Talk is over

[Tommi]

Except there's a far bigger threat to you, something that CNN etc. hardly even mention. There's a new king of the plague castle. Ladies and Gentlemen, we have a killer flu. A disease that is lethal, yet very contagious and airborne. According the WHO the lethal pneumonia is still a total mystery, and they haven't got a clue as for a cure.

So far the mortality rate has been 2%, and it is not very contagious. 9 people have died to it, or has there been more deaths lately?

[pakman]

This is my view and mine only.

It's a bad idea to go to war with Iraq. I expect a high casualty rate due to unorthodox warfare (i.e chemical/biological). I am NOT saying, however, that we should not do anything about Saddam. I think that many Americans and innocent Iraqies will die, unfortunately. Saddam will use whatever weapons he has becasue they are the only ones that he has, a last resort. I still hope that there is some kind of diplomatic solution possible, even when last night Powel and Bush said that there wasn't. However, I don't think that it is currently possible with the political situation. When the war does start tomorrow night, I pray that it is over quick with as few casualties as possible. Again, I am not advocating not to sit back and do nothing, I just think that now is not the right time. I am fully behind that American, English, and Spanish forces. And when we do bomb the *&#% out of them, we hit them hard and we hit them in the right places.

[Nystul]

Maybe it isn’t, but the president finished his last speech with asking for God’s continuously blessing of America, didn’t he ?

That has nothing to do with Christian vs. Muslim. He would be likely to end a state of the union-type speech the same way during peace time. It has no real significance beyond that Bush is a religious man who wishes the best for the people of his country. It seems like a pretty appropriate way to end his speech to me.


Upon which the Pope responded that the countries choosing to go to war without global support must answer to God for their actions.


Well, all people must answer to God for their actions, whether they have global support or not. So I can't say I disagree with that statement, and yet it is not a statement of indictment. Also, these actions will involve countries from about 4-5 different regions of the world against a single country whom probably nobody will ally with. If that is not global support, then there has never been a war effort that had such support.

[Xbizkitl]

What amazes me is how Bush found the connection between Al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. It wasn't personally anything I was expecting after the 9/11 incident.

It also is strange to me how he doesn't talk about the economy. Wait, let me rephrase that. He doesn't talk about the economy anymore without reference to the incoming war. While I buy Occhi's argument about how the oil in Iraq isn't a major issue of the war, I decline to believe that Bush is truly doing this out of the motives which Colin Powell dictates for him. I don't think its a desire to cause trouble, maybe something more deap-seated than that.

So...how what proves that Al-Qaeda is connected to Saddam Hussein? Bush rants about this like he has actual PROOF.

I would also appreciate Conner not using such visceral, descriptive language. Instead, please convice me of the facts. We will certainly pray for both soldiers on both sides of the war, which if God exists, would be on NEITHER side.

Yea. And we were founded by Deists, who already thought of God as essentially removed. Yeah, we've been slowly kicking him out for centuries. C'mon, get real.

[Tommi]

I don't think there are anymore sensible rationales or motives for this war. It's just going to happen, because no one can back up without losing his face. <_<

[concre+e]

Hehe, nice to see you, Jarulf.
I have been giving D2 a second chance recently as I heard a new big fat patch was going to be out soon, so I've been checking some D2 sited including this one :)

Oh - I know you're not a terrorist, ;) I was just trying to be cynical in a somewhat dodgy way. Honestly, I really do hope that the day will not come that criticizing US policy will make you a terrorist in anybody's eyes. From what I've seen in the last months and years though, I'm not so sure about that any more.

[Griselda]

It's not Powell who's dictating Bush's Iraqi policy. It's Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, and Cheney's policy that we're seeing in action now.

Powell doesn't seem to have the President's ear at all these days.

-Griselda

[Griselda]

The course of this conflict is not known, yet its outcome is certain.&nbsp; Freedom and fear, justice and cruelty, have always been at war, and we know that God is not neutral between them. -George W. Bush, Spetember 20, 2001

He's not saying "God supports the USA", but he's certainly inviting the listener to jump to that conclusion if they're so inclined.

-Griselda

edit - I had the *year* wrong in my quote!

[kandrathe]

IMHO, God would only be on the side of peace, goodness, and mercy. Only the misguided and ignorant need to justify their actions by invoking religion, which in the end only gives a bad name to religion. Wars are invariably related to fear, power and greed, and other realms where the devil dances.

[Jonathon Spectre]

Saddam is about 66 and has a slipped disk in his back.

George W. Bush is one of the fittest men in America. He can run three miles in under twenty minutes.

Draw what conclusions and parallels you will. The whole thing flies to hell if someone in the third row detonates a nailbomb, anyway.

JS
"There was a machine designed for shredding plastic. Men were dropped into it and we were again made to watch. Sometimes they went in head first and died quickly. Sometimes they went in feet first and died screaming. It was horrible. I saw 30 people die like this. Their remains would be placed in plastic bags and we were told they would be used as fish food . . . on one occasion, I saw Qusay [President Saddam Hussein's youngest son] personally supervise these murders."
-Eyewitness account. A reminder of what Chirac and his sycophantic remoras defend.

[--Pete]

Hi,

I was personally against the first Gulf War. I was an 18 year old "mind-full-of-mush" kid at the time, and that war made me vote for the wrong guy in my first election.

And since then, you haven't bothered to educate yourself a bit. Still the dupe of propaganda and lies.

How about 9/11?

How about that has nothing to do with Iraq? That Saddam is the very image of the devil to bin Laden?

I think I'm preaching to the wrong crowd here!

I know you are. If I hadn't already decided, for reasons that are probably too complex to explain to someone completely lacking an education, that I reluctantly support this war, your diatribe would have sent me screaming to the pacifists. The only thing I hate more than a senseless argument is a senseless argument in support of my position. It makes me look an idiot by association.

--Pete

[--Pete]

Hi,

"There was a machine designed for shredding plastic. . . ."

Yes. And that is terrible. But it is not justification for war. It is an internal affair. Should the nations of the world invade the USA because Amnesty International has us on a list of nations that do not observe civil rights (the death penalty question). Should the UN form a force to invade England over the Irish question?

There are reasons for going to war. They have to do with the accords agreed upon at the end of the '91 war. With the failure of one party to abide by them. With the threat to the world that failure represents.

There are reasons for disliking, even hating Saddam that are *not* valid excuses for a war.

And there are "reasons" that do not exist at all except in the mills of the propaganda machines.

What is sad is that so few go beyond the sound bites. There are many "opinions" and few of them based on fact or logic.

--Pete

[Albion Child]

First, I am quite opinionated about the war, but since I promised to behave, I'll keep my ranting for somewhere else.

However, I do agree that in a time like this, no matter what you believe, what anyones political motives are, or any crap like that, we must support those in need.

We must support the many thousands of men and women over seas putting their lives on the line to defend freedom for all.

If you are religious, then please for gods sake pray for those brave people, and also for the people in Iraq, even the bad ones.

War is hell, and noone wants war. At this point it seems inevitable that war will occur, however, and maybe, just maybe, the war will finally bring stability to the middle east.

[Jarulf]

Ahh, I think I see you problem. You are stuck in old thinking. That was complex and hard to grasp. With the new era, it is much simpler. You are either good or you are bad. "We" get to decide who are good or bad as well and it is quite simple. Anyone that does not like you or do as you say is by definition bad. There you go.

As a good guy, you are home safe. If you hit back, it is OK, after all, you are retaliating and punishing the bad. Doesn't matter at what scale. Someone innocent (your losses are always innocents, see below) died so you have all the right to use whatever force needed to hit back, doesn't matter if there is "collateral", unintended death of innocents in the thousands back. After all, you are the good guy.

As the good guy you can also hit first. That is OK since you are just protecting yourself and making sure you are safe. Basically you hit before you get hit. And since the one you hit is a bad guy, he would hit sooner or later anyway.

The bad guy is in much more trouble. To start with, he is always a terrorist. And if he is not, he supports terrorists (how else could he become a bad guy). He can't hit first even if you are a big threat to him, since that is always an act of terrorism and the killed are just innocents (since it was an act of terrorism). He is not allowed to retaliate or hit back either, since that would be acts of terrorism as well.

So, what proof do one need for someone being a bad guy and doing terrorism you might ask? Then you have not been paying attention. They are bad guys, so by definition they do acts of terrorism. And since they do acts of terrorism, they are bad guys. It is really quite simple. One can always support it with some claims. If it turns out the claims were inaccurate. Fine. After all, they were the bad guys!

[Nystul]

Interesting line. I must admit that I'm not exactly sure what outcome Bush felt was certain. One could interpret it as meaning that God would help him to track down Al Queda, or that God would never let terrorism defeat the American people, or that those involved in the bombing will have to face judgment for their actions either in life or thereafter. Or perhaps it was just a soundbyte :)

From the overall context of that 9/20 speech, I think it is safe to say that Bush does not feel that Al Queda et al are truly following God's path. Frankly, I don't think they are either. At the same time, he was very complimentary to the religion of Islam in that speech, and urged Americans not to act with prejudice against Muslims as the result of a few fanatics. So I don't think it's a Christian vs. Muslim thing. Certainly Bush feels that his decisions are just in the eyes of God... not so certain is how much he thinks that earns him.

There's an old joke about a man who goes to a boxing match with a priest. One of the boxers says a prayer before the match, and the man asks the priest whether the prayer will help. "It will help him," says the priest, "if he is a good enough boxer." I think this is one of those cases. But the righteousness of everyone involved is still very important, because no matter which side wins or loses, everyone involved will have to make their case to the tribunal some day.

[Occhidiangela]

For your sincerity and candor.

A few comments on the contents of your post.

1. The battle of champions method went down the tubes somewhere around . . . the time of . . . David and Golliath, perhaps? :) Mayhap later. I would rather see Saddam and Pres Bush boxing than Tonja Harding and whoever, in the ring, and for that matter, more than Mike Tyson, since he is no longer the Great Iron Mike that he could be again with more self discipline. Suffice to say that is not how such issues are resolved.

2. We, humankind as a whole, have not yet outgrown The State. The Nation. We may, in time, and perhaps in time the UN will evolve into what is both a SuperState and a NonState that will make States themselves less relevant. One can dream, I suppose.

3. In the meantime, however, those who lead states make decisions based on their perception of predicted future events, and what action they should take to either facilitate them, or prevent them, based on their predictions. Prediction is an inexact science, so no national leader gets it right 100% of the time. I think that most do their best, even Prime Minister Chirac, who has lately come in for some real grief on my side of the pond.

Inaction in the face of uncertainty is an option, but it is a decision to choose to do nothing and hope everything works out. I would suggest that one of the motivations behind the current declaration of imminent hostilities is that the past 12 years of UN action has boiled down to inaction, insofar as getting the desired results, so another action aimed at such results is being tried.

Many the world over prefer 'inaction.' They are afraid of risk, and of people who take risks. Such a mindset is antithetical to leadership, as it is understood in some circles anyway, and thus will rarely be chosen when other signs show a need to act. Whether force is the only course of action left is going to be a matter of opinion for a very long time.

War, the application of force by a State, is an option of any Sovreign State, and boils down to a contest of wills applied by physical means, as well as other less grisly means. (Note that no nation forfeits Soverign status to join the UN, and the condition of Sovreignty is the aim of many non-states at present. Sovreignty is very much alive and well in the world, and is indeed intended to be protected under the UN Charter.)

The 48 hour window was an interesting warning, and I wonder how much work various Arab leaders and diplomats could accomplish in that time frame to change what appears to be an inevitable blood letting, one whose extent will be unknown until it starts. I remark upon the Arab leadership because it is their local area where things are happening, and they will have to live with the long term outcomes, just as they did in 1948, 1956, 1967, 1973, 1980, 1982, 1991 . . . and so on.

No one embarks upon a war with the intention of losing it, so neither Saddam nor Pres Bush intends to fail. The question is, what is the long term aim of each, and do they both understand the other fully?

Embarking on war, even with competent forces, is to embrace the Laws of Chance: just ask Mr. Milosevic about things not working out as he expected.

Thanks again for your post, and for breaking "Lurk Mode." And I pray that you have erred in your assessment of how long this will take, but that too is a matter that is in the realm of Chance, since

No plan survives contact intact. (From Murphy's Laws of Combat)

I

[concre+e]

Ahh, I think I see you problem. You are stuck in old thinking. That was complex and hard to grasp.

Heh, probably that's because according to Donald Rumsfeld, I'm from "old Europe". Which causes "old thinking", I guess. <_<

[Jarulf]

Heh, probably that's because according to Donald Rumsfeld, I'm from "old Europe". Which causes "old thinking", I guess.&nbsp; <_<

Yah, that is typical for a revolting teenager to say such things. One they they will grow up.

Perhaps the "old Europe" (with a strange exception of England that doesn't seem old it seem) have some "use" for its long (and misserable and failed') experience of colonialism and attempts to invading other civilizations and countries and then trying to impose their own way of thinking, values, ogvenment and such, trying to rule them. I would say that EUropes past attempts at such collonialism has clearly shown that such attempts typicaly never turn out well. To bad some countries doesn't learn from history and think they can do it so much better. Yeah,, that is indeed the mentality of an upgrowing teenager :)

[kandrathe]

"Over the past two decades, almost every time U.S. military forces have been called into action to risk their lives and limbs, it's been on behalf of Muslims. ... [T]o assist the Afghan mujahadin … during the Soviet invasion in the 1980s, to liberate Kuwait following the Iraqi invasion of 1990, to help Somali Muslims suffering at the hands of a warlord in Mogadishu, to help Muslims first in Bosnia and then in Kosovo who faced a Serb onslaught, and more recently to liberate Afghanistan from its Taliban and Al Qaeda rulers."
Wolf Blitzer, 12/10/2002 CNN

[SwissMercenary]

This is my view and mine only.

It's a bad idea to go to war with Iraq.&nbsp; I expect a high casualty rate due to unorthodox warfare (i.e chemical/biological).&nbsp; I am NOT saying, however, that we should not do anything about Saddam.&nbsp; I think that many Americans and innocent Iraqies will die, unfortunately.&nbsp; Saddam will use whatever weapons he has becasue they are the only ones that he has, a last resort.&nbsp; I still hope that there is some kind of diplomatic solution possible, even when last night Powel and Bush said that there wasn't.&nbsp; However, I don't think that it is currently possible with the political situation.&nbsp; When the war does start tomorrow night, I pray that it is over quick with as few casualties as possible.&nbsp; Again, I am not advocating not to sit back and do nothing, I just think that now is not the right time.&nbsp; I am fully behind that American, English, and Spanish forces.&nbsp; And when we do bomb the *&#% out of them, we hit them hard and we hit them in the right places.

<snip>
It's a bad idea to go to war with Iraq. I expect a high casualty rate due to unorthodox warfare (i.e chemical/biological).
</snip>
I subscribe to the theory that Saddam is not stupid. He knows that he can't win the war.

Right now, he is a symbol of opposition to america - the US are seen as the opressor - in the muslim world, at least.

If he uses NBCs, he will no longer be a martyr - everyone will see that the US was right all along.

This is no longer a question of who will win. This is a question of how much damage he can cause to America's reputation.

<snip>
I am NOT saying, however, that we should not do anything about Saddam. I think that many Americans and innocent Iraqies will die, unfortunately. Saddam will use whatever weapons he has becasue they are the only ones that he has, a last resort.
</snip>
He has plenty of weapons other then NBCs. A lot of people will resist the occupation.

<snip>
I still hope that there is some kind of diplomatic solution possible, even when last night Powel and Bush said that there wasn't.
</snip>

Of course, there was a bloody solution - unfortunatly, America had to attack immediatly.

Iraq could have been disarmed by inspectors. The reason Bush wants a war NOW, is simple logistics. If he waits for a month, 2 months, the summer will set in, and all of the American forces in Iraq will cook.

<snip>
However, I don't think that it is currently possible with the political situation.
</snip>

Correct. Bush burned the bridge behind him, when he gave the ultimatum.

<snip>
When the war does start tomorrow night, I pray that it is over quick with as few casualties as possible.
</snip>

That is what all Americans want. They want a quick war, because they never experienced the horrors of war. I predict that the American public will have to have to contend with casualty rates of 20%+, extended warfare, enourmous costs, inflation. Perhaps when America figures out the costs of war, they won't be so trigger happy - then again, Vietnam didn't change that.

<snip>
Again, I am not advocating not to sit back and do nothing, I just think that now is not the right time.
</snip>
Agreed. I don't want a war. I want the inspectors back. It's a shame that we can't make the bastards that start the wars suffer in them.

<snip>
I am fully behind that American, English, and Spanish forces. And when we do bomb the *&#% out of them, we hit them hard and we hit them in the right places.
</snip>

There are 2 possibilities for the war:

A: Iraq will fall quickly. America will look like a bunch of morons, as they have talked about "Saddam's mighty army".

B: Iraq will not fall quickly. There will be urban combat. Either America goes in, and suffers HEAVY casualties, or they will bomb the crap out of cities. If they suffer heavy casualties, there will be a public outrage. If the bombings will kill ~500,000 Iraqis, there will be a small international outrage...

Isn't it interesting that America will not be trialed for all the innocent civilian deaths...