Opinions on the War...

[WyoXJ]

I want to know what everyone thinks about Russia, France, & Germanys strong anti war stance?. The more I watch the more I think that they are all hiding hidden trade relations they have had with Iraq knowing that it will be found when the U.S. and Brits are active in the country.

 

[mikal]

I saw a clip of a russian news program a couple days ago. the main news story was the civilian casualties we are causing. if that is all the info they get it's no wonder the russian people are against the war. the questions i have are who runs the russian media and what's their reasoning for such biased reporting?

 

[Kejtar]

I can tell you one thing: Poland supports it and has sent out a contingent already to support the US troops..... also for those that haven't known it, it was Polish intelligence that has pulled out some US guys that got stuck in Iraq last time!

Germany I think that people are more for the war then against it, but the leader wanted to "firm up" his political standing which he misread and primarily he commited a political suicide. France... well... they loose money on the war: they have a lot of interests tied up in there: I think they got their finger in the "oil field" pot and war is going to damage it...

Now Russia... well.... where do you think Iraq is getting their weapons from? And funny thing is that they are so opposed this war while they have all that internal fighting that they went through and will go through: Look at Chechnya.... all the civilian casualties that happened there!! I think also that they are using this conflict to turn people's minds away from some other internal problems... and well wasn't US their official enemy for over half of a century?

Kejtar

 

[JnJ]

My thoughts;
First I support the war. Sadam and his regime are evil and must go. No one can argue about him torturing his own people to include using chemical agents on them. No one can claim he has disarmed. They have fired Scuds and Silkworm missiles already and these are both banned weapons of mass distruction. Do you think just ignoring it would be safe for America? Hell no, because what Sadam has, terriorist get.
They have had 12 years to disarm. The UN failed. The resolutions were passed by the UN but because of a couple countrys self interest, they wouldn't back up their own resolutions.
Just because we didn't take him out in 90/91, doesn't mean this mission isn't justified. The first time the mission was to remove his forces from Kuwait and that's it. Do I think we should have done it the first time? Yes, but we didn't, now we are making it right.
Why are the French, Germans, and Rusians against it? Because they each have illegal dealings with Iraq and they don't want the world to know. We have already seen some of the Russians involvement, Germany too, and France. When this is over, I believe we will find a LOT more evil dealings between these countries and Sadam.
Prosecuting war criminals, I heard someone say becuase we started the war, we can't. BS, using human shields, abusing POWs, soldiers using civilian clothing, faking surrender, hiding in/using hospitals/religous buildings are all prosecutable war crimes. Remember the winner prosecutes the war criminals. Yes we can use an international tribune, we have over 40 countrys with us. We do not have to use the UN.
Are our goverments intentions as they state? Maybe, but even if not, the end result will mean the removal of Sadam and his regime and this, is a good thing. Sometimes to preserve peace, war is necessary, I feel this is one of those time.

 

[Ed A. Stevens]

I agree with much of what many fear (including Eagle, why I respect his views), but I also have to read the history. The history does not reflect the USA as evil and unresponsive to the UN.

The USA failed at statesmanship? What would have been required to achieve the USA a victory in statesmanship? I read about this position of failed statesmanship, and ask who failed, and why?

Is it the fault of the USA Diplomats that Iraq ignored the UN for eight years? Is it the fault of the USA Diplomats that Iraq resisted unencumbered UN inspections?

I believe the UN is more at fault in a failure of statesmanship. The UN could have called for more stringent inspection and enforcement sanctions something other than status quo, and not armed conflict, the day after the Inspectors report that revealed failures in the Iraq documentation was released. The UN did nothing other than listen to the USA Diplomats flail at Iraq (and rattle sabers), and then demand more of the same flawed inspection procedures ("more time" we were told) with no teeth to the enforcement provisions of the inspection process. The UN enjoyed swinging the "big stick" of the USA hard line position on enforcement, and encouraged it with praise of the policy (publicly granting the USA threat of armed conflict as the reason for the limited inspection progress, including Iraq's agreement to proceed with resumed inspections).

Where was the proactive statesmanship by the UN, where was the compromise where Iraq agreed to be more honest and less resistive to UN demands? Where did the UN discourage the USA threat policy, by proposing effective and enforceable alternatives to armed conflict (or even assemble their own threat, independent of the USA)? The UN exploited the USA armed threat position, as the big stick, but where was the new carrot for Iraq if they truly complied fully?

Can you concede the UN position with the USA as the lead enforcer was exploited, with no reasonable independent and enforcable UN alternative if Iraq failed to comply? I believe this was the position promoted by the UN.

When unrestricted UN enforcement of the inspection process could not be won by diplomacy (entrenched members of the Council with veto power resisting any enforcement) the USA could have waited out another year, but what would have been the achievement? Would this have been perceived as a victory in statesmanship (for the USA Diplomats, or the Iraq Diplomats)?

I agree the UN made a grave mistake in 1991 (or should I believe it was Bush the father)? Should I conclude the political reasons for this conflict is not a failure of USA statesmanship, but failures of an obsolete diplomatic body: a failed UN? The UN failed a decade ago, and we are to believe without question they did not fail now (and would not, if they had allowed more delay)?

Unfortunately, I hold no more trust in UN success, now, as experienced in the past (ten years ago or three months ago).

The USA is perceived as a bully, yes.

We were perceived as a bully before the Iraq conflict of 1991, and before 9/11/01, and before the current Iraq conflict. Who would have altered this bully perception, to consider the USA a masterful nation of patience and goodwill, if we had waited out another year of UN diplomacy with Iraq?

The UN Resolution 1441 was vague and worded to leave many options open to the UN (open to anyone who chooses to enforce the resolution, the USA or other nations). Diplomacy is a game of vague agreements and veiled courtesy. When the wording of a contract is vague, does it reduce the need to enforce the agreement? The USA could have walked away and waited another year for enforcement, as they had before (since 1995), but what would it have gained (did we gain good will for walking away before)?

I read all the talk of "the cost in international relations and credibility" and fail to read where the past eight years of "restraint" gained the USA any purchase to achieve beneficial relations or diplomatic credibility?

I read history where no other country has gained so much territory in warfare (and even lost on a few occasions), and conceded the contested ground to the opponent, unchallenged and without conditions on self-government? Is the USA governing Kuwait? Is the USA governing Afghanistan? Grenada? Panama? Nicaragua? Korea? Japan, Germany, Italy, France, or Belgium (should I continue)? The USA waged warfare over these territories and claimed no lasting Imperialist influence and tribute. What nation can claim similar goodwill to the "occupied" or "opposed?"

What more should the USA do to gain advancement "in international relations and credibility?"

I ask the question because I believe the UN exploited the USA position as enforcer, and the USA's leadership complied (in good faith), and we must now seek a long-term solution to the failures of the UN.

I read once that the time to plan for war is during peacetime, and to plan for peace is during wartime. I ask, what are the UN's peace plan options?

Is there any reason the UN cannot forward a peace plan, even as the USA & UK develop their own proposals and resist UN input (just as the UN made plans for enforcement of Iraq sanctions while Iraq resisted inspections, for eight years.) Where is the UN leadership?

 

[Eagle]

An interesting counterpoint, Ed -- thank you.

Perhaps the question to be answered by "history" is: Who is the user, and who is the usee?

 

[MBXJ]

I would just like to say this is a great discussion with both sides being represented.

Personally I'm for the current military conflict and I wish my government was sending some troops. I view the majority of the anti-war protesting crowd seems either politically motivated or uneducated about the real costs of oppressive dictators. Those who have a well thought out reason for objection I can respect and will listen to what they have to say.

My biggest fear is that we are reliving the 1930s and that a major war is about to erupt due to the removal of a stable (albeit evil) regime in Iraq. The resulting power vacuum has me concerned. I simply hope that the Coalition forces and/or the UN do a proper job helping the Iraqi people get solidly back on their feet after the current military action is completed.

The more I think about this conflict the more I think about how and what I am responsible for in this world. I think that everyone who enjoys the freedoms we do has a duty to help others who are enslaved.

 

[JnJ]

Thanks Ed, again you make the point so well I just sit back and say "ya, what he said".

 

[xjndmud]

As a member of the Army National Guard, I personally find it disrepcetful to your troops that our defending our country, for people so openely to protest the war. What are the people thinking? Sure this may be a free country, but we didn't our freedom for free, or by backing down. So i salute our soliders who defend this great nation that we so happily live in, and anxiously wait for my deployment so that I may have a chance to do something for my country, "Its not what your country can do for you, Its what you can do for your country"!!!

 

[Eagle]

How do you arrive at the conclusion that it is disrespectful of the troops to protest against a war someone doesn't believe in? One of the freedoms our "troops" are supposedly defending is our right to freedom of speech.

Whatever happened to "I do not agree with your opinion but I will defend to the death your right to express it"?

 

[Hunter-LynchburgVa]

As a member of the Army National Guard, I personally find it disrepcetful to your troops that our defending our country, for people so openely to protest the war. What are the people thinking? Sure this may be a free country, but we didn't our freedom for free, or by backing down. So i salute our soliders who defend this great nation that we so happily live in, and anxiously wait for my deployment so that I may have a chance to do something for my country, "Its not what your country can do for you, Its what you can do for your country"!!!

you can be anti-war and still be pro troops. personally i am pro war and pro troops.


Hunter

 

[woody]

The fact that the public dissent with our nation's 'policy' is so openly allowed in our society (in all it's forms) points to the positive aspects of the freedoms we all hold dear. I always appreciate hearing the 'b' side of an issue even if I don't agree with it. That sets us apart from many of our neighbors IMHO

I think our troops are smart enough that they can sort the wheat from the chaff...and realize that the vast majority of folks in the USA are behind them. Whether for or opposed to this Iraq campaign, supporting our troops is the only proper thing to do. When the Iraqi folks can actualy step out in free streets and elect a leader w/o coercion or hanging chads...I think our work will be done.

Lots of places have proved unworthy of upholding the opportunity for freedom & self governance ( Vietnam, California and Massachussets?) but do we give up now? And at what cost later.

I can comprehend the standpoint of folks against this war, but I feel anyone against the troops themselves are against their neighbor's (children) Glad they identify themselves, so publicly now while the war is on foreign shores. Plenty of vets got "their" back when war comes back here again...Vets keep score.

Consider that there are folks who have been at "war" with us for a bunch of years...it took the blow of 9-11 for us to overtly strike back. The glass of restraint only holds so much water, and as a (the most?) powerful nation, the rest of the world ought to count their blessings we use our might with dignity and restraint...

If elected President, I'd nuke Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, India and No Korea in a TOT just because them damn things go stale sitting around. Send in the mighty US Cavalry afterwards.

 

[woody]

If elected President, I'd nuke Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, India and No Korea in a TOT just because them damn things go stale sitting around. Send in the mighty US Cavalry afterwards.

Probably ought to nuke the Columbians and bolivians too since they are part of the problem & not part of the solution

 

[Pat]

i dont know if any of you have read this, but my mom sent this to me and i thought some of you might find some interest in it...


Pat
member

--sorry for the length, i dont have a link--


A LESSON TO MY SON
By A PROUD AMERICAN
Irma S. Chambers
The other day, my nine year old son wanted to know why we were at war. My husband looked at our son and then looked at me. My husband and I were in the Army during the Gulf War and we would be honored to serve and defend our country again today. I knew that my husband would give him a good explanation.
My husband thought for a few minutes and then told my son to go stand in our front living room window. He told him:
"Son, stand there and tell me what you see?"
"I see trees and cars and our neighbors houses." he replied.
"OK, now I want you to pretend that our house and our yard is the United States of America and you are President Bush."
Our son giggled and said "OK."
"Now son, I want you to look out the window and pretend that every house and yard on this block is a different country." my husband said.
"OK Dad, I'm pretending."
"Now I want you to stand there and look out the window and see that man come out of his house with his wife and he has her by the hair and is hitting her. You see her bleeding and crying. He hits her in the face, he throws her on the ground, then he starts to kick her to death. Their children run out and are afraid to stop him, they are crying, they are watching this but do nothing because they are kids and afraid of their father. You see all of this son....what do you do?"
"Dad?"
"What do you don son?!"
"I call the police, Dad."
"OK. Pretend that the police are the United Nations and they take your call, listen to what you know and saw but they refuse to help.
What do you do then son?!"
"Dad, but the police are supposed to help!" My son starts to whine.
"They don't want to son, because they say that it is not their place or your place to get involved and that you should stay out of it," my husband says.
"But Dad...he killed her!!" my son exclaims.
"I know he did...but the police tell you to stay out of it. Now I want you to look out that window and pretend you see our neighbor who you're pretending is Saddam turn around and do the same thing to his children."
"Daddy...he kills them?"
"Yes son, he does. What do you do?"
"Well, if the police don't want to help, I will go and ask my next door neighbor to help me stop him." our son says. "Son, our next door neighbor sees what is happening and refuses to get involved as well. He refuses to open the door and help you stop him," my husband says.
"But Dad, I NEED help!!! I can't stop him by myself!!"
"WHAT DO YOU DO SON?"
Our son starts to cry.
"OK, no one wants to help you, the man across the street saw you ask for help and saw that no one would help you stop him. He stands taller and puffs out his chest. Guess what he does next son?"
"What Daddy?"
"He walks across the street to the old ladies house and breaks down her door and drags her out, steals all her stuff and sets her house on fire and then...he kills her. He turns around and sees you standing in he window and laughs at you. WHAT DO YOU DO?!!!"
"Daddy..."
"WHAT DO YOU DO?!!!"
Our son is crying and he looks down and he whispers, "I close the blinds, Daddy."
My husband looks at our son with tears in his eyes and asks him...
"Why?"
"Because Daddy.....the police are supposed to help...people who need it....and they won't help....You always say that neighbors are supposed to HELP neighbors, but they won't help either...they won't help me stop him...I'm afraid....I can't do it by myself...Daddy.....I can't look out my window and just watch him do all these terrible things and...and.....do nothing...so....I'm just going to close the blinds....so I can't see what he's doing........and I'm going to pretend that it is not happening."
I start to cry.
My husband looks at our nine year old son standing in the window, looking pitiful and ashamed at his answers to my husbands questions and he tells him....
"Son"
"Yes, Daddy."
"Open the blinds because that man....he's at your front door..."WHAT DO YOU DO?!!!!"
My son looks at his father, anger and defiance in his eyes. He balls up this tiny fists and looks his father square in the eyes,without hesitation he says: "I DEFEND MY FAMILY DAD!! I'M NOT GONNA LET HIM HURT MOMMY OR MY SISTER, DAD!!! I'M GONNA FIGHT HIM, DAD, I'M GONNA FIGHT HIM!!!!!"
I see a tear roll down my husband's cheek and he grabs my son to his chest and hugs him tight, and cries...
"It's too late to fight him, he's too strong and he's already at YOUR front door son.....you should have stopped him BEFORE he killed his wife. You have to do what's right, even if you have to do it alone, before......it's too late." my husband whispers.
THAT scenario I just gave you is WHY we are at war with Iraq. When good men stand by and let evil happen is the greatest EVIL of all.
Our President is doing what is right. We, as a free nation, must understand that this war is a war of humanity. WE must remove this evil man from power so that we can continue to live in a free world where we are not afraid to look out our window and see crimes on humanity. So that my nine year old son won't grow up in a world where he feels that if he just "closes" that blinds the atrocities in the world won't affect him.
Today the second day of "WAR on IRAQ" I felt compelled to write this and pass it along. Hopefully, you will understand the lesson my husband tried to teach our son.
"YOU MUST NEVER BE AFRAID TO DO WHAT IS RIGHT! EVEN IF YOU HAVE TO DO IT ALONE!"
BE PROUD TO BE AN AMERICAN! BE PROUD OF OUR PRESIDENT! BE PROUD OF OUR TROOPS!! SUPPORT THEM!!! SUPPORT AMERICA!! SO THAT IN THE FUTURE OUR CHILDREN WILL NEVER HAVE TO CLOSE THEIR BLINDS...."

 

[Ed A. Stevens]

Great story Pat, thanks for sharing.

I don't know much about how other people learn to separate support for your nation's Troops and opposition to a specific war, but I'll offer a little history.

Before WWII few American people understood the threat from Japan, except some of the folks on the West Coast. The Chinese who settled (some say enslaved) in California to work on the railroads learned from family what was happening to the Chinese in Manchuria (wholesale slaughter & genocide) and urged the USA to enter this war. This demand for war with Japan was well before the Pearl Harbor attack. This is where some of the support for the Flying Tigers and the unofficial USA assistance in the defense of Nationalist China began. Many of these "Chinese-Americans" (I added the quotes because they demanded to be called Americans, without the hyphen) opposed war with Germany and Italy, but fully supported war with Japan. These folks were very unpopular for their anti-European position before the USA entry into WWII.

Some of these Americans joined the USA military without supporting war against Germany and Italy, with an attitude of "why fight for those who will not fight for themselves (the French)", even as it was the only Theatre of Operations they were allow to fight. They joined to fight Japan, were not allowed to fight Japan, and only learned to support the war with Germany and Italy when they lost friends in the European Theatre.

Sometimes the threat needs to be close to home and family to make it real enough to support. Support for one war (or opposition to one war) may not equate support (or opposition) to all wars.

Opposition to a specific war does not equal opposition to national unity (a motive that people need to recognize when observing the protesters). Are the protestors against the Iraq war or against the USA as a nation (or against the residing President)?

I can ignore those against the Iraq war (or war on principle), but I cannot excuse those who exploit the opportunity of wartime opposition to demonstrate against the USA as a nation (or the President). I would feel different if these anti-USA (and anti-Bush) demonstrators choose to separate their protests from the anti-war protests. I believe if the protest permits demanded this separation it would make the distinction easier between an anti-war stance, and the anti-USA stance so many exhibit (including an easier ideological distinction between the anti-Iraq-war position of folks like Eagle, and the unyielding anti-Bush clans.)

The act of protest against war is not disrespectful (IMO) to military, but to exploit the ongoing anti-war protests, to falsely add the appearance of numbers to a selfish cry against the nation's government or President is dishonest (to all citizens).

Observe the protestors and identify the motivation, before engaging in battle with the imposters.

 

[5-90]

Pat -
I like the story, and it illustrates what is going on here, as well as my own argument against the Iraqi conflict NOW - it should have been done 12 years ago when we were already there. I guess Hussein's on his third neighbour by now? He should have been dealt with when he first got out of line.

The threat then - to the Middle East, if nowhere else - was just as real as a punch in the nose. If we cared enough to have gotten involved, we should have cared enough to have finished the job. The political dimension should be cast aside when it comes to war - war is what happens when negotiations fail. If Hussein could have been stopped without removal, that time is now long past. He's gotten away with too much.

5-90