the timeline is for strictly military reasons. Airpower can reduce another country to rubble, but you need troops on the ground to secure everything. If this drags into May or June, US troops will have as much of a chance of dying by heat stroke as they will by enemy fire (120 deg. F by end of May). There also seems to be the sentiment of, "it's been 12 years, how much longer do you need to prove that they aren't disarming?" There is also a 3rd item going on with relation to how Bush runs things. He's bluffing again. He has a habit of screaming I WANT THIS AND THIS AND THIS when he will accept just this and not that or that. He did it with tax cuts in Texas, he did it when we were going to "go into Iraq, guns a'blazin, damn the UN". Notice he backed off when everyone came to the table and drew up a resolution that got inspectors back in and had a whoop Iraq clause?

Second I'd like the US to put their convincing evidence of weapons of mass destruction to the security council. If we truly have concrete proof that would convince our allies we shouldn't hide it.

We do it all the time. It's called protecting assets. They don't want to burn inside sources, they don't trust the other government not to leak info, they don't want people to know what they and and cannot see. I personally believe that more into will come out within the next few weeks. Let Iraq come out and say "see, we aren't being jerks" then pull out the trump card and ask "what about this?"

Third I think the US should maintain a strong military arm. In my younger days I thought that military spending was probably being wasted but now I see it as necessary to threat to preserve peace (the eagle analogy again).

if the world was kind and gentle with each other, I would gladly see the military disbanded. On this issue, I think we are in total agreement.

Fourth I think we really need to reduce our dependency on oil. I know there is the argument that the large oil interest won't stand for such changes but why don't these companies profit from the change rather than resist it. The founders of these companies were pioneers after all.

I have a hard time envisioning this as an "oil" issue. Fields in Texas and Oklahoma are refilling/are full again. Russia has got claims on Iraqi oil for a while. All we will be able to do is sell them infrastructure. We won't actually get at their oil till the russian contracts are fulfilled. On the other hand, I do think that we need to reduce out dependence on oil, mostly because I envision a future where everyone drives dumptrucks because "they are big and keep my family safe"

[aaron_mag]

Originally posted by banzaimf

I would like to start out saying that I am enjoying this discussion Aaron. You seem to be about as far from center to the side of peace as I think I am to the side of conflict. Makes for interesting discussions that don't end with "oh yeah, well you suck"

Agreed. My position, however, might not be as much on the side of peace as you think. The weapons inspectors report concerns me some. I think Iraq should allow us to use spy planes in the inspection process. The deployment of the army might just be what is needed to force this issue.

I want to go through the UN and I want inspections to continue. I also, however, want Iraq to comply with the requests of the inspectors. That may take the rattling of the sword.

[mag-hatter]

hanz blix admits, today, that anthrax and other dangerous chemicals are not accounted for. i think this is clear enough.

[Koosh]

The State of the Union address should be pretty intrestesting tonight... hopefully Bush isn't 100% committed to going to war, didn't even the UK announce that they think we should wait? Not sure if I heard that right on the news...

[Collegeboy]

Originally posted by mag-hatter
hanz blix admits, today, that anthrax and other dangerous chemicals are not accounted for. i think this is clear enough.

A reason to do something, but not a reason to go to war.

[banzaimf]

Originally posted by Collegeboy


A reason to do something, but not a reason to go to war.

Then what would you propose? Please be specific.

[aaron_mag]

Originally posted by Collegeboy


A reason to do something, but not a reason to go to war.

Yes this is my opinion as well. It is, however, a fine line. Now that we have pressed the issue I think that Saddam should be forced into total capitulation. In other words he should allow the use of spy planes for the weapons inspectors and allow for the interview of scientists. This is needed for the inspectors to do their job properly (which I favor).

I do think that Bush has totally bungled our relationship with our allies. He seems to delight in pissing off all other nations with our arrogance. Give the speech about international unity, friendship, teamwork, relationship building, etc. Behind closed doors you can take the hard line but not in public speeches!

[Collegeboy]

Originally posted by banzaimf


Then what would you propose? Please be specific.

As I said earlier war will not work. Any government established by the Iraqis after the war will be thought of as a puppet of the US. Fundamentalist will go in and hype up the populace and over throw the government, and guess what we will be back and square one but probably even worse. Just think Iran.

I think the best an easiest way is for a public uprising. (don't say Saddam will gas them, for he will not). Then with the US out of the picture, having nothing to do with the uprising. The populace can elect their own leader.

[Koosh]

think the best an easiest way is for a public uprising.

Unfortunately that won't happen... We've been trying to do that for the past 10 years, but the Iraqi's won't rise against Saddam... After the gulf war we promised that we would support an uprising against him... unfortunately we went back on our word... I don't forsee another civil war in Iraq any time soon...

[cphilip]

I am happy that you all were able to keep this one somewhat under control for so long. However I missed it and there were numerous points it should have been closed. Including the very first one. But one comment sticks out the most to me. One very unnessicary one that says it all.

"Let me start by saying :Mods's don't be jerks and close the thread because you don't like the debate going on, that'd be real mature"

Now there is a real mature comment. And one from someone who knows the whole thing has nothing to do with debate but has to do with rules. I realy hate someone calls me a jerk for doing my Job here. And who openly violates the rules and then feels offended when he has to live by them. Its a shame. So I guess I will just be an immature jerk and do my job...