You have some xplainin to do....

I'm posting two articles here and I want the people who were anti-war to respond to them. I just don't see after reading about what's gone on anyone could support keeping Saddam in power.

A group of American anti-war demonstrators who came to Iraq with Japanese human shield volunteers made it across the border today with 14 hours of uncensored video, all shot without Iraqi government minders present. Kenneth Joseph, a young American pastor with the Assyrian Church of the East, told UPI the trip "had shocked me back to reality." Some of the Iraqis he interviewed on camera "told me they would commit suicide if American bombing didn't start. They were willing to see their homes demolished to gain their freedom from Saddam's bloody tyranny. They convinced me that Saddam was a monster the likes of which the world had not seen since Stalin and Hitler. He and his sons are sick sadists. Their tales of slow torture and killing made me ill, such as people put in a huge shredder for plastic products, feet first so they could hear their screams as bodies got chewed up from foot to head."

From this article: http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=...

You just arrived," he said. "You're late. What took you so long? God help you become victorious. I want to say hello to Bush, to shake his hand. We came out of the grave."

From this article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/internatio...

Ulairi: anti war != pro saddam. Also I have several german articles here by journalists interviewing the Iraqis. They state they don''t want the US invasion. They hate Saddam, but they hate us (yes the germans too) even more. It all depends who you ask out for an interview.
And sorry, but whoever got down there as a human shield, it was clear from the start that Saddam would try abusing these people for his own needs. So how he is surprised in the first place is beyond me. Talk about naive people.
Saddam is a monster, nobody doubts that. But you have finally to accept that being against this war does not imply one wants Saddam to stay in power. People are against this war because there is no UN backing, because you spit on the international law and because you are stepping on everyones toes to get your regime change. Nobody is defending Saddam and no one is playing down the cruelties he has done to his people. But the way your administration is currently handling the situation is just mowing down the whole 50 years of trying to establish the UN as a superior authority.
Once and for all get into your head that being against this war as is it currently taken out and defending for Saddam are two completely different things. They have nothing in common at all.
Sorry to be so harsh here, but no matter what one is saying you are always falling back into the same old pattern. And it is upsetting me really to be called a sympathiser for the Hussein regime :evil:.

Sorry to be so harsh here, but no matter what one is saying you are always falling back into the same old pattern. And it is upsetting me really to be called a sympathiser for the Hussein regime

I''m not calling anyone a sympathiser for Saddam. But, at the end of my road Saddam is out of power and at the end of your road Saddam is in power. Are you pro-Saddam? Hell no. But in-directly you''re keeing Saddam in power. You believe for what ever reasons Saddam should be not removed by force. I do.

If we could figure out away to get rid of Saddam without force I''d be for it.

Chew on this then.

Im anti-war, but pro removing Saddam from power by force.

edit: Dont over simplify. There are more than 2 issues.

Here is a sample 5:

Do you support war?

Does use of force have a place in the world to contain or remove tyrants?

What is the importance of international backing with the use of force to quell instability?

Should the US make a concerted effort for international support when using force to protect its national interests or security?

Should the UN be allowed to stall or undermine use of force to remove world security threats?

Do you support war?

Depends on the war, however I suspect you mean this war and the answer is Yes.

Does use of force have a place in the world to contain or remove tyrants?

Yes, though I have little regard for containment, because it really doesn''t work. You can never truly contain any country. Some point to our containment of the Soviets, but the soviets were able to influence the rest of the world, so it wasn''t truly effective. What we really did was keep them in check. Besides all containment does in contain who the tyrant is able to butcher, while he may not butcher you/me the fact that he is buthering his own people is bad enough. The worst atrocities occur when people who can act do nothing, and containment is doing nothing. Force however I do approve of to remove a bloody tyrant.

What is the importance of international backing with the use of force to quell instability?

What do you mean, just through the use of force you''re making things unstable. Also, look at China''s/Iraq''s/Irans/etc history of using force to ""quell instability"" basically revolutions against a bloody nasty little regime?

Should the US make a concerted effort for international support when using force to protect its national interests or security?

No, some nations in the international community will step in and attempt to prevent us, for multiple reasons, to make themselves look powerful/big, or to serve their own self-interests. Look at France. Since 1947, De Gaul''s time, They have continunely set them self up to be a ""counter"", their words not mine, to the US. a ""Counter"" is not a friend/ally but is leaning towards an enemy. The international community doesn''t have such a good track record on having the resolve when it comes to putting the end to bloody little dictators. So no we should''t make a massive effort to make sure every country backs us, if some do thats good, if some don''t thats too bad, but at the end of the day we should do whats right.

Should the UN be allowed to stall or undermine use of force to remove world security threats?

No, but that seems to be what it does. Besides it''s medical work, all it ever really does in get in the way of the ability to remove security threats. The only instance I can recall where it didn''t was the Korean war, and this only because Russia stormed out in protest prior to the vote, you''ll note this mistake has never happened since.

Chrisg:
Anti-War==Pro-Saddam.

If you hamper the war efforts of one side, then you automatically help the war-efforts of the other. Sorry thats just how it is.

If I want Force A to stop, and Force B wants Force A to stop. Then I''m siding with Force B, by the very nature of my desires. This is the problem with modern pacifism and I''ve yet to see a solution to it, and most likely won''t for a very long time.

You may not like to be associated with being Pro-Saddam, but if you hamper the ""Coalition of the Willing"" your helping him. Now does this mean that I have an issue of you voicing your dissenting opinion, no. But as it currently stands any anti-war efforts help one side or the other. Does this make me overwhelmingly happy, not particularlly but unfortunately thats reality.

Now on to this war''s anti-war movement... I am highly skeptical of this anti-war moevment. You didn''t see them in 1998 protesting our ""unilateral"" use of force against Milosovic, and don''t bring up NATO, our forces acted in parrallel to NATO, not under them-which massively irked the French/Germans. You didn''t see them protesting Saddam''s obfuscation. All you saw we''re a call to end any action against Saddam, and Bush/America are evil nazi imperealists. I suspect that most of the anti-war crowd, as well as the pro-war crowd, are either idealogically polarized against our country/government or ignorant/misinforrmed. For the hardcore anti-war crowd I massively suspect they''re protesting this on pure ""I hate that evil cowbow bush"". If they had really wanted an non-war they would have been calling Saddam to do what De Clerk did in 1993 in S. Africa. But you didn''t, at ALL. Instead you all you saw/heard was how evil Bush/America was and that we needed to stop in order to save the Iraqi''s, and the idea that the iraqi''s would be better off under Saddam is outright insane.

"" I just don''t see after reading about what''s gone on anyone could support keeping Saddam in power. ""

As chris said, saying you''re anti-war doesn''t mean you''re Pro Dictator. What kind of stupid logic jump is that?

""But, at the end of my road Saddam is out of power and at the end of your road Saddam is in power.""

No. Not mine anyway. At the end of my road everyone would have a democratic government (BTW, the US is a republic, not a democracy, is this correct?), without dictators and needless death, with sovereign countries.

It''s just that my road is based on diplomacy, and yours is based on force.

It''s not the world''s fault that the Diplomats in the US and the UN are incompetent.

-
Regarding the ""This anti-war movement is shady"", I tend to agree. I was only 13 years old in ''93, so of course I couldn''t have cared less about whether Clinton bombed Iraq or not. Why didn''t it get more protests back then? Perhaps it was the lack of publicity?

Maybe it was the WTC attacks that brought the US to the center of attention, and since information spreads immediately these days, everyone was expectant as to what the world''s strongest country would do.

As chris said, saying you''re anti-war doesn''t mean you''re Pro Dictator. What kind of stupid logic jump is that?

being anti-war doesn''t neccesarily mean your pro-dictator. In the current case it does, not directly mind you. If you hamper the use our use of force, then you ARE helping the other side, in this case Saddam. If you hurt one side, then you''re helping the other.

It''s just that my road is based on diplomacy, and yours is based on force

Diplomacy is worthless without the ability to apply force to back it up. Besides further talking/diplomacy in this case would have done no good, if Saddam didn''t want to disarm there are always ways not to. Force in this case removes that problem. And as long as Iraq remained a client state of France/Russia/China and those nations we''re willing to continue the arangment the UN would have been totaly worthless. For all one side had to do was veto anything in order to continue the various agreements, as France threatened to do.

BTW, the US is a republic, not a democracy, is this correct

Oh and you''re part-right. the Us is a reprsentative democracy, which is basically a cross between a republic & a true democracy. A true democracy wouldn''t really work, but in modern usage our version of the representative democracy has come to mean ""democracy"" All other democracies are in some shape or form based on ours, amazingly enough becuase ours is the oldest/most stable.

Regarding the ""This anti-war movement is shady"", I tend to agree. I was only 13 years old in ''93, so of course I couldn''t have cared less about whether Clinton bombed Iraq or not. Why didn''t it get more protests back then? Perhaps it was the lack of publicity?

Well I think it has to do with the way Bush has went about this. He''s not very good at speeches, and he didn''t really explain it to the people very well, he just went and did it. Sort of the problem the international community has with him. Also, 9/11 has gotten Americans more interested in the government lately.

n the current case it does, not directly mind you. If you hamper the use our use of force, then you ARE helping the other side, in this case Saddam. If you hurt one side, then you''re helping the other.

You still haven''t explained sufficiently to me how this works, I mean we all want Saddam gone. Some of us just wanted it handled in a different manner, it doesn''t mean we want him to stay in power any longer than you do.

Diplomacy is worthless without the ability to apply force to back it up. Besides further talking/diplomacy in this case would have done no good, if Saddam didn''t want to disarm there are always ways not to. Force in this case removes that problem.

I don''t know for sure, but if I were Mex I would have meant diplomacy with other nations, not Saddam. Personally, I think more could have been done to appease other nations, planning about post-war regimes, for instance. Also, as you say, other nations had interests in keeping Saddam in power, fine. However, with the proper diplomatic efforts, they couldn''t officially object without looking like terrorist sympathizers to thier own people, which would be the entire point. Then force could be applied without much offical protest. As it stands now, it looks like the US is the aggressor, which is a first for this country, except for the Civil War, which doesn''t count. My whole problem with this war is just that, it flies in the face of American tradition. Its preemptive, meaning we invade someone without them attacking first. Bush didn''t have to get Congress'' permission, because they waived it after 9/11. Those two right there are travesties in themselves, theres a reason our military is called the ""Department of Defense"".

Yeah, I know, Saddam was about to send crazy nukes and anthrax from Osama Bin Laden''s ghost in the sky, but there was no proof. And without proof, you can manufacture anything to make it look like you were defending yourself. Try killing an unarmed kid sometime and defend yourself with ""It was self-defense, he looked like he had a gun! There was something in his pocket, look at him, it was a gun!"" Even if the kid is the nastiest ever born, with a criminal record a mile wide, it won''t fly. Unless you absolutely knew, i.e. had proof, beforehand it doesn''t count, and rightfully so. That''s my only real bitch with this whole war, I want Saddam dead, I think it''s important we clean up our mess, but I want it done right.

Diplomacy is worthless without the ability to apply force to back it up.

That sounds more like a bully threatening than diplomacy!

[quoteAs it stands now, it looks like the US is the aggressor, which is a first for this country, except for the Civil War, which doesn''t count. My whole problem with this war is just that, it flies in the face of American tradition. Its preemptive, meaning we invade someone without them attacking first. Bush didn''t have to get Congress'' permission, because they waived it after 9/11. Those two right there are travesties in themselves, theres a reason our military is called the ""Department of Defense"". [/quote]

Serbia, The Spanish-American war, Manifest Destiny, Kosovo, etc. It''s not the first time.

Yeah, I know, Saddam was about to send crazy nukes and anthrax from Osama Bin Laden''s ghost in the sky, but there was no proof. And without proof, you can manufacture anything to make it look like you were defending yourself. Try killing an unarmed kid sometime and defend yourself with ""It was self-defense, he looked like he had a gun! There was something in his pocket, look at him, it was a gun!"" Even if the kid is the nastiest ever born, with a criminal record a mile wide, it won''t fly. Unless you absolutely knew, i.e. had proof, beforehand it doesn''t count, and rightfully so. That''s my only real bitch with this whole war, I want Saddam dead, I think it''s important we clean up our mess, but I want it done right.

If on 9/9/01, Bush said to the American public that we''re attacking a small country called Afganistan because we believe that the terrorist group called Al Queada might do a terrorist act on our soil or in an other nation would you have supported us bombing Afganistan? I doubt it. The only time we know someone is going to do something is after they''ve done it.

"Drunkagain" wrote:
Diplomacy is worthless without the ability to apply force to back it up.

That sounds more like a bully threatening than diplomacy! :?

No. It''s logic. What''s the purpose of us telling North Korea to give up their nuclear program if they know we won''t do anything but talk? We need to have the threat of force to make these governments change. Are we being a bully? Well...yes but these governments are run by logical, thining people. The problem I see is that some people think that Saddam and other dictators think just like they do. They are different.

It''s called MAD. Mutal assured Distruction. It was used with the USSR, it will be used with China and North Korea.

In fact, what a lot of people don''t want to acknowledge is that MAD prevented World War 3; if both sides knew that using nukes would only destroy both countries, why bother using them?

No. It''s logic. What''s the purpose of us telling North Korea to give up their nuclear program if they know we won''t do anything but talk?

That''s not diplomacy Ulairi, thats a threat! And one that''s only useful when talking to a country that''s weaker than us. Which makes it sound like bullying to me.

Lets see us tell China to give up their nuclear problem or else. Not gonna happen. The footing is a little more even there.

That''s not diplomacy Ulairi, thats a threat! And one that''s only useful when talking to a country that''s weaker than us. Which makes it sound like bullying to me.

You''re putting North Korea on the same moral level as the United States. That''s not how things work. Diplomacy often coudl be called ""bullying"" because that''s what most dictators respond to. Should they build nuclear weapons or lose their power?

Lets see us tell China to give up their nuclear problem or else. Not gonna happen. The footing is a little more even there.

It''s called MAD.

All effective Diplomacy is that which one side is willing to back up my force, if theire is no force to back it up there is no point in listening just do what you we''re, if they''re not willing to use said force once again there is no ""real"" opposition just do what you want. Saddam has known this to be true, hence the 12 years of not giving a sh*t about the UN resolutions. Any other kind of diplomacy simplely doesn''t work. History has shown this to be true time & time again.

If on 9/9/01, Bush said to the American public that we''re attacking a small country called Afganistan because we believe that the terrorist group called Al Queada might do a terrorist act on our soil or in an other nation would you have supported us bombing Afganistan? I doubt it. The only time we know someone is going to do something is after they''ve done it.

I wouldn''t have, and I bet before 9/11 they wouldn''t have, because they knew that they wouldn''t get away with it. If they didn''t have any proof, why not replace Afghanistan with Iraq? Or Canada for that matter? The only thing that would stop them from annexing Canada under this logic is finding some reason Canada ""might"" be a threat. Furthermore, would that have stopped anything? Would the towers be standing if we bombed Afghanistan the day before? Probably not.

Its like arguing that since we let the Unabomber blow up Oklahoma City, the police should have the right to go into anybody''s home without proof and arrest them. Because you never know someone is a criminal until they have commited the crime. It sounds great till they come after you.

Serbia, The Spanish-American war, Manifest Destiny, Kosovo, etc

In the Spanish-Americna War, and the Kosovo-Serbia war, there was a war already started, and we came in to bring an end to the hostilities, just like the first Gulf War. In the Kosovo conflict, we didn''t send ground troops until we had the permission of Milosovich, that''s not really an unprovoked invasion. Manifest Destiny wasn''t a war, and the Natives didn''t even understand the concept that they were losing their home until it was too late. Neither did most Americans understand that they were even human for Christ sake, it''s not the same situation.

The US has not sent ground troops into a country without hostilities between two countries already present.

That still doesn''t address the bypassing Congress issue, which isn''t really Bush''s fault, more Congress'', still a very pitiful state of affairs. It''s all the same war, Afghanistan and Iraq, even though they are motivated by entirely different reasons, and are using different troops, as far as the Consitution is concerned, its the same war. I don''t think that''s what the founding fathers had in mind.

That still doesn''t address the bypassing Congress issue, which isn''t really Bush''s fault, more Congress'', still a very pitiful state of affairs. It''s all the same war, Afghanistan and Iraq, even though they are motivated by entirely different reasons, and are using different troops, as far as the Consitution is concerned, its the same war. I don''t think that''s what the founding fathers had in mind.

Bush did go to Congress. Clinton bypassed Congress, Bush didn''t.

"Ulairi" wrote:
That still doesn''t address the bypassing Congress issue, which isn''t really Bush''s fault, more Congress'', still a very pitiful state of affairs. It''s all the same war, Afghanistan and Iraq, even though they are motivated by entirely different reasons, and are using different troops, as far as the Consitution is concerned, its the same war. I don''t think that''s what the founding fathers had in mind.

Bush did go to Congress. Clinton bypassed Congress, Bush didn''t.

Oh I know, it''s Congress'' fault for giving him the ability to wage war for x number of years against enemies unknown. I wasn''t knocking Bush at all in that part, just the situation as a whole.

In the Spanish-Americna War... there was a war already started

Uh no... The Spanish American war started when the battleship ""the Maine"" blew up in the harbor of Spainish Cuba''s Havanna. There we''re tensions between the US and Spain but not out right hostilities. There we''re no other countries in the fight either.

ts like arguing that since we let the Unabomber blow up Oklahoma City

Whaaa??? The unabomber had nothing to do with Oklhoma City bombing.

In the Kosovo conflict, we didn''t send ground troops until we had the permission of Milosovich, that''s not really an unprovoked invasion

Wrong again, the ground troops that went in weren''t ours per se, but UN peace keepers, which did jack sh*t about anything besides stand there and watch. What we did do, and I agree with what Clinton did, is bomb the living f*ck out of Milosovich for 78 days, no ground troops, just air.

Natives didn''t even understand the concept that they were losing their home until it was too late

I''d suggest you relook at this statement, in can be construed as racist, and easily offensive to those of a native maerican background. To say that they didn''t understand what was happening isn''t accurate/and suggest that they weren''t smart enough to figure it out. They did understand what was going on, some joined with us to thwart regional enemies, some adapted, some fought back. Note however that some of those that adapted we''re latter stabbed in the back for economic reasons, but still they did adapt.

Neither did most Americans understand that they were even human for Christ sake

Once again wrong, they we''re understood to be human, but they weren''t ""us"" what you had was multiple distinct cultures banging into each other, when this happens historically 1 of 3 things happen, they fight/move/adapt. Also I wouldn''t be so quick to toss modern moral viewpoints at what happened, thats called Historical Presentism and is a big no no.

I don''t think that''s what the founding fathers had in mind.

Go back and read the federalist papers, I''d pull my own copy out if it wasn''t boxed up and give you the specific essays to read, and rethink that. Hamilton addressed this better than I could. Also Ulairi is right Bush went to congress, see Oct''s vote. Clinton didn''t. Bush went to the UN/NATO, Clinton didn''t, and that was one of the smartest things he did. Also I don''t see why you can argue for liberating the serbs from a bloody dictator, but not the Iraqi''s.

As a future note, if you''re not quite sure of the historical events say you''re not quite sure, or go research them. I sincerely suspect that if you''re not quite sure anybody here will gladly help you find/correct the events. Hell I know that quite often my own recolloection is sometimes hazy, and don''t even get started with how bad my spelling is and I don''t see anyone here worrying about that.

No. It''s logic. What''s the purpose of us telling North Korea to give up their nuclear program if they know we won''t do anything but talk?

No, it''s a threat.
This is diplomacy:
""Give up your nuclear program and in exchange we''ll help you set up hydroelectric Dams""

This is a threat:
""Give up your nuclear program or we''ll attack you.""

Diplomacy implies some sort of mutual agreement, arrived at through some sort of negotiation.[/quote]

""Give up your nuclear program and in exchange we''ll help you set up hydroelectric Dams""

The problem is that there is no incentive to take the dam and then proceed right back on the creation of the nuclear facility, hmmm seems like this is exactly what occured.

Yes at some point or another the threat & willingness to use force to back up your views on major issues has to be there or there is no incentive for the other side to modify its behavior.

Diplomacy implies some sort of mutual agreement, arrived at through some sort of negotiation.

We did that in 1994 and they lied. The North Koreans can not be trusted.

The North Koreans can not be trusted.

I know what you meant here, Ulairi, but this is a ridiculously exaggerated generalization. What you mean is that Kim can not be trusted, and not every North Korean.

It''s just the sort of thing I think we all need to be careful of.

Uh no... The Spanish American war started when the battleship ""the Maine"" blew up in the harbor of Spainish Cuba''s Havanna. There we''re tensions between the US and Spain but not out right hostilities. There we''re no other countries in the fight either.

Please check your facts, the Cubans were already fighting the Spanish, they had assassinated the prime minister months before. The war didn''t start with the Maine, it was the spark that started the fire, but later it turned out that it had been destroyed by a mine. War was not declared until we sent an ultimatum to Spain and they took it as an act of war, please see this page.

Whaaa??? The unabomber had nothing to do with Oklhoma City bombing.

Youre right, my memory is spotty on that one. My bad. It still doesn''t weaken the analogy. Just take any notorious criminal in the past and replace it.

Wrong again, the ground troops that went in weren''t ours per se, but UN peace keepers, which did jack sh*t about anything besides stand there and watch. What we did do, and I agree with what Clinton did, is bomb the living f*ck out of Milosovich for 78 days, no ground troops, just air.

We didn''t have any ground troops till an agreement had been made. Again, this page.

I''d suggest you relook at this statement, in can be construed as racist, and easily offensive to those of a native maerican background. To say that they didn''t understand what was happening isn''t accurate/and suggest that they weren''t smart enough to figure it out.

That wasn''t at all what I was suggesting, but I can see how it looked like that. Let me try it again. Most native american cultures didn''t ""own"" the land, like western cultures do. Therefore, they would trade away the property for small amounts of food, or whatever. Some did fight back, but that still doesn''t make us the aggressors. Neither does it make it a war where we are the invaders. So its not like we saw all that land and said, ""lets conquer this country"". We thought the land was ours and they were squatters, in some cases.

Once again wrong, they we''re understood to be human, but they weren''t ""us"" what you had was multiple distinct cultures banging into each other, when this happens historically 1 of 3 things happen, they fight/move/adapt. Also I wouldn''t be so quick to toss modern moral viewpoints at what happened, thats called Historical Presentism and is a big no no.

Yeah I could also see what you mean here. I didn''t mean that they thought they were some kind of animal, but that they all thought they were heathens and were barely human. Like most of the European colonization, most of the worst atrocities were done because we thought we would enlighten them. Sometimes missionaries would do all the dirty work, getting the natives to welcome us and want us to help them. I don''t know what you mean by the Historical Presentism though, where was I doing that?

Also I don''t see why you can argue for liberating the serbs from a bloody dictator, but not the Iraqi''s.

This is a major problem that keeps getting repeated, so Ill try to explain again. Anti war != Pro dictator, and anti iraqi freedom != anti kosovo conflict. Thats an oversimplification. I know I know, youre for us or against us. Better red than dead, ect. Im arguing about how the war was done, not the fact that it was done. Also, I never said I am for Kosovo, Ulairi brought that up, not me.

Also Ulairi is right Bush went to congress, see Oct''s vote. Clinton didn''t.

I agree with you, and I said as much above. I am not defending Clinton here. Attacking people and calling it a ""police action"" or whatever the hell, bypassing congress, is ridiculous and was started before I was even born. It has nothing to do with the current situation, since as you say, Bush went to Congress. I simply say Congress was stupid for giving it to him.

As a future note, if you''re not quite sure of the historical events say you''re not quite sure, or go research them.

I did, as you can see above, I read several more pages than that before making my post.

Also, I would like to read the federalist papers, maybe I can find them online, itd be interesting to see what Hamilton thinks. Though, I would like to explain what I meant. Again, I was referring to Congress giving the President the power to wage war for X years, and how that was probably not what the founding fathers had in mind.

I know what you meant here, Ulairi, but this is a ridiculously exaggerated generalization. What you mean is that Kim can not be trusted, and not every North Korean.

That''s what I meant. Are you clearing this up for me or for your self?