I dislike hippies

[nippinout]

I dislike hippies.

"Support our troops, bring them home" is a popular posters for hippies.

"I'm against war" is a popular conviction amongst hippies.

I am in favor for the war in Iraq. I also want the troops to come home. Everybody would like the troops to come home, but most of us also know that they have a job to do.

Every sane person is against war. But war is also a necessity. I accept this. War is diplomacy.

I ask these folks how Iraq is better off leaving him in power rather than removing him. I ask them how he adds to the stability of the Middle East.

None have answered me. A few changed the subject, but no answers.

"No blood for oil" is another popular poster. Oil is not the primary reason for this war.

Sure, we might get some cheap oil out of this, but why is that such a bad thing? I like cheap gas. Does it make me feel dirty for doing so? No. Soldiers died during a war that will bring us cheap gas. I feel sad for their deaths and their families' losses. But this war was not waged for cheap oil. Get realistic people.

Cheap oil is just a nice side benefit. We want cheap oil. The Iraqis want to sell us their oil. We just have to get rid of a few bad apples in Iraq first.

I ask of you, how is keeping Saddam in power good for Iraq? How is he good for the stability of the Middle East.

Answer me these two simple questions.

[NuthyN]

It seems to me like you are mixing up hippies and anti war people. Hippies suck mainly becuase they smell bad, are good for nothing, and aren't even funny like other people who do drugs. Anti war protesters suck because they hurt morale and make no points for why we shouldn't go to war. I think America should have another McCarthy type era and all of the crappy actors who protest the war for no good reason should be named.

[Hamster Huey]

Against my better judgement, I have to speak.

First of all, I dislike the sentiments expressed in your "I dislike hippies" statement. You're grouping all people with ideologies opposed to your own under a narrow, stereotyped label designed to be derogatory. It strikes as being prejudicial and closed-minded. If you don't like the ideas expressed by anti-war protestors, why don't you just say "I dislike the slogans put forth from anti-war protestors. I feel they are baseless and wrong."

Secondly, let me try to briefly (gotta go eat) address your questions, which are anything but simple. If they were, Saddam would've been removed from power long ago.

Unfortunately, the questions that you ask aren't the central issues one asks when one goes to war. Have the Iraqi people gotten a raw deal from Saddam? Undoubtedly. Has Saddam been good for stability in the area? He sure hasn't helped. The question, though, is what is the best way to relieve the Iraqis' current plight without worsening their situation? What is the best way to remove Saddam from power without further destabilizing the area? It's these very complex questions that make the war far from a simple issue. If we looked at war as simplistically as you suggest we should, we would already be at war with North Korea and any number of African countries, whose people are just as repressed and whose rulers are equally abhorrent.

[xLoHungWangx]

I'm against the war. I hate this war. I don't care if you are or aren't, I'm not going to judge you on your opinions. I think war is stupid. I have plenty of reasons for that, but I don't feel like writing it all, about to get icecream.

[FalconGuy016]

You do know that Saddam supports and funds terrorism, dont you? And if we continue to do nothing about terrorism, it will strike again some day? I think Saddam is a good first step towards stopping terrorism, and stopping his own reign of terror also. 12 years of negotiation hasnt worked, so this is the only way

[Hamster Huey]

The link between Saddam's regime and Al Qaeda has, embarrasingly, never been substantiated.

[nippinout]

I prefer not to do PC.

I don't label them as anti-war. How is that fair to those that are for action in Iraq?

I'd safely say 99% of Americans are anti-war. So if I call these folks anti-war, ergo I am pro-war? I think not.

I'm not trying to look at this war through a simplistic fashion.

These are just simple questions for the people I feel are baseless and wrong.

The questions I pose are not questions concerning those we ask prior to going to war. They are simple questions. Nothing more nothing less.

[Hamster Huey]

I'm not asking you to be PC. I'm asking you to be judicious.

If you agree that your questions are overly simplistic, you can then perhaps see that asking them to anyone, an anti-war protestor or a pro-war protestor, holds no value.

And NuthyN - you really don't want to go back to McCarthyism. It was ugly - really ugly. If a famous actor says something you disagree with, then that's just how it is. You don't have to agree with or even listen to them.

[InfinatyBPS]

Hippies are cool, aren't the like all about free love, peace and weed? Sounds great to me

[Army]

Originally posted by Hamster Huey
The link between Saddam's regime and Al Qaeda has, embarrasingly, never been substantiated.

What's your point? His links to dozens of other terrorist groups, cells, and organizations is well documented and known. Al Qaeda is but one group, which we have pretty much destroyed in Afghanistan and elsewhere.

We are at war with terrorism as a whole, not individual groups to be picked and chosen at whim. Saddam is a terrorist, and his regime has sponsored terror.

[nippinout]

Originally posted by Hamster Huey
I'm not asking you to be PC. I'm asking you to be judicious.

If you agree that your questions are overly simplistic, you can then perhaps see that asking them to anyone, an anti-war protestor or a pro-war protestor, holds no value.

I can answer those questions. I believe those questions have value.

What's wrong with simple questions.

[Hamster Huey]

My point was just what I said, that seeking to directly take out Al Qaeda through taking out Hussein is probably not fruitful. I just wanted to make it clear that Hussein does not equal Al Qaeda, which seems to be a popular idea.

That being said, I don't disagree with at all, Army. There are more terrorist organizations that we can shake a stick at, and Hussein is nothing short of a terrorist thug himself. Never denied it.

[Demobilized]

One point I'd like to make is that the government doesn't tell us everything they know. The point i am trying to make is that for all we know there is some terrible secret that the government chooses not to tell us, so cut the government and milatary some slack when you claim that there isn't a reason for war.

And beside that theres plenty of reasons as is, like the thousands of deaths, his genocide movements and his nearly nuclear cabiblties that he had in the early 90's

[Hamster Huey]

There's nothing wrong with simple questions. Simple questions rule! But there's no value in trying to debate an issue with an overly simplistic question that doesn't address the true debate.

Let's say I go up to an anti-war protestor that's being annoying. I challenge him, "Do you think Saddam is a bad dude?"

Protestor scratches his head, thinks for second. "Yes."

I continue. "Ok - do Iraq has it rough under Saddam?"

Protestor, getting into a groove, replies, "Yes."

Then I ask, "Is Saddam bad for the stability of Middle East?"

The protestor, feeling that he's on a roll, answers with a smile, "Yes."

And every protestor there, unless they're really off the deep end, will also say yes. So then I walk away, realizing that there's no debate to be had over the questions I asked. I haven't gotten anywhere, I haven't made any points worth contesting, I haven't made an argument. I've asked some simple questions that the vast majority of people agree on. I might as well have asked, Is Iraq in Asia?"

My issue is not with the utility of simple questions. My issue is with the relevance of your questions to the debate of war in Iraq.

[Hamster Huey]

Originally posted by Demobilized
One point I'd like to make is that the government doesn't tell us everything they know. The point i am trying to make is that for all we know there is some terrible secret that the government chooses not to tell us, so cut the government and milatary some slack when you claim that there isn't a reason for war.

And beside that theres plenty of reasons as is, like the thousands of deaths, his genocide movements and his nearly nuclear cabiblties that he had in the early 90's

While I don't like the idea of being left in the dark, I do recognize the need for leaders to lead, for those in power to do what's best for our country without need for immediate and complete explanation. There's precedent for it, and I believe there to be justification, as well. But at the same time, a public that does not demand to be informed will never be informed. Demanding accountability from our leaders is one of the ways our system works. Doing otherwise is asking for trouble.

As for your second point, those reasons for war exist in places besides Iraq, too. You'll have to provide more reasons besides those.