War - is it worth it?

For a moment i thought SHUGZV had some compassion and then i read it AGAIN!

I just hope that WAR is overted!

Oh ive just come from the land of the sun from a war that must be one in the name of truth with our soldiers so brave you freedom we will save with our rifles and grenades and some help from god i want to see my family my wife and child waiting for me ive got to go home ive been so alone you see.

ASK THE MOTHER AND CHILD IF WAR IS WORTH IT.......

Just a few more words......

I've been thinking and what if Saddam fails to comply and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And someday, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal.

Originally posted by Michael McDermott Just a few more words......I've been thinking and what if Saddam fails to comply and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And someday, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal.

i don't like the idea of saddam hussein possessing WMDs either, but if iraq is developing WMDs, it is only one of roughly 20 states which are currently breaking international law by developing WMD programmes.

as for iraq's development of WMDs, any evidence of a nuclear weapons programme is tenuous at best--he is hardly building the alarmist-sounding 'arsenal of devastating destruction' you refer to. any uranium iraq may have imported is unenriched, and enrichment facilities needed to produce HEU (highly-enriched uranium) are expensive and cannot be easily hidden. also, considering that israel has bombed iraqi nuclear reactors (not necessarily HEU producing ones) several times in the past, both when the US was allied with iraq and during the past 13 years, it is unlikely that israel would allow any development of a weapons programme to continue. also, considering israel's covert activity within iraq, they are better qualified to find hidden weapons factories than the IAEA or the UN. if israel hasn't acted militarily within the past few years, i doubt saddam's 'arsenal' is of any threat now or in the future, particularly with iraq's dearth of functional launchers. finally, saddam hussein knows that if he were to use WMDs now without provocation he would face a full military onslaught. he may not be nice, but he's not stupid. the US protected him when he used WMDs in the 1980s against his own people and the reagan administration blocked a senate resolution calling for sanctions against iraq, allowing saddam hussein to, literally, get away with murder without facing international consequences (and no, the US was not responsible for the gassing of the kurds, but we were certainly compliant). now, however, he knows that he stands alone and he covets his own power far too much to commit political suicide.

as for biological and chemical weapons, the united states should think twice before providing a dictator with a seed stock of anthrax spores, or any other WMDs for that matter, as our government did during the 1980s in iraq. american national interest is far too myopic and how our foreign policy is decided needs a drastic overhaul. we are no longer living in the world of douglas mccarthy and the marshall plan, and american tanks rolling into baghdad will not be met with iraqis waving american flags--many anti-ba'athist iraqis are equally as skeptical of the united states' interests in their country as they are of saddam hussein. the US is learning the hard way that sometimes national interest and international interest are not mutually exclusive.

My main objection with action in Iraq is this: At no time during the investigation of 9/11 was there any evidence supporting an al-Qaeda/Iraqi connection for the attack. Hussein and Bin Laden hate each other, so it would be very unlikely they'd mix with one another. It seems as if we're playing "sloopy seconds", going after one admittedly bad guy who we have a grudge against after the main bad guy can't be found (Bin Laden is probably dead by this point anyway, or else in very good hiding). It's wrong to do that, imho

I hope, that as Blair's stand seems to be wavering a bit, that we Canadians won't be stuck in the difficult place of deciding whether or not to go to war with the US and Britain. If Britain pulls out, it will be easier to stay out of a pointless war!

Originally posted by Taboo # 7 My main objection with action in Iraq is this: At no time during the investigation of 9/11 was there any evidence supporting an al-Qaeda/Iraqi connection for the attack. Hussein and Bin Laden hate each other, so it would be very unlikely they'd mix with one another. It seems as if we're playing "sloopy seconds", going after one admittedly bad guy who we have a grudge against after the main bad guy can't be found (Bin Laden is probably dead by this point anyway, or else in very good hiding). It's wrong to do that, imho

you're absolutely right about bin laden and saddam hussein. in fact, al-qaeda would be one of the parties to benefit most from the iraqi dictator's removal. islamists and arab nationalists have been enemies for decades, and al-qaeda supports smaller organizations which seek to overthrow secular arab nationalist governments--including that of saddam hussein. egypt has had a hell of a time maintaining order and keeping al-qaeda supported terrorism under check. any american-led invasion of iraq will also give al-qaeda even more legitimacy not only in the middle east, but further afield. al-qaeda's hatred of the U.S. stems from the location of american troops on arab and particularly saudi soil, which is holy land to muslims (imagine how catholics would feel if muslims or hindus fortified the vatican). removing saddam hussein and installing an american military regime will provide al-qaeda with the perfect excuse to say 'i told you so'. the bush administration claims that any U.S.-led military regime would be short-lived, but this would not be the case. iraq is what is known as a 'false state'. it was carved after the colonial period, and consists of a mix of kurds, marsh arabs and various tribes, many of whom do not get along. not to mention the tension between the ruling minority sunni muslims and majority shi'ite muslims. finding a democratic consensus in iraq would take years, if at all, and possibly only after a civil war--after which time it is entirely possible that islamist (anti-western) or islamic-based (religious/anti-secular state) parties could gain a popular mandate, as they did (peacefully) in turkey several years ago. this is what the U.S. is walking into.

as for bin laden's health, i'm sure he is still alive, possibly in pakistan. i don't think he can hide forever, though.

As I said in another post:

"Terrorists and terrorist states do not reveal these threats with fair notice in formal declarations. And responding to such enemies only after they have struck first is not self defense."

yes Iraq cant attack America in an all out war, but any country training terrorists is a threat to our freedom.

I support Bush. The only way to stop terrorists is to keep on attacking until they are gone. And if that means we have to attack 10 more country's to get then all, then thats what we need to do. Because waiting for another 911 to do something, is just dumb. Bush didn't start this, 911 started this. Bush and Blair and the few others are the only ones to do something about it. Afghan is not the end of the war against terrorists. They are still out there. Take a look at Bali, or the Philippines.

And for all you people who think War is bad. We would not have freedom without war.

I'm very disapointed in Jean Chretien our Prime Minister of Canada. He's old and out of touch and a wimp. I just hope the people in Eastern Canada get it right next election.

And Finally I know that a majority of people don't want to see war, nobody wants to see war, but I think, the majority of the world wants to take whatever steps are necessary to secure world peace.

Originally posted by Jim "The Him" As I said in another post:"Terrorists and terrorist states do not reveal these threats with fair notice in formal declarations. And responding to such enemies only after they have struck first is not self defense."yes Iraq cant attack America in an all out war, but any country training terrorists is a threat to our freedom. I support Bush. The only way to stop terrorists is to keep on attacking until they are gone. And if that means we have to attack 10 more country's to get then all, then thats what we need to do. Because waiting for another 911 to do something, is just dumb. Bush didn't start this, 911 started this. Bush and Blair and the few others are the only ones to do something about it. Afghan is not the end of the war against terrorists. They are still out there. Take a look at Bali, or the Philippines.And for all you people who think War is bad. We would not have freedom without war.I'm very disapointed in Jean Chretien our Prime Minister of Canada. He's old and out of touch and a wimp. I just hope the people in Eastern Canada get it right next election.And Finally I know that a majority of people don't want to see war, nobody wants to see war, but I think, the majority of the world wants to take whatever steps are necessary to secure world peace.

But the problem with your first paragraph above is that there is no evidence Iraq is training terrorists, so your point rather falls apart.

The point about attacking country after country just seems absurd to me. Are you sure you have the manpower to garrison such an ever-increasing empire? Or is it just going to unravel behind you as you go?

And who says "war is bad" in that absolutist fashion? Sounds like a straw man to me. Disagreeing with Culture Club and the Quakers, doesn't, therefore, mean that ALL wars are good in ALL circumstances, for heaven's sake. Sometimes war is necessary, sometimes it isn't - attacking silly absolultist pacifist arguments that almost nobody holds is a waste of time.

(Incidentally, I keep seeing the cut-and-paste conservative comment that 'war solved nothing, except fascism, nazism and communism' around the web and in the paper. I think someone should point out to the cut-and-paste brigade that war didn't actually 'solve' communism, which collapsed of its own economic contradictions. The attempt to defeat it with war, Vietnam, was a fiasco. And while war certainly defeated Nazism, lets not forget that it also helped create it in the first place.)

Actually, as far as the war is concerned, shamefully I'm still unable to definitively make up my mind. Though everytime Blair or Bush or another pro-war politician appears on the TV, insulting my intelligence with endless cynical and dishonest arguments (e.g. trying to retrospectively rewrite resolution 1441, as though we are all too dumb to read it for ourselves, or shedding crocodile tears over the victims of Saddam, most of whom died while we were happily doing business with the old butcher, or desperately trying to manufacture links to Bin Laden which we can all see are not there) I have to switch channel, lest they push me into a knee-jerk anti-war position.

The only basis for supporting this war is if one believes it will lead to a net reduction in the suffering of the Iraqi people. The rest is all self-serving propaganda. And frankly, that particular peice of necro-accounting is too tough for me, hence I still can't make up my mind.

Fortunately Blair isn't listening to me anyway, so it doesn't matter what I think.

Well here come the bombs...

just a quick point as im sure this thread has more steam left in it in the light of recent events, everyone please try and refrain from cutting and pasting - we'd much rather hear what YOU have to say :)

Jim wrote: "yes Iraq cant attack America in an all out war, but any country training terrorists is a threat to our freedom."

In that case, past US foreign policy of exactly the sort that Bush is pushing now is one of the biggest threats to our freedom. It wasn't so long ago that we thought Osama and Saddam were great guys, well deserving of large amounts of our money and military training and equipment (plus billions in oil business, with Saddam). We created this situation. Look around and ask yourself, how did we get here ? By interfering in other countries' affairs, taking out governments we didn't like and putting nutjobs in charge(or at least giving them a fighting chance (in Afghanistan in the 80s), because they said they were pro-America at the time and we apparently honestly thought they would be an improvement. Can you seriously suggest that we could get out of this situation by doing more of the same ?

Originally posted by Jim "The Him" As I said in another post:yes Iraq cant attack America in an all out war, but any country training terrorists is a threat to our freedom.

don't forget that the united states helped train the contras in nicaragua in the 1980s. i imagine thousands of nicaraguans would have no problem considering them (the contras) terrorists. who was threatening who's freedom in that case? note: the largest terrorist training camps in the world are located in...argentina. this does not mean the argentinian government necessarily supports these groups (including an eclectic collection of islamist, colombian FARC, IRA and american militia groups who share training tips), it means that they have found a remote place that is well hidden. it is also very well known (and well documented) that syria, iran and libya (and perhaps even our ally, saudia arabia, on occasion) all give more government dollars to terrorist organizations (they don't train them, however)--so why is iraq the primary target?

terrorists are rarely trained by states. sometimes they are supported, either covertly or overtly, by states (including the united states in the past, mind you!), but the reason terrorist warfare is so effective is because of the guerrilla nature of terrorism--they are small cells, independent of the state system, and when facing terrorism it is hard to determine who is or isn't the enemy. to assume that attacking states will somehow help us win the 'war on terrorism' is naive at best and dangerous at worst, as it will simply lead to greater instability in already fragile states.

and a final point: two IRA members are on trial in colombia for allegedly training FARC rebels. FARC rebels are currently attempting to wrestle the colombian cocaine trade from the drug lords, their members have killed hundreds of innocent civilians in the colombian civil war, hijacked an aircraft, blown up buildings, and they often kidnap foreigners for ransom, including two american citizens who they are holding at the moment. so, the IRA is possibly aiding in the training of FARC guerrillas (they also work together in argentina, as i mentioned above), and where does the vast majority of IRA money come from? citizens of the united states. interesting how that's rarely mentioned when we talk about the war on terrorism.

Originally posted by DoN Well here come the bombs... just a quick point as im sure this thread has more steam left in it in the light of recent events, everyone please try and refrain from cutting and pasting - we'd much rather hear what YOU have to say :)

Its gonna take me until the end of the war to read it all!

You know, it just doesn't make any goddam sense. I'm sorry, but it doesn't. We're using rhetoric from 12 years ago to justify a war over.....over what, exactly?

It's madness, absolute fucking madness, and I hope Bush and his cronies are well aware that the American people will not stand for it if this war is in ANY wy unjust.

Saddam's an asshole, to be sure, the Iraqi people deserve better. But don't use 9/11 as a justification. that's just blasphemy. I got real angry last night when I was flipping the channels and came across some hick on CMT singing a song called "Have You Forgotten?". I choose not to quote his awful and inarticualte lyrics, but let's just say if you were offended by Toby keith's little "anthem" last year you would best be served by avoiding this piece of contempablie jingoism.

Anyway, I'v probably earned another yellow card

almanso,

the 'triple frontier' you referred to is exactly where these groups are located. this information is now being reported more widely in the media. there was an article in 'vanity fair' several months ago on this terrorist 'hotspot' and articles can also be found in the international herald tribune and from the BBC, amongst other sources. as you may know, this area is difficult to reach and easy to hide in, hence it's desirability as a location for terrorist training camps. the middle east still contains such camps, some in sudan as you mentioned, but it is easier to locate them because of the terrain, and since the downfall of the taliban, al-qaeda has lost its main base of operations in afghanistan. also, since the end of the lebanese civil war, training camps in lebanon are losing ground. what makes south america so interesting is the wide variety of terrorist groups operating there--leftist/marxist, right-wing and religious organizations are all represented. however, most attention is now being paid to the islamist organizations. according to the IHT, so many islamic extremists are located there that one Argentine official noted that after september 11 the spies sent to infiltrate their operations are 'bumping into each other.'

as for FARC and the IRA working together in the triple border region, all of the groups with camps in this region share weapons, training and intelligence if necessary. it's a long tradition for terrorist organizations to aid one another, particularly if they share a similar ideology, and if not, it is more of a case of survival and maintaining trust amongst potential enemies.

being from argentina, however, you may have a brighter future. since paraguay has no anti-terrorism laws, i imagine most camps now located in argentina will relocate next door for their own benefit. not so good for the politicians in ascuncion.

i studied international terrorism and middle eastern studies for my masters' degree and doctoral research, this is why i'm so interested in the topic. it's my 'thing', i guess!

anyway, back to south america. as you said, there are large arab/islamic populations (mostly of lebanese descent) in the triple border cities in paraguay and brazil (some of whom, unfortunately, support islamist terrorist organizations) while the argentinian side has a smaller arab population. their economic clout is immeasurable in the region because of their numbers (in brazil and paraguay) and, in argentina, because of the constant cross-border trade (as you mentioned). as you may remember, the bulk of islamic terrorism within the region has affected argentina, however. for example, in 1992, the israeli embassy in buenos aires was bombed by hizballah, killing 29 people, and in 1994 86 people were killed in that same city when a jewish community centre was bombed.

shug, i'll start believing the IRA when gerry adams gives up the name of the omagh bomber (he knows the person who did it, but won't say). my friend, peter, from the falls road, also told me that it's a given that martin mcguinness is still involved in dodgy dealings. there are just too many factions of the IRA (real, provisional, etc.) to know if everyone's put their weapons down these days. i'm sure the leaders know more than they're saying.

Indeed. The groundswell of opposition to Blair on this war has been astronomical, and his political career is likely to be over once the dust has settled (or before then). The British people do not want this war - they have made their feelings quite clear. Were we allowed a vote on the issue, the results would have been to not participate. We will have the chance to vote afterwards, and whatever support Blair had left immediately before the war will now have gone up in smoke like so many Iraqi civilians.

Originally posted by Benny's Cobweb Eyes Indeed. The groundswell of opposition to Blair on this war has been astronomical, and his political career is likely to be over once the dust has settled (or before then). The British people do not want this war - they have made their feelings quite clear. Were we allowed a vote on the issue, the results would have been to not participate. We will have the chance to vote afterwards, and whatever support Blair had left immediately before the war will now have gone up in smoke like so many Iraqi civilians.

Its true, but theres a growing shift in emphasis from what is a largely educated and sensible population in our country that, ok we didnt want this war to start but it has, its going on so lets get it over as quickly and as bloodlessley (is there such a word!?!) as possible.

Its a double edged sword but my view remains this conflict will leave shockwaves for many many years to come which will im sad to say affect our children and our grandchildren to come.

The human race has fought for power, territory and supremacy since we first set foot on this earth, its naive to think that our psyche has changed and world peace will win the day

Feel free to flame me at will to further reinforce my point... ;)

Originally posted by DoN > Originally posted by Benny's Cobweb Eyes Indeed. The groundswell of opposition to Blair on this war has been astronomical, and his political career is likely to be over once the dust has settled (or before then). The British people do not want this war - they have made their feelings quite clear. Were we allowed a vote on the issue, the results would have been to not participate. We will have the chance to vote afterwards, and whatever support Blair had left immediately before the war will now have gone up in smoke like so many Iraqi civilians.

Its true, but theres a growing shift in emphasis from what is a largely educated and sensible population in our country that, ok we didnt want this war to start but it has, its going on so lets get it over as quickly and as bloodlessley (is there such a word!?!) as possible.

Its a double edged sword but my view remains this conflict will leave shockwaves for many many years to come which will im sad to say affect our children and our grandchildren to come.

The human race has fought for power, territory and supremacy since we first set foot on this earth, its naive to think that our psyche has changed and world peace will win the day

Feel free to flame me at will to further reinforce my point... ;)

You are completely right Don - unfortunately for all of us in times to come.

Originally posted by AgentWood there are just too many factions of the IRA (real, provisional, etc.)

Don't forget the "I can't believe its not the IRA"