Originally posted by noticingthemistake

Originally posted by Lordathestrings
[B] 'Popular Opinion' is not inherently correct. It is simply a position embraced by many people. People who may all be getting their guidance from various branches of the same source. People who instinctively prefer to belive tales that fit teir notions of how things should be. The only protection available to an individual who wishes to avoid being overwhelmed by propoganda, is the skill of clear, analytical thought.

The world is not right; it is merely very vocal about being wrong.

I agree it?s an opinion, I clearly stated this in my previous posts. Why go in circles with this?? Ok now if the world says that bombing Iraq is wrong, it?s the same as saying it?s WRONG to kill innocent people. So if your saying that the world is [u]not[/u] right, wouldn?t you be saying that it is OK for the world to believe in killing innocent people??? I hope I?m wrong. When I say world, I mean the majority population of the world. You could say the same thing about a lot of similar incidents, take the concentration camps of WWII. In your opinion where they right or wrong by killing those people?? Same thing with 9/11, we?re the actions of the terrorists right or wrong?? You don?t need guidance, a source, tales, or propaganda to make a decision. Yeah it is an opinion, and most of the world shares the same opinion. My post stats in my opinion (along with the world), it is wrong!

Yet you support a position that the evidence idicates is more likely to kill a higher number of innocent people in the long run? Do you mean to tell us that a violent death is worse than a starvation death? Or that you honestly expect Saddam Hussein to just give up his plans after all these years (bearing in mind his well noted ego and public statements that giving in is "dishonorable") and that we can simply lift the sanctions with any kind of assurance that weapons production in Iraq won't go back into full production?

Originally posted by Raskolnikov

Originally posted by noticingthemistake
I think your right Rask, but dropping a few hundred bombs over baghdad isnt going to change Saddam's mind.

Of course it isn't going to change his mind. It's going to remove him from power. After that, what's on his mind doesn't matter.

How?? By killing off the entire population of Iraq, so he would have no country left?? Yeah that's humane.

Who's talking about killing off the entire population of Iraq? I wouldn't want to be a member of Iraq's military right now, but anybody who's not near a military target is going to be relatively safe. The only place that there's likely to be excessive civilian casualties is in Bagdad itself and only because the Republican Guard is digging in there and trying to create as much of a humanitarian chrisis as possible. From NPR News today: Iraq has purchased a large number of replicas of US and British military uniforms and insignias. I wonder what they plan to use them for...

Originally posted by Raskolnikov

And who do you think is going to die when we drop bombs?? The innocents Iraqis, which have done NOTHING to us.

Many, many more innocent people are likely to die if we do nothing, but that's OK because starvation's quiet, right?

No it?s not right, but its not our fight. I know we wish to do something about it and that is all good. But killing doesn?t make killing ok. Another point, do you remember the incident in Somalia in 1992. Would you like that to happen again?? Same circumstance. We?re going into a hostile country, with a starving population but they also doesn?t want us there, to remove a leader from office. If you don?t understand, watch the movie Black Hawk Down. I think you?ll soon change your mind. Pressing forth the actions we have been threatening on taking is walking into the same crisis. Is our government brain-dead???

It's been our fight since the Gulf War and we (including all UN member states) demanded that Iraq disarm. I've seen Black Hawk Down, and I remember the actual news from the time, and I'm personally disgusted that we gave in so easily. We're not talking about an overwhelming majority of Somalis not wanting us there, we're talking about a few warlords who want to keep their share of power in what's essentially a country in anarchy. Also, Iraqi defectors/refugees are some of the strongest advocates for removing Saddam from power and by force if neccessary.

Originally posted by Raskolnikov

Outside of Iraq's Ba'ath party (a minority group within a minority group), Saddam doesn't have supporters. bin Laden's supporters point to the plight of Iraqi civillians starving under sanctions and the presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia (stationed there since Iraq invaded Kuwait to keep Saddam in line) as some of their key greivances.

I personally believe Saddam has a lot more supporters than we know about.

Why?

The way we are approaching this situation makes me believe this. Here?s why, Iraq by itself is not a true threat even with the weapons they were making.

Illegal arms purchases are sent into Iraq all the time, how difficult can it be to smuggle some out? Especially in the small quantities that can be used in a terrorist-style attack, or assembled in a sympathetic nation then shipped in a simple cargo container to agents in the US who deliver the weapon to it's target.

They have had 12 years to destroy the weapons but it wasn?t a big deal until recently, why???

There hasn't been the political will until now. Do you think Bill Clinton was about to toss his (and Hillary and Al Gore's) political careers down the toilet by going to war over Iraq?

Why is Iraq such a focus point when they?re are more formidable enemies out there? Take the Bin Laden and guys like that, they hurt us.

We just got bin Laden's third in command. Osama bin Laden will not be found by brute military force. If he's found at all, it will be an accident of some kind or somebody close to him will turn him in.

The Iraqis haven?t done crap, so why has bin laden been taken off the majority radar and been replaced by Saddam.

See the above.

Plus, our government is willing to put forth billions of dollars to support these actions when our own economy is in a slump. There is a lot of things that just don?t add up.

Unless the administration really beleives that Saddam is a threat atleast to his own region.

On the point that Bin Laden and Saddam could never be allies. That?s naive, I?m sorry but it is. Take the WWII again, the nazis and the Japanese. Both countries ideals contradict each others but yet they were still able to forge an alliance. You don?t think it can happen again?? They both could benefit very well from a coalition and they both share a hatred for the US. Why is that so hard to believe?? Is it because we now trust the words of BIN LADEN?? Open your eyes...

Wait.... "Why do we still push for war when the very reason for war is being taken care of??"
You don't trust Osama bin Laden's integrity, but you trust Saddam Husseins? The inspections process will only work if Iraq's government allows it to. Indicators show that Saddam is holding back A LOT of materials he isn't allowed to have anymore and the "progress" that's being made is purely stall-tactics. Also, you think that they might be working together, but somehow Iraq isn't a threat? Make up your mind.

Originally posted by Raskolnikov

How does removing Saddam from power make any of those problems worse?

A lot of ways such as your relationship with the UN. If we go against the UN support and attack Iraq, I?m sure that?s going tick some people off in the UN. The UN is a big part of our position and power in the world, such actions are not going to benefit our relations with the UN (countries against these actions).[/quote]
If the UN is unwilling to act it's powerless and useless. And like it or not, America is powerful to the point that the rest of the world really needs us - that is probably 90% of the world's reservations regarding the US right there.

Second, your ticking off a lot of people in the middle east. They don?t want us there, yet we stick our nose in at every chance we get. Look at Vietnam and the Korean war, it?s the same actions that started those wars and what did we accomplish??

People in the Middle East are ticked off at us anyway. Once Saddam is out of power we can leave Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Quatar entirely because our troops are only there because of Saddam's government. Next, when Iraq is on it's own two feet, we can leave Iraq too. I see that as positive steps towards getting our nose out of the Middle East.
And some corrections:
In Korean War we (and several other nations) were asked by the South Korean government to help repel the Northern communist invaders. While not a total success, you should note that South Korea still exists today.
In Vietnam, we were not only asked to intervine by the South Vietnamese government, but by France too. In Vietnam we have a war that could easily have been won, but was lost due to political reasons, not military.

Third, the majority of the people of our nation DO NOT support it. War is not a good thing for any nation for it crunches the economy. With our economy suffering as it is, it?s not a good idea to flush a couple of billion dollars to a war. We need that money more here than there.

In all likelyhood, postponing war in Iraq now means going to war in Iraq later (more costly in lives and money) - or turning our backs on slaughter (just plain wrong). Just look at what ignoring post-WWI Germany did for the world. You want to make the same mistake again?