In all the solemn statements by self-important politicians and newspaper columnists about a coming war against Iraq, and even in the troubled comments by some who are opposed to the war, there is something missing. The talk is about strategy and tactics, geopolitics and personalities. It is about air war and ground war, weapons of mass destruction, arms inspections, alliances, oil, and "regime change."


What is missing is what an American war on Iraq will do to tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of ordinary human beings who are not concerned with geopolitics and military strategy, and who just want their children to live, to grow up. They are not concerned with "national security" but with personal security, with food and shelter and medical care and peace.


I am speaking of those Iraqis and those Americans who will, with absolute certainty, die in such a war, or lose arms or legs, or be blinded. Or they will be stricken with some strange and agonizing sickness that could lead to their bringing deformed children into the world (as happened to families in Vietnam, Iraq, and also the United States).


True, there has been some discussion of American casualties resulting from a land invasion of Iraq. But, as always when the strategists discuss this, the question is not about the wounded and dead as human beings, but about what number of American casualties would result in public withdrawal of support for the war, and what effect this would have on the upcoming elections for Congress and the Presidency.


That was uppermost in the mind of Lyndon Johnson, as we have learned from the tapes of his White House conversations. He worried about Americans dying if he escalated the war in Vietnam, but what most concerned him was his political future. If we pull out of Vietnam, he told his friend Senator Richard Russell, "they'll impeach me, won't they?"


In any case, American soldiers killed in war are always a matter of statistics. Individual human beings are missing in the numbers. It is left to the poets and novelists to take us by the shoulders and shake us and ask us to look and listen. In World War I, ten million men died on the battlefield, but we needed John Dos Passos to confront us with what that meant: In his novel 1919, he writes of the death of John Doe: "In the tarpaper morgue at Chalons-sur-Marne in the reek of chloride of lime and the dead, they picked out the pine box that held all that was left of John Doe, the scraps of dried viscera and skin bundled in khaki."


Vietnam was a war that filled our heads with statistics, of which one stood out, embedded in the stark monument in Washington: 58,000 dead. But one would have to read the letters from soldiers just before they died to turn those statistics into human beings. And for all those not dead but mutilated in some way, the amputees and paraplegics, one would have to read Ron Kovic's account, in his memoir, Born on the Fourth of July, of how his spine was shattered and his life transformed.


As for the dead among "the enemy"--that is, those young men, conscripted or cajoled or persuaded to pit their bodies against those of our young men--that has not been a concern of our political leaders, our generals, our newspapers and magazines, our television networks. To this day, most Americans have no idea, or only the vaguest, of how many Vietnamese--soldiers and civilians (actually, a million of each)--died under American bombs and shells.


And for those who know the figures, the men, women, children behind the statistics remained unknown until a picture appeared of a Vietnamese girl running down a road, her skin shredding from napalm, until Americans saw photos of women and children huddled in a trench as GIs poured automatic rifle fire into their bodies.


Ten years ago, in that first war against Iraq, our leaders were proud of the fact that there were only a few hundred American casualties (one wonders if the families of those soldiers would endorse the word "only"). When a reporter asked General Colin Powell if he knew how many Iraqis died in that war, he replied: "That is really not a matter I am terribly interested in." A high Pentagon official told The Boston Globe, "To tell you the truth, we're not really focusing on this question."


Americans knew that this nation's casualties were few in the Gulf War, and a combination of government control of the press and the media's meek acceptance of that control ensured that the American people would not be confronted, as they had been in Vietnam, with Iraqi dead and dying.


There were occasional glimpses of the horrors inflicted on the people of Iraq, flashes of truth in the newspapers that quickly disappeared. In mid-February 1991, U.S. planes dropped bombs on an air raid shelter in Baghdad at four in the morning, killing 400 to 500 people--mostly women and children--who were huddled there to escape the incessant bombing. An Associated Press reporter, one of the few allowed to go to the site, said: "Most of the recovered bodies were charred and mutilated beyond recognition."


In the final stage of the Gulf War, American troops engaged in a ground assault on Iraqi positions in Kuwait. As in the air war, they encountered virtually no resistance. With victory certain and the Iraqi army in full flight, U.S. planes kept bombing the retreating soldiers who clogged the highway out of Kuwait City. A reporter called the scene "a blazing hell, a gruesome testament. To the east and west across the sand lay the bodies of those fleeing." That grisly scene appeared for a moment in the press and then vanished in the exultation of a victorious war, in which politicians of both parties and the press joined. President Bush crowed: "The specter of Vietnam has been buried forever in the desert sands of the Arabian peninsula." The two major news magazines, Time and Newsweek, printed special editions hailing the victory. Each devoted about a hundred pages to the celebration, mentioning proudly the small number of American casualties. They said not a word about the tens of thousands of Iraqis--soldiers and civilians--themselves victims first of Saddam Hussein's tyranny, and then of George Bush's war.


There was no photograph of a single dead Iraqi child, no names of particular Iraqis, no images of suffering and grief to convey to the American people what our overwhelming military machine was doing to other human beings.


The bombing of Afghanistan has been treated as if human beings are of little consequence. It was been portrayed as a "war on terrorism," not a war on men, women, children. The few press reports of "accidents" were quickly followed with denials, excuses, justifications. There has been some bandying about of numbers of Afghan civilian deaths--but always numbers.


Only rarely has the human story, with names and images, come through as more than a flash of truth, as one day when I read of a ten-year old boy, named Noor Mohammed, lying on a hospital bed on the Pakistani border, his eyes gone, his hands blown off, a victim of American bombs.


Surely, we must discuss the political issues. We note that an attack on Iraq would be a flagrant violation of international law. We note that the mere possession of dangerous weapons is not grounds for war--else we would have to make war on dozens of countries. We point out that the country that possesses by far the most "weapons of mass destruction" is our country, which has used them more often and with more deadly results than any nation on Earth. We can point to our national history of expansion and aggression. We have powerful evidence of deception and hypocrisy at the highest levels of our government.


But, as we contemplate an American attack on Iraq, should we not go beyond the agendas of the politicians and the experts? (John le Carré has one of his characters say: "I despise experts more than anyone on earth.")


Should we not ask everyone to stop the high-blown talk for a moment and imagine what war will do to human beings whose faces will not be known to us, whose names will not appear except on some future war memorial?


For this we will need the help of people in the arts, those who through time--from Euripedes to Bob Dylan--have written and sung about specific, recognizable victims of war. In 1935, Jean Giraudoux, the French playwright, with the memory of the first World War still in his head, wrote The Trojan War Will Not Take Place. Demokos, a Trojan soldier, asks the aged Hecuba to tell him "what war looks like." She responds: "Like the bottom of a baboon. When the baboon is up in a tree, with its hind end facing us, there is the face of war exactly: scarlet, scaly, glazed, framed in a clotted, filthy wig."


If enough Americans could see that, perhaps the war on Iraq would not take place.

Hey smart guy, I dont remember seeing any pictures of the thousands of shattered bodys and severed limbs of the thousands of our own people masacered at the WTC or pentagon, not one dead body or limb! There is an old saying that says it all, war is hell.

maybe if you saw some dead americans who were killed for going to work, or an an Isreali bus blown to crap with dead baby parts littering the street for once, instead of little Iraqi children holding empty bowls and palestinians sobbing in a pile of rubble every 5 seconds on CNN you might feel a little differently.

Actually, I remember many sorrowful pictures of people jumping from atop the WTC trying to escape the flames. I remember watching bodies and limbs being dragged out of the building. I remember hearing phone messages from people inside crying out. All these macabre images were on my TV and talked about on my radio for months, and still linger with me. There was no lack of coverage during the WTC attacks.

However, war is terrible no matter what country or race the suffering belong to. When I read posts like yours I am tempted to ask, "Do you like war better than peace?" Have you ever heard parents wailing through the night over the loss of their children? Have you ever heard the screams for mercy, mercy that never comes, sent up to a Higher Being coming from the mouths of those caught in cross fire? Have you heard the stories that circulate years after war is forgotten by most about soldiers sent home who can never function normally again because they can't shut their eyes at night without remembering a friend dying in their arms due to a flying bullet or a bomb? These tragedies are horrible no matter who you are or where you are from. Geography means nothing when people suffer.

I am not trying to be melodramatic, but I feel that many support war without thinking about what it is they are really supporting.

Besides that, why are you bringing up the WTC attack during a discussion about war with Iraq? Can you prove Saddam had anything to do with the Taliban or Al-Qaeda? Even Bush has failed to prove that.

you got a good memory, becasue they maybe showed those things for an hour or two the day it happened, they wont even show the planes hitting the buildings on TV, let alone the carnage. As far as the Iraq al queada thing, can you honestly think that Iraq and al queada are not in contact with one another? They hide in countrys with dictorships and anarchy, this is where they make thier bases, Afghanistan, Somalia, Iraq, not an office building in D.C., where else do you think they are? It doesnt matter anyway, this is our chance to get rid of an enemy, we got the motivation, the tools, the talent and the backing of the pansy ass UN, its time to clean up our mess. And yes, I have heard the screams in combat, in 1993 I was in a city called Kismaayo in Southern somalia, a factional battle was taking place between rivla warlords for control of the city. Part of our duty was to guard the hospital, and we saw all the wounded coming in. Blown off legs, ripped out intestines, screams crying, a crowd trying to smash down the gate for medical atention, then in the streets running gunfights, grenades, death. yes, I am quite familiar with it. I like how these peace activists think they are the authoritys on how grizzly war really is, becasue thy read a few books, and saw some propaganda photos. I read Johnny got his gun too. Dont assume people who back the war dont know how bad it can get.

Originally posted by Travh20
you got a good memory, becasue they maybe showed those things for an hour or two the day it happened, they wont even show the planes hitting the buildings on TV, let alone the carnage.

Bull! It was shown so much on TV people were being warned not to watch the scenes too often because it could cause stress and nightmares, and parents were warned against exposing children to the pictures too often.

Originally posted by Travh20
As far as the Iraq al queada thing, can you honestly think that Iraq and al queada are not in contact with one another? They hide in countrys with dictorships and anarchy, this is where they make thier bases, Afghanistan, Somalia, Iraq, not an office building in D.C., where else do you think they are?

Well, not too long ago we shut down a terrorists training camp for Al-Qaeda (we think it was for Al-Quaeda) in Detroit. Should we bomb there, too?

Again, I will ask you for proof that there are links between Saddam and Al-Qaeda... you must know something that our Gov. doesn't even know or something that hasn't been released to the rest of the American public.

Originally posted by Travh20
It doesnt matter anyway, this is our chance to get rid of an enemy, we got the motivation, the tools, the talent and the backing of the pansy ass UN, its time to clean up our mess. And yes, I have heard the screams in combat, in 1993 I was in a city called Kismaayo in Southern somalia, a factional battle was taking place between rivla warlords for control of the city. Part of our duty was to guard the hospital, and we saw all the wounded coming in. Blown off legs, ripped out intestines, screams crying, a crowd trying to smash down the gate for medical atention, then in the streets running gunfights, grenades, death. yes, I am quite familiar with it. I like how these peace activists think they are the authoritys on how grizzly war really is, becasue thy read a few books, and saw some propaganda photos. I read Johnny got his gun too. Dont assume people who back the war dont know how bad it can get.

I never assumed anything, however, it would seem that if you've seen what you say you've seen, you would have a better understanding about why war can not be rushed into.

its called doing what is right. Life is hard, doing the right thing is hard, we cant take the easy way out all the time. Th easy way is saying forget it, lets take sadaam at his word. That will come back to smack us in the face. It may be hard, but we must do the right thing, for us and our children. I didnt say I liked war. I dont like working everyday either, but I do it. As far as bombing detroit, why do liberals say the stupidst things? Of course we are not going to bomb detroit. The city council of detroit probably doesnt send money to suicide bombers, or have a mock up 747 in their public park for hijackers to train on, or have a mural saying death to america in their airport. Get a clue idiot, whos side are you on anyway?

Saddam is not a threat to the United States. The CIA reports that Iraq is enable of creating weapons of mass destruction. Iraq can’t be linked to the September 11th attacks. I said lets seek alternatives to war. We can fight terrorism peacefully.

Also if your going to say liberals say stupid things at least spell stupid correctly.

wake up man, you think these people love us and our way of life? Not a threat? well tehy sure the hell are not our friends! And why do liberals always point out typos like they are catching some major thing? its a typo, not a miss spelled word on my part, adn by the way, learn when to use the right word, you said they were enable to make a weapon, LOL, how about un able? Dumb ass.

I have spoken with people whom have visited Iraq and they said the Iraqi people were welcoming to Americans. They also said that people in Iraq fear our military and they dislike our military greatly. The Iraqi people said the reason they hate our military is because the United States has bombed Iraq for 11 years. This upsets the people of Iraq and in the Middle East. But overall the people of Iraq hold nothing against Americans.

all the more reason it wont be as bad as everyone says. They have no love for Sadaam i assure you.

Trav, I'll try to reply to many of your comments in this one post...

You said, "its called doing what is right. Life is hard, doing the right thing is hard, we cant take the easy way out all the time. Th easy way is saying forget it, lets take sadaam at his word. That will come back to smack us in the face. It may be hard, but we must do the right thing, for us and our children. I didnt say I liked war. I dont like working everyday either, but I do it. As far as bombing detroit, why do liberals say the stupidst things? Of course we are not going to bomb detroit. The city council of detroit probably doesnt send money to suicide bombers, or have a mock up 747 in their public park for hijackers to train on, or have a mural saying death to america in their airport. Get a clue idiot, whos side are you on anyway?"

Please tell me how taking the lives of innocents is doing the "right" thing? War is often a needed action, but I would have much trouble calling it the right thing, ever.

Another question, how is Saddam a direct threat to you or your children? I have family too, so I understand the worries of a parent, but that does not excuse acting upon emotional whims with violent action.

Also, my comment made about Detroit was very relevant after your response that Saddam and other Middle Eastern countries have links to terrorism simply because there are training camps in these areas. As for money and support, remember our government supported the Taliban and Saddam once upon a time when it better suited our needs.

You can't prove Saddam gave money to terrorists... Are you sure the city council of Detroit didn't support this camp? Hey, I'm just using your logic here.

You said, "wake up man, you think these people love us and our way of life?"

And am I to suppose you love their way of life? It appears you don't even respect it.

You said, "They have no love for Sadaam i assure you."

How do you know this? I guess this lack of love is why every book Saddam publishes is a best seller in Iraq. Most of these people don't remember anything other than life under Saddam, and they do love him. As an American, of course I have problems with how Saddam governs, but I don't think that is a good reason to bomb the country into hell or to push my American ideas on another culture.

Nearly the entire world community is opposed to a US invasion of Iraq. This opposition is in accordance with international law, particularly the UN charter, which prohibits such violations of Iraqi sovereignty. Only the Iraqi people have the sovereign authority to determine what type of government they live under, and how to deal with those who have violated their human rights.

good god, Sadaams book is number 1 in iraq! Shocker! Of course they love him :rolleyes: man, you are really gullible, you think people like ruthless dictators who repress every freedom they have?? Would you like that? Come on man, I know you hate our military and government but come on, dont try and tell me the Iraqis love sadaam!! I bet teh Russians loved Stalin too huh? Good lord!

Sadaam is a direct threat to me and my family, OK, wait, I know you liberals are very particular with words, so your right sadaam HIMSELF is not a threat to me and my family, but his hatred for the USA and the west and the resources he is willing to comit to our destruction are.
Why do all you peace activists think we are targeting civilians? So, if you were in charge of a military, all the enemy would have to do is place civilians around weapons and they would win becasue you wouldnt fire. That is jsut stupid. Is it our fault the beloved sadaam puts his loyal subjects as human shields around military targets? or places military targets among his loyal followers? Are we supposed to just say, "you right, we better not do anything, dont want to hurt anyone in the war" what exactly is your grand stratagy for the security of our county? Placate the enemy until you are so full of false security he walks right in and slits your throat as his people kiss your feet?

Can you prove to me that Iraqi citizens don’t love Saddam. You are let to show factual information that proves your theory to be correct.

Saddam is not a threat to the United States. You cant prove that he is. You also cant prove he bares weapons of mass destruction. Iraq cant be linked to any terrorist attacks that have taken place in the last decade. Prove to me with factual information that he is a threat.

I bet you love sadaam more than any average iraqi citizen. Why do yo u think Iraqis loves sadaam? because they show them saying it on state run iraqi press? Are you really sticking up for sadaam? WTF!!!!

I don’t love Saddam at all. I think he is a tyrant and is a plague to the Iraqi society. I never said that I support Saddam. My opinion will differ from the people that live in Iraq. They can form there own opinions on Saddam. Only the Iraqi people have the sovereign authority to determine what type of government they live under, and how to deal with those who have violated their human rights.

I think a war on Iraq is wrong. We will be killing thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians whom only deserve to live. Saddam poses no threat to the United States according to reliable sources.

Originally posted by Travh20
good god, Sadaams book is number 1 in iraq! Shocker! Of course they love him :rolleyes: man, you are really gullible, you think people like ruthless dictators who repress every freedom they have?? Would you like that?

If it was all I had ever known and I felt that all my problems and poverty was due to US sanctions, I probably would love Saddam.

You have to remember, people in other countries are taught to be proud of their nations just like we are. We are all just products of our enviroments.

Originally posted by Travh20
Come on man, I know you hate our military and government but come on, dont try and tell me the Iraqis love sadaam!!

My goodness, what a foolish assumption to jump to. I certainly do not hate our military. I don't even hate our president or his administration -- I do, however, disagree with them on this subject.

Originally posted by Travh20
Sadaam is a direct threat to me and my family, OK, wait, I know you liberals are very particular with words, so your right sadaam HIMSELF is not a threat to me and my family, but his hatred for the USA and the west and the resources he is willing to comit to our destruction are.

How do you know all this for certain. It sounds like you are trying to spout your fears and your opinions as facts when they are not.

It is as if you are Saddam's best friend the way you speak as if you are an authority on what he has, what he is like, and what he wants.

Originally posted by Travh20
Why do all you peace activists think we are targeting civilians? So, if you were in charge of a military, all the enemy would have to do is place civilians around weapons and they would win becasue you wouldnt fire. That is jsut stupid. Is it our fault the beloved sadaam puts his loyal subjects as human shields around military targets? or places military targets among his loyal followers? Are we supposed to just say, "you right, we better not do anything, dont want to hurt anyone in the war" what exactly is your grand stratagy for the security of our county? Placate the enemy until you are so full of false security he walks right in and slits your throat as his people kiss your feet?

My main suggestion right now would be to send in inspectors and see where it goes from there. Before I would hurt civilians, I would send in special units aiming only for military targets or Saddam himself.

Why is an American more important than an Iraqi in your eyes? Perhaps because you are a product of your enviroment and you were taught to be a patriot... Hmmm, just like Iraqis who are loyal to Saddam.

Originally posted by Travh20
I bet you love sadaam more than any average iraqi citizen. Why do yo u think Iraqis loves sadaam? because they show them saying it on state run iraqi press? Are you really sticking up for sadaam? WTF!!!!

I do not love Saddam at all. I said I didn't agree with his ways of governing, however, I refuse to judge another culture using my culture as the standard.

Besides, what does de-throning Saddam have to do with a full, all out war? Can we not de-throne Saddam without hurting others? Your points about Saddam still do not convince me that war is the only way.

ya. you talk a dictator who has been in power for over 30 years into stepping down, see how far you get.

Originally posted by Travh20
ya. you talk a dictator who has been in power for over 30 years into stepping down, see how far you get.

I never said that we should try to talk him into stepping down. I think it would be better to have a special task force sent in to, uhh, remove him rather than hurt innocent civilians.

OK, dont you think we would have done that already if we could, uhhhh, stage an unfortunate accident? And stop with the innocent civilian crap, if your logic is true, there are no innocent civilians, there are only loyal Sadaam supporters ready to kill Americans and fight to the last man. You cant have it both ways man.

Please show me how Saddam is a threat to the western civilization. Please back your argument with facts and not opinions.

hears a fact. I do not have insider access to top secret intelligence documents. I have faith that our leaders are doing the right thing, just as you say the Iraqis have faith in their leader. They felt it was OK for him to gas civilians and conquer their neighbor and torture their citizens, so I feel its OK to take out Saddam, if you havent noticed, its open season on dangerous dictators and terrorists, thanks to your boys the taliban and Bin laden.

hears a fact. I do not have insider access to top secret intelligence documents. I have faith that our leaders are doing the right thing, just as you say the Iraqis have faith in their leader. They felt it was OK for him to gas civilians and conquer their neighbor and torture their citizens, so I feel its OK to take out Saddam”

I said to show me facts. You are telling me you have faith in our president. That’s an opinion. I don’t care who you have faith in. If your going to support war you need facts. If Bush had any information against Saddam he would tell the general public to gain support for his war on Iraq. Saddam gassed his civilians during the 1980’s. At this time the United States was an allies of Iraq. It seems that the United States has a delayed reaction.

if you havent noticed, its open season on dangerous dictators and terrorists, thanks to your boys the taliban and Bin laden.”

Bush is desperately trying to make a connection between Iraq and the September 11 attacks in the U.S.--though none exists. As Daniel Benjamin, who served on the National Security Council (NSC) from 1994 to 1999, wrote on September 30 in the New York Times, "Iraq and al-Qaeda are not obvious allies. In fact, they are natural enemies." An investigation by the NSC "found no evidence of a noteworthy relationship" between the two, Benjamin said. In fact, al-Qaeda militantly opposes the secular Iraqi government and Hussein’s Ba’ath Party.

Whats your point man? We are attacking Iraq, no one needs to give you any facts. For all you know you have heard facts and choose to ignore them. Iraq is going down, then there will be another one after that, Iran probably. Like it or not we are doing it. Sept 11 is all the proof we need.

Originally posted by Travh20
OK, dont you think we would have done that already if we could, uhhhh, stage an unfortunate accident? And stop with the innocent civilian crap, if your logic is true, there are no innocent civilians, there are only loyal Sadaam supporters ready to kill Americans and fight to the last man. You cant have it both ways man.

I don't consider an Iraqi who supports Saddam or likes the way of life currently in Iraq any less innocent for it. Why do you assume one is ready to kill because they support something? I have a lot of views, however, I've never been guilty of holding my beliefs up higher than human life.

Look at the "guilt" in many of your posts... You've already served the US military once, and you may still be serving. Have you killed anyone? Were you willing to kill for what you believed in? Does that make you feel you are guilty of something? If our country was attacked tomorrow should we not try to save civilians in your neighborhood because you live there and are not innocent? I'm just using the same standards of guilt and innocence you are...

Originally posted by Travh20
Whats your point man? We are attacking Iraq, no one needs to give you any facts. For all you know you have heard facts and choose to ignore them. Iraq is going down, then there will be another one after that, Iran probably. Like it or not we are doing it. Sept 11 is all the proof we need.

You are correct that we are probably going to war, but that's not the question. The question is, should we go to war?

You say "Sept 11 is all the proof we need," but have yet to show how the attack on 9-11 is connected to Saddam. Attacking Iraq and linking it to 9-11 is like attacking Australia because Japan attacked Pearl Harbor.

You've been shown information to the contrary of your views. You may not agree with the information, but it did come from places like the NY Times so it deserves, at least, to be addressed. You are spouting your fears and your opinions as if they are proof of something. Until you are willing to back up what you are saying with actual fact, this thread is really going nowhere, and it makes you look wrong.

look, the rest of the world, includng your beloved UN seem to think attacking Iraq is neccesary, we must have showed France and Russia some kind of proof, caue they were dead set aginst it, now just becasue you were not included in the UN Security Council vote doesnt mean there is no proof. ANd attacking Iraq isnt just about Al Queada, It is about Iraq blowing off every resolution the world has thrown at it in their feeble attempt to stop a madman from gaining WMD. The world wouldnt do anything about it before, and now that there is a man in the white house who will everyone is up in arms about it. We have had the justification to attack iraq all along, becasue of broken treatys, but we havent, 9-11 changed all that, like I said, time to set things right. Clinton made us into a joke to the terrorists by withdrawing troops from Somalia after a little blood was shed, and letting sadaam get away with murder for the last 8 years. They saw us as weak, now we have a strong president willing to do what he says and you just cant stand it. Time for all these people to pay the piper, no more squeaking by spaghetti spinned beauracrats in the UN, a conservative america has spoken in the polls, and will soon speak the terrorists og the world, if you dont like it step aside and just keep spouting your mouth off, because nobody cares.

Originally posted by Travh20
look, the rest of the world, includng your beloved UN seem to think attacking Iraq is neccesary, we must have showed France and Russia some kind of proof, caue they were dead set aginst it, now just becasue you were not included in the UN Security Council vote doesnt mean there is no proof. ANd attacking Iraq isnt just about Al Queada, It is about Iraq blowing off every resolution the world has thrown at it in their feeble attempt to stop a madman from gaining WMD. The world wouldnt do anything about it before, and now that there is a man in the white house who will everyone is up in arms about it. We have had the justification to attack iraq all along, becasue of broken treatys, but we havent, 9-11 changed all that, like I said, time to set things right. Clinton made us into a joke to the terrorists by withdrawing troops from Somalia after a little blood was shed, and letting sadaam get away with murder for the last 8 years. They saw us as weak, now we have a strong president willing to do what he says and you just cant stand it. Time for all these people to pay the piper, no more squeaking by spaghetti spinned beauracrats in the UN, a conservative america has spoken in the polls, and will soon speak the terrorists og the world, if you dont like it step aside and just keep spouting your mouth off, because nobody cares.

You're still not backing your claims with proof. I wish I could be as blindly trusting as you are and just feel secure in the gov. making all my decisions for me, but I can't. I need to question what doesn't add up. I need to be informed. I can't just blindly follow. The president is no more or less important than I am. He is just a man.

That said, it should still be pointed out that you have addressed none of the points given you.

Any official of my state or federal government, whether elected or appointed, is there to serve me. I have to spout off my mouth. I have to sign petitions and send emails. I have to keep up with current events and read many sources to try to distinguish the truth from the slant. This is my responsibilty as a citizen and my duty. If I don't speak up, how can my leaders know what I think?

BTW, the conservative majority? Only 40% of Americans voted in the last election -- hardly a majority. 150,000 people rallied and marched for peace in Washington a couple of weeks ago (bet you didn't hear much about that on your local news because it wasn't properly covered). I would hardly call the majority of Americans "conservative."

are you blind? what proof do you need? would you believe it if you saw it? I doubt it, you would think it was concocted to give the military government complex reason to try out their toys. And I hate to break it to you, but you are not as important as the president.

Originally posted by Travh20
are you blind? what proof do you need? would you believe it if you saw it? I doubt it, you would think it was concocted to give the military government complex reason to try out their toys. And I hate to break it to you, but you are not as important as the president.

(Yawn) I have already said that I realize that war is sometimes a necessary action. I have answered all your posts and heard nothing but your OPINION pushed back at me. You apparently don't have a leg to stand on in this debate or you would be offering up real evidence as to why you feel as you do. Have you even really thought about why it is you support war on Iraq? Have you really questioned if it would have effected the happenings on 9-11? Have you really thought about this at all?

Well, according to everything this country was founded on every man is created equal. Of course, as a woman I had to struggle a little more to attain that equality, but that asside the president is just as human as I am. Why is he more important than you or me? Because he was born into wealth?

of course I have thought about it, and I have been pissed at Iraq ever since the rat hussein has slipped through every crack and made a mockery of our authority after we defeated him in the war. You dont understand th relationship between allowing tyrants to get away with what they wish and terror in our country. You dont realize that that battle in Mogadishu had a bigger impact on the shape of the world, and empowering the likes of Sadaam and Bin Laden than anyone realizes. We have said we are going to do it, we must do it, to back down would be far more dangerous than taking out a dictator. ANd if you cant see wy the leader of this country and the free world is more imprtatnt than you tahn you have an ego problem. Where is your secret service detachment?

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: I have read most all the posts in this topic and come to the conclusion that you all are missing one very important fact. Iraq is no threat to the USA. What it is a threat to is the stability of the middle east. That threat could cut the oil supplies that run the USA. As we all know "Money talks and bull$hit walks. I guarantee that if you couldn't get any gas for your SUV's or BMW's, Cad's, Ford's or Chev.'s you wouldn't care how the gov. did it, just GET OUR OIL BACK.

It is apparent that the Iraqi people are not able to depose Saddam or they would have done it already. The sanctions that the UN put on Iraq are not incentive enough to get them in gear. The fact that he has and would again use bio-weapons on his own people is not much of an incentive to stir them into action. Those people need help and all they get from their fearless leader is more misery. Those of you that are against the removal of this tyrant are only paying lip service to his torture of the whole country. I guess you won't be satisfied until he starts flinging his WMD's all over the mid-east killing millions of innocents. But, then you'll be crying because we didn't do something sooner.

We have lived in a bubble so long that we just assume that the rest of the world is as sophisticated as we are. The Iraqi people are for the most part just a few steps out of the caves. Their religions are archaic dinosaurs, their lifestyles are primitive at best, their hatred of our way of life is misguided due to their nearly total lack of freedom and the daily oppression of their leaders. But, I guarantee you that if Saddam could get to us he wouldn't shed one tear for all the innocent Americans he killed, unless it was a tear of joy. IMHO, better them than us.:rolleyes: thewalrus

So Walrus, why do you support war ? Because of the oil or because you want freedom and human rights for Iraqi people (which you seem to know very well ) ?

I think what The Walrus is saying is that he/she favors Dubya using U.S. military might to expropriate the assets of the Middle East, Africa, Central Asia, and South America. He/she doesn't seem to have any morals against such theft and genocide.

Tentmaker

Originally posted by astrapol2
So Walrus, why do you support war ? Because of the oil or because you want freedom and human rights for Iraqi people (which you seem to know very well ) ?

:D I don't necessarily support war one way or the other. Yes, the oil is important, but, not the primary concern. You have to admit that there is no room on this planet for tyrants. The Iraqi people have the same rights to freedom and human rights as any other people on the planet. It seems to me (if memory serves) that the French didn't seem to object our involvement in liberating them from the oppression of Hitler's tyranny, nor did the Asian countries that were liberated from the Japanese. So, if oil stability turns out to be the real reason for their liberation from Saddam, whats the diff. :D thewalrus

Originally posted by Tentmaker
I think what The Walrus is saying is that he/she favors Dubya using U.S. military might to expropriate the assets of the Middle East, Africa, Central Asia, and South America. He/she doesn't seem to have any morals against such theft and genocide.

Tentmaker

:rolleyes: Where did you find that in what I said? You had better see a doctor about your thinker problems, because it is seriously out of whack. What I said was that the mid-eastern countries are afraid of what an un-restrained Saddam is capable of. They fear that he will try to dominate the mid-east through intimidation or worse. Much as he did in Kuwait. FYI it's "He". Seriously though, If you read that in my post, You need some professional help. :rolleyes: :D thewalrus

Walrus,

Your self-ignorance is exceeded only by your blind biasness. What a loser.

Tentmaker

Originally posted by Tentmaker
Walrus,

Your self-ignorance is exceeded only by your blind biasness. What a loser.

Tentmaker

Right back at you pal.:D thewalrus

Originally posted by thewalrus
[B So, if oil stability turns out to be the real reason for their liberation from Saddam, whats the diff. [/B]

That's a big difference.
Believe me, I have no sympathy for Saddam and other tyrants. And, yes, sometimes I think war is necessary - it was obviously the case in WWII.
BUT to justify war, there must be a serious military threat, which has not been proven yet. And if the point of the war is just economic stability (or more precisely : economics interests of the american oil companies, which is not the same), I object to killing thousands of iraqi civilians and probably hundreds of american soldiers so that Mr Bush's friends can control 50% of world oil reserves !
If Bush really cared for mass-destruction weapons and tyrants, he would first have to deal with north Korea and Pakistan - both ruled by tyrants and owners of the atomic weapons.

Walrus,

Yeah.

Tentmaker

I have heard all the rhetoric and such about Sadam not being a threat and "we have no proof that he's manufacturing chemica/biological/nuclear weapons". I am a geographic information scientist and I have a master's degree in this. I have extensive experience interpreting arial and sattelite imagery aquired from Lansat and IKONOS sattelites in both still and streaming video.
Do any of you have any idea what spectrographic imagery is? It is the remote analysis of the compostition of materials based upon the measured wavelengths of the light reflecting off them.
I think that you all remember when back in the early 1990's that we were all "amazed" when we learned that the govt. could read a licence plate on a car from orbit through the use of this technology. Well now technology has progressed to the point that they can read the date off of a penny from the same distance. These photos and streaming shots ARE classified mind you - the highest level of classification in fact. This means that you and I cannot pull them up online and view them. The government wont let anyone without the proper clearence view these. If you want proof of this capability, the government just recently de-classified its 1meter IKONOS sattelite imagery for public use that it had taken in the 1970's. The resolution of these images is unreal. So you can just image what they've got now.
Anyway, back to my original point. I'll just give you an example. Lets say that you are a third world dictator and you are in the business of manufacturing bio-weapons. The United States and Russia have been manufacturing these weapons for many years so they are quite familiar with the processes and materials that go into such components. These would include certain component chemicals, machines and processes that consume large amounts of energy - emitting noticable durations of heat signatures.
From orbit our sattelites can peer down on these facilities, and through the use of algorythmic analysis, read the spectrographic signatures of not only the facilities and processes, but also any vapors that are being produced, which in the case of chem/biological manufacturing are quite noticable. So in a nutshell, we already know how, where, and when Saddam and others are cooking up this stuff. And both liberal and conservative congressmen/women who have access to this information have seen it. Honestly, if we had NO information regarding production of these materials do you think that our congress would let Bush get away with the military builup and actions taken that they have? If all that was being manufactured in these facilities was, in fact, infant formula then they would be pushing to impeach Bush immediately. The weapons inspections are basically a front. They're just in place to actually play a game of cat and mouse with Saddam and try to catch him red handed before he can move the stuff out. You see our officials can't just plop out a extremely classified sattelite photo with this information on it and tell the public "here it is!". Even if they did you couldn't make any sense out of it unless you had my training. This whole "war of words" about no proof of womd(weapons of mass destruction) is just a political pissing match between libs and conervs. They know what he's got.

Xingyiman,

Knew you guys were sharp, but finding the "real thing" in all the clutter of civilization with un-erring accuracy is a stunning revelation. I bow to your exoertise.

Tentmaker

Originally posted by xingyiman
You see our officials can't just plop out a extremely classified sattelite photo with this information on it and tell the public "here it is!". Even if they did you couldn't make any sense out of it unless you had my training.

Thank you for unwillingly supporting my view.

The fact is : no evidence of mass destruction weapons existing in 2002 in Iraq has been produced by the USA to the public or allied countries until now.

You say : if there are mass destruction weapons in Iraq, then the USA must necessarily have satellites images of it. You are the expert on that field, i believe you.

Now I say : if evidence existed, of course Bush would have shown it. He has not, so it must be because 1- he is dumb, or 2- there IS NO EVIDENCE AT ALL.

Of course if Bush had such proofs, he would not keep them for him, classified or not ! He would make them public. Or at least show them to allied countries, since he still has not convinced them to help in his war. Your argument on expertise and classification is not valid. You say that only experts can read such images. Are congressmen experts ? Are there no specialised journalists or militaries that could authentifiate such documents ?

So here we are back to the beginning : the real problem about Iraq in 2002 is NOT mass destruction weapons, it is NOT terrorism, it is NOT Saddam Hussein being a malevolent tyrant. It is OIL, and I suspect it could also be a personal revenge for Bush junior.
Maybe ther is a specialist in psychology reading this post who could give his opinion on this ?

Originally posted by astrapol2
That's a big difference.
Believe me, I have no sympathy for Saddam and other tyrants. And, yes, sometimes I think war is necessary - it was obviously the case in WWII.
BUT to justify war, there must be a serious military threat, which has not been proven yet. And if the point of the war is just economic stability (or more precisely : economics interests of the american oil companies, which is not the same), I object to killing thousands of iraqi civilians and probably hundreds of american soldiers so that Mr Bush's friends can control 50% of world oil reserves !
If Bush really cared for mass-destruction weapons and tyrants, he would first have to deal with north Korea and Pakistan - both ruled by tyrants and owners of the atomic weapons.

:D :D Maybe there is no serious threat to the USA proper, except the disruption of the oil supply. But, that would be a world wide disruption by the way. You seem to be worried about the Iraqi innocents that MAY be killed, have you no concern about all the innocents that Saddam could kill in the mid-east if he is ignored? He has shown no qualms about using bio-weapons on his own people and his troops were pretty ruthless to the Kuwaiti's. I agree that N Korea and Pakistan could be a problem and should be dealt with. But, by your own standards, they represent no serious threat at the present time. The oil issue aside, you seem more concerned with some innocents than others. :D thewalrus

I just think that war should always be the last resort of democracies. To put Saddam out of power, you would have to invade Bagdad, meaning urban guerilla and massive bombings. A war in Iraq will surely cause thousand of deaths, amongst people who are already suffering a lot. And many deaths in the US army too. Look at any urbna war these 20 last years : all have been the theater of atricities. If this is not absolutely necessary, then avoid it.
And Iraq is not threatening anyone of cutting its oil supplies - in fact, they are just waiting for the end of the embargo to resume trade as before !

"Of course if Bush had such proofs, he would not keep them for him, classified or not ! He would make them public. " -Astrapol.

Then they would'nt be classified anymore would they? Allow me to let you in on a little knowledge of proprietary information as managed by the U.S. government. The United States is very hesitant about letting our other governments, even our allies, know the full capabilities of our technological arsenals. That is one reason we remain the world's only superpower. Classified restrictions are in place to prevent the acquisition of the information and resources that give us our technological edge. If you let even a little through then you open up the possibilities for major security breaches and the possibility that your enemies will acquire it.
You say that we have NO proof that Sadam is manufacturing these weapons. I say that we do if only based upon the fact that he has had these weapons in the past and used them against his own people(which is by the way well documented AND in violation of the Geneva Convention). That does not mean that I support a full scale military assault against Iraq. I do believe that we should try full diplomatic means to resolve the situation. That might mean flexing a little military muscle in the process as I believe we are doing. You say that weve offered no proof that Sadam is manufacturing chem/bio/nuclear weapons. Well the liberal congressmen/women (and these people are who I was talking about in the last post) who insist, as you do, that there arent any, well they DO have access to this technology. If they are correct then why don't THEY get up and say "Well our experts have analyzed high resolution sattelite imagery and we have conclusive evidence, contrary to the claims of the Bush Administration, that shows no evidence of ANY manufacture of weapons of mass destruction". Thats probably because the sattelite photos/video shows quite the contrary(seeing how he's actively done it in the past and is most likely still up to it). All you hear though is the general whine of "no conclusive evidence". Well, if you analyze the rhetoric of that statement there is a lot of room for disscussion. Is sattelite photos imagery 100% accurate. No - no measurement methodology in the universe is. But the current technology that we have at our disposal is around 98% accurate when viewing 1 entity. Take 10 that are giving off the same readings and, well you get the idea.
What it boils down to is this. Libs in this country do NOT want a war with Iraq. The modern democratic party has become a self-serving entity whose sole purpose is to regain the political power it lost in the last election, and will continue to lose if current trends continue. We would win a war with Iraq probaly in a very short period of time. Such a victory would be very good for Bush and the republicans, and could further shore up a sound victory in 2004. If the Dems had any real evidence, as many claim, that Sadam is not manufacturing these weapons then they would be forthcoming as well. But for now all they can do is obstruct.

Originally posted by xingyiman
The United States is very hesitant about letting our other governments, even our allies, know the full capabilities of our technological arsenals. (…) Classified restrictions are in place to prevent the acquisition of the information and resources that give us our technological edge.

But satellite images of Iraq would not let anyone know anything on the US technological arsenal !

If the Dems had any real evidence, as many claim, that Sadam is not manufacturing these weapons then they would be forthcoming as well.

What kind of evidence would you accept ? A satellite picture of a factory which only manufactures Barbie Dolls ? A picture of a desert with the indication : no mass destruction weapon here ? Or a complete photo album of Iraq, including every cellar and closet, without the slightest shadow of a mass destruction weapon ?
No satellite image could ever prove that Saddam is NOT manufacturing weapons !

It is up to people who say that Iraq has such weapons to prove their views. So far they have not done so. In fact the inspectors sent to Iraq even reported that in their opinion Iraq could not have done much progress in that area than when they left in 98.

I'm of the opinion that Iraq possesses WMDs in some form or combination. However, IMHO the possible or actual existence of those weapons is by no means the cause of the Bush Administration wanting to wage war on that nation. Now that the supposed Caspian oil deposits are less than 1/10th of what was projected, and most of it in small pockets the Iraqi and Saudi oil is critical to the survival of the U.S. and Western civilization. Each can draw their own conclusions based on the facts.

Tentmaker

"In fact the inspectors sent to Iraq even reported that in their opinion Iraq could not have done much progress in that area than when they left in 98."

- Astrapol

So how MUCH progress in such endeavors is needed before an entity DOES become a threat?. Nuclear weapons? Sadam probably is in the process of establishing the infrastructure but far from completeness. Chem/bio weapons. Dude, I can can culture botulism in my toolshed. Give me a case of starkist tuna and about 4 weeks and presto! And while a government would have trouble stopping ME from doing this, the scopes of Sadam's activities are great enough that you could, through diplomatic or military means halt the progress. In any case until Sadam is a removed, in my opinion, he and his illegal activities and programs will be a potential threat to every living being on the face of the planet.

"But satellite images of Iraq would not let anyone know anything on the US technological arsenal !"

-Astrapol

So tell me, does France just not have any concept of national security? Maybe that was why Hilter had it so easy with you guys.

Explain me how showing a satellite image of Iraq would be unveiling american military secrets ? We all know what american military satellites can do. We are not asling to see the pictures of area 51 or the Bush family ranch !
Or maybe the surprise would be : "oh ! in fact the images are not so good ! Their satellites are crap !" ?

I haven't been keeping up with this thread for the last page, or so, (and am too lazy to read it all right now) and I don't know exactly what this satalite discussion is about. However, if it is regarding the government's claims that satalite images show that Iraq is rebuilding their nuclear development sites, the pictures HAVE been released.