Warriors and Wussies

[Flame On]

It's reasonable to assume that some sort of action, or as you put it, fork in the area was a good idea. What's not reasonable is to assume that's automatically war based. By accounts I've heard, it's thought the war on Al Queda was going exceptionally well and had really gotten them on the run. But the Iraq war has actually set that back and acted as a galvanizing lightning rod for recruitment etc.
Anyway, I hear what you're saying CP about pacifism being just as extreme as war mongering, but I think there are shades of grey between peace at all costs and war at all costs alike. It's not like all people who think the Iraq war is wrong are against all wars all the time. Afghanistan seems to be a certain success, although I don't think it's as successful as its made out.

[Vulcan]

The issue for me Cowperson has never been about being an all out pacifist. Comparing World War 2 to Iraq is pretty lame. WW2 was a war of self defence, Iraq not so much. I don't believe you are an all out war monger either but I wanted to bring up a point about when is it right to go to war.
I don't believe armchair quarterbacks have the right to decide but I like your reliance on some future Monday morning to prove you are right.

"If I believed in the cause, of course." Cowperson

This answer as to whether you would be willing to sacrifice yourself says a lot.
You obviously believe in the war in Iraq, so why aren't you over there, doing your part?

[Cowperson]

Sorry for the delay . . . . . I was walking up a mountain.

Comparing World War 2 to Iraq is pretty lame.

I agree.

In answer to a previous point from yourself, I was providing historic examples of decision makers knowing in advance the events they were setting in motion would doom thousands and even tens of thousands of both their own countrymen and the enemy.

If you want to take events of WWII out of it, for some reason, then its easy to provide other examples such as JFK deciding to play genuine nuclear brinkmanship with the Soviet Union and his decision to escalate Vietnam or other events like Gulf War I and Panama, Grenada and the Balkans. Or Harry Truman dropping atomic bombs on Japan when the war was well past the point of self-defence.

We elect leaders to represent us and make the tough decisions and then we ask that they face the electorate every four or five years to answer for those decisions.

If Saddam had been placed in front of an electorate, it's doubtful his citizens would have allowed him the opportunity to play chicken with their lives in the face of the most powerful and most paranoid nation on earth, the country that always has a target on its forehead whether its aggressive or passive in the face of world affairs.

I don't believe you are an all out war monger either but I wanted to bring up a point about when is it right to go to war.

I think it was right to go to war, even at this late date. And I don't mind the war-monger label for saying that. Go ahead.

I said at the time the 12 year dance with Saddam had to end, that it was time to find out if he had WMD or he didn't have them. And he certainly was acting like he had something in the fact he curiously played that bluff to the ultimate end. He might still be in power today if he had cooperated fully with UN weapons inspectors.

Moreover, as I've said before, it was an opportunity to shake to the core a backward and stagnant and volatile area of the world, to stir up a hornets nest so to speak.

It was a place that 50 years in the future might have looked the same as it did 50 years ago if not for the blow . . . . . but that's what we'll find out.

However, if you're going to label me a war monger, then you have to concede I was also the guy on this board who was saying BEFORE the Iraq war that it would be the last major land conflict America would engage in for the next 20 years . . . . . while those on the left were engaging in sensational rhetoric in arguing America would be invading Iran, Syria and all manner of other countries in short order.

I think I'll be right on that point.

War is an obscene, terrible thing but strangely, somewhat popular early on and rightly unpopular the longer it lasts. America can probably handle a lengthy and costly conflict only once a generation. Its an easy call to say America is probably done with major land conflicts for a long time.

I don't believe armchair quarterbacks have the right to decide but I like your reliance on some future Monday morning to prove you are right.

You elect people to make decisions . . . . then you have them stand in front of you to validate those decisions every four or five years.

All voters are armchair quarterbacks.

Bush wasn't first elected on a policy of going to war in Iraq but he did survive a validation vote and, as I've pointed out before, Iraq is the only policy of his I would actually favour. If I were American, I'd probably be consistently voting Democrat and would welcome a change to the Democrats in the House and Congress in November.

You obviously believe in the war in Iraq, so why aren't you over there, doing your part?

You obviously don't believe in the Iraq war so why weren't you over there when the bombs were falling holding up your "Give Peace A Chance" sign as a target?

Welcome to the world of the armchair quarterback. If you feel there's some guilt to dole out, then we're all in line. Including you.

What's not reasonable is to assume that's automatically war based. By accounts I've heard, it's thought the war on Al Queda was going exceptionally well and had really gotten them on the run. But the Iraq war has actually set that back and acted as a galvanizing lightning rod for recruitment etc.

My reference to "sticking a fork in the region" has more to do with the shock of pushing a stagnant and backward region out of the politics of hatred and paranoia which it had wallowed in for 50 years and hauling it kicking and screaming into the modern world where we can at least have a conversaton.

Without the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq, my feeling is that we would be looking at much the same thing 50 years from now, nothing changing.

Instead, you are seeing some dramatic things happening across the region and media outlets like Al-Jazeera, which have also grown up dramatically in the last few years, will probably ensure those changes are permanent in the long run.

You have an opinion all that might have happened without conflict. I don't share that confidence.

The existence of al-Queda depends on a certain level of paranoia, of the myth of Muslim brotherhood and a common belief that the best answers for the modern world lie in a return to events and a lifestyle of centuries ago.

You know, our friend Rouge Underoos a few years ago caught me with my pants down and rightly spanked me when I claimed that most of the insurgents in Iraq were al-Queda, non-Iraqi's. That was a gross mis-read of the situation on my part and he rightly parted my hair with it.

On the other hand, it should really lead us to examine if the left wing claim that Iraq is creating a new generation of terrorists across the region really has any validity.

We know there are lots of explosions and shootings in Iraq but we also know the insurgency is largely confined to the disaffected Sunni's. We know Sunni insurgents were guarding ballot boxes in December from Al-Queda attacks. We know Sunni's have objected to the indiscriminate slaughter of Sunni civilians in their country and have lately been hunting down the al-Queda perpetrators and taking revenge on them. We know prominent Sunni leaders are now negotiating to be part of the political process and that, through time, all but the most disaffected in the Sunni community may eventually negotiate a settlement which, if you think about it, would be the common sense thing for a minority sitting on little oil in an oil rich region to do.

If Rouge Underoos is right about there being very few foreign al-Queda in Iraq - and the number 2000 to 5000 keeps coming up - then that doesn't seem like a lot when you consider we are years into this thing and they've apparently been recruiting from a region of several hundred million angry people.

What's the matter? Doesn't anyone believe in a cause these days?

And that makes the notion of Iraq being a breeding ground for global terrorists somewhat dubious.

It might be more accurate to say the conflict in Iraq is creating disaffection in places that have nothing to do with Iraq, like politicized but disaffected Muslims in Europe as an example.

Not every Muslim is a terrorist. In fact, apparently very few are.

Iraq threads make Greg Gilbert threads cry.

Cowperson

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

You know, our friend Rouge Underoos a few years ago caught me with my pants down and rightly spanked me when I claimed that most of the insurgents in Iraq were al-Queda, non-Iraqi's. That was a gross mis-read of the situation on my part and he rightly parted my hair with it.

Ha ha. Really? I don't even remember that. Of course there was time that all we did on this board was discuss this very subject.

Anyhow, I can't speak for all the lefties but I personally wasn't absolutely against the war under any circumstances, I just couldn't figure out what the hurry was. When anyone asked for proof of why they are going to do this thing the answer was "he has WMD and is a threat to world peace" and if you asked again "why, where is the proof" the answer "he has it just trust me and don't you remember 9/11"?

Nobody showed us anything and they certainly didn't connect Iraq to 9/11. If they had just slowed down the rhetoric a little bit and tried to get more people onside and didn't seem so goddamn bloodthirsty I think they would have had their war eventually. With just the slightest hint of finesse and a non-panicked approach, maybe a year later they would have done it and I bet Canadian (and maybe even French) troops would have been involved and they would have taken the time to plan for what happens after the war and wouldn't have ended up in the mess they are in now.

But nooo, he was a "gathering danger" and he had stockpiles of this, capabilities of that, he was a threat to the whole world!

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

Sorry for the delay . . . . . I was walking up a mountain.

viously believe in the war in Iraq, so why aren't you over there, doing your part?

You obviously don't believe in the Iraq war so why weren't you over there when the bombs were falling holding up your "Give Peace A Chance" sign as a target?

Welcome to the world of the armchair quarterback. If you feel there's some guilt to dole out, then we're all in line. Including you.

Cowperson

Thanks but no thanks for associating me with some of the dumbest peace activists going.

The coolness of my postion is that I don't have to do anything. If I was subject to a draft I may have to find some active means of protest, but that's not the case. In fact my government and most Canadians agree with me.
Think of it, for this political purpose, as 'peace being the absence of war', just as black is the absense of colour, or darkness the absence of light. Black or darkness or peace are not entities. War is, and is the outward reflection of people who are not at peace within. To satisfy my positon all I have to do is not support this war. If I don't fire a gun etc., I'm not at war. To go to war requires a decision. To not go to war in Iraq, only requires me to mind my own business. By the way, I avoid guilt like the plague by trying to avoid causing harm to others.
Have a good trip.

sorry for my poor computer skills.

[Cowperson]

War is, and is the outward reflection of people who are not at peace within. To satisfy my positon all I have to do is not support this war. If I don't fire a gun etc., I'm not at war. To go to war requires a decision. To not go to war in Iraq, only requires me to mind my own business.

I'm sure that was the justification for European governments watching television images of concentration camps in Europe in the 1990's. It was none of their business.

They made a decision to not intervene, to not go to war.

Neville Chamberlain made a decision to not confront Germany over its annexation of neighbouring countries.

Not going to war is a decision.

"I've decided to do nothing" is clearly a decision.

Cowperson

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

War is, and is the outward reflection of people who are not at peace within. To satisfy my positon all I have to do is not support this war. If I don't fire a gun etc., I'm not at war. To go to war requires a decision. To not go to war in Iraq, only requires me to mind my own business.

I'm sure that was the justification for European governments watching television images of concentration camps in Europe in the 1990's. It was none of their business.

They made a decision to not intervene, to not go to war.

Neville Chamberlain made a decision to not confront Germany over its annexation of neighbouring countries.

Not going to war is a decision.

"I've decided to do nothing" is clearly a decision.

Cowperson

Two entirely different situations.
Chamberlains policy was appeasement. No body was backing off on Saddam. In fact, that there were no WMD, shows that the UN policy was working. If a citizen sees a problem they call the cops. If they then decide to take matters in their own hand then they are considered criminals. When will the USA start obeying international law.

I still hold that if you ask someone to do something that you are not prepared to do, you must think you are better and dont value fellow human life.
I am not the one asking others to go to war but I would be willing to be part of the UN inspection team.

[HOZ]

Nobody backling off Sadam?

Germany, France, China and Russia had businessmen strike Oil deal for their countries while they were all suppose to be supporting embargos.

Various companies and piliticians in every country were on the take or making bribes. The UN personelle were busy filling their pockets on the Food for Oil scandal.

There were plenty of appeasers

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by HOZ

Nobody backling off Sadam?

Germany, France, China and Russia had businessmen strike Oil deal for their countries while they were all suppose to be supporting embargos.

Various companies and piliticians in every country were on the take or making bribes. The UN personelle were busy filling their pockets on the Food for Oil scandal.

There were plenty of appeasers

If
Various companies and piliticians in every country were on the take or making bribes

was reason enough for going to war, every country would be at war. Try again.

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Two entirely different situations.
Chamberlains policy was appeasement. No body was backing off on Saddam.

I wasn't comparing situations . . . . as you well know. I was offering examples of decisions. You're the one making comparisons.

In terms of "backing off" and "appeasement," he was engaged in a consistent campaign of parole violations, including barring UN weapons inspectors entirely from his country for several years at a time and, in the end, refusing to allow nuclear scientists to be removed from his country for interviews, even under threat of UN Resolution 1441 which promised grave consequences for non-compliance.

The global reaction through those 12 years reminded me of several scenes from "Raising Arizona," where our anti-hero Hi is in front of the parole board:

CHAIRMAN: Have you learned anything, Hi?

HI: Yessir, you bet.

WOMAN: You wouldn't lie to us, would you Hi?

HI: No ma'am, hope to say.

CHAIRMAN: Okay then.

Hi gets out of the can, robs more convenience stores, ends up behind bars and has a second trip to the parole board in due time:

CHAIRMAN: Well B, you done served your twenty munce, and seeing as you never use live ammo, we got no choice but to return you to society.

SECOND MAN: These doors goan swing wide.

HI: I didn't want to hurt anyone, Sir.

SECOND MAN: Hi, we respect that.

CHAIRMAN: But you're just hurtin' yourself with this rambunctious behavior.

HI: I know that, sir.

CHAIRMAN: Okay then.

Third trip to the Parole board after more time behind bars:

CHAIRMAN: Got a name for people like you, Hi. That name is called recidivism.

SECOND MAN: Ree-peat 0-fender.

CHAIRMAN: Not a pretty name, is it, Hi?

HI: No Sir, it sure ain't. That's one bonehead name. But that ain't me anymore.

CHAIRMAN: You're not just tellin' us what we wanna hear?

HI: No Sir, no way.

SECOND MAN: 'Cause we just wanna hear the truth.

HI: Well then I guess I am tellin' you what you wanna hear.

CHAIRMAN: Boy, didn't we just tell you not to do that?

HI: Yessir.

CHAIRMAN: Okay then.

That there is the story of Saddam and the world.

That's why you have three strike laws in some places.

I still hold that if you ask someone to do something that you are not prepared to do, you must think you are better and dont value fellow human life. I am not the one asking others to go to war but I would be willing to be part of the UN inspection team.

Electing to sit in a corner in your basement with your knees clamped together and your hands folded in your lap . . . . . is a decision.

You're just fooling yourself if you think there's no ghastly consequences that can come out of a policy of passivity and non-involvement, just as there are ghastly/positive consequences for making war.

I also have no idea why you think its realistic to trot out the drama club gimmick of asking us to think 177,000,000 Americans, the 59% who favoured going into Iraq (November 2002 poll), should actually be wearing a uniform that day and sitting on the Kuwait border waiting to pounce. That's like me saying the 123,000,000 who opposed it at the time should have been standing under the bombs with placards saying "Give Peace A Chance."

Our elected leaders make decisions. We debate those decisions and ask that they face us to answer for those decisions.

Iraq threads make Jesus threads cry.

Cowperson

[arsenal]

Those countries where against the war (if you remember) because of their backdoor deals with Iraq. They feared a change in power, becuase they would not get what Saddam owed them. Mainly oil fields if Saddam was removed from power.

That is why the US went in with out full UN support. As I beleive 3 of those countries are permanent UN Security Counsil Members.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by arsenal

Those countries where against the war (if you remember) because of their backdoor deals with Iraq. They feared a change in power, becuase they would not get what Saddam owed them. Mainly oil fields if Saddam was removed from power.

Do you think their might be some other reasons to be against the war? I mean really, The Vatican was against it. Do they have a backdoor deal? What about Canada? Mexico? New Zealand?

There are 238 countries in the world. Not even 50 of them supported the war. That's a hell of a lot of backdoor deals. Maybe that's why he needed so many palaces -- because he needed lots of back doors.

[Vulcan]

I dont know about about Jesus crying but lets just say that I don;t like war and you do. That doesnt mean I wouldnt shoot anybody in self defence or step up for my country. While you like it even better if you can find someone else to do the fighting.

[arsenal]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Do you think their might be some other reasons to be against the war? I mean really, The Vatican was against it. Do they have a backdoor deal? What about Canada? Mexico? New Zealand?

There are 238 countries in the world. Not even 50 of them supported the war. That's a hell of a lot of backdoor deals. Maybe that's why he needed so many palaces -- because he needed lots of back doors.

If the security council will not "approve" it, then what are the chances of other countries joining? As we saw, not very good. And if 3 of the 5 permanent members on the council do not approve of action, because of their dealing with the country in question (Iraq in this case), then there is no way to get UN backing.

Canada would have been involved if the UN had sanctioned action.

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

I dont know about about Jesus crying but lets just say that I don;t like war and you do.

Sure. Everyone likes war. Who wouldn't? Damned exciting.

Why on earth would you make the claim that someone "likes" war?

I see war as a necessary policy option and I see those who would refute that option in ALL circumstances as exceptionally dangerous people in the modern world.

Remember, you started this argument with the self-righteous notion that those who vote for conflict should only have to experience it themselves and they would never vote for it again.

Yet I immediately provided ample examples through history in various democracies of those who have experienced the obscene horrors of conflict firsthand but who actually voted in favour of putting in motion events they knew in advance would kill or wound or maim countless of their countrymen as well as innocent civilians and enemy.

In a modern, mature, democracy, making a case for conflict isn't about "loving" war . . . . the fact you can't wrap your head around that concept is the only explanation I can think of for your bizarre and comical attempt to somehow put me in Fallujah with the rest of the boys.

But, the good news is you've come a long way in this debate. Congratulations. In your last post you finally told us there are circumstances where you would have no problems killing someone or defending your country . . . . that's certainly a far cry from where you started.

As you've finally admitted, voting for war or arguing for war doesn't require any "liking" for war.

It also doesn't require any experience with war.

You've just argued a case for war yourself. Maybe you're not as dangerous as I thought you were.

That doesnt mean I wouldnt shoot anybody in self defence or step up for my country.

Of course. Probably. Maybe. Actually, probably not. There's a reason most casualties in war are civilian . . . . it's because the overwhelming majority don't pick up arms and defend their country, even if they're under direct attack, hence their classification as "civilian."

It was your opinion at the time the conflict in Iraq wasn't a matter of self-defence.

It's simply historical fact that others, the majority, AT THE TIME, disagreed and set in motion events that have killed tens of thousands, even if later they began to regret their support as it related to the premise of self-defence.

We can also see today France, Britain, Russia, China and the USA agreed to refer the Iran question to the UN Security Council . . . . the start of another slippery slope?

Certainly it reeks of "self-defence." There are no prizes for second place in a nuclear exchange.

Do they "love" war?

It would simply be stupid to say they do . . . .

While you like it even better if you can find someone else to do the fighting.

Like I said, I didn't see you standing under the bombs in Baghdad or Serbia with your "Give Peace A Chance" sign.

I think both of those arguments are stupid . . . . but, if you want to keep bringing it up, I'll keep doing my duty and hauling out the obvious retort.

The reason Iraq threads make Jesus threads cry is the repetition, around and around and a collossal time waster.

Cowperson

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

I don't have much of a problem with the soldiers in Iraq. They at least walk the walk. I have a problem with the politicians and everybody who supports them [this includes a number of our posters] and sits over here saying yeah, lets invade Iraq. They should put Bush and his ilk on the frontlines and see how many wars we'd have.

Where do I say that I am not in favor of war under every circumstance but if my criteria were followed there would be far less wars . It is just that your criteria is far laxer than mine and you are quick to send others to fight your battles.

Glad to hear that you dont like war, maybe there is hope for you.

It is an historical fact that there were no WMD as the UN,at the time, stated and thus it never was a war of self defence.

You are the one who wants to send others to fight your battles. I do not agree with most anyone going to Iraq. I believe they are mostly fools, but each to their own.

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Where do I say that I am not in favor of war under every circumstance but if my criteria were followed there would be far less wars . It is just that your criteria is far laxer than mine and you are quick to send others to fight your battles.

Glad to hear that you dont like war, maybe there is hope for you.

It is an historical fact that there were no WMD as the UN,at the time, stated and thus it never was a war of self defence.

You are the one who wants to send others to fight your battles. I do not agree with most anyone going to Iraq. I believe they are mostly fools, but each to their own.

If I answer that post - and it would be easy to do so - I'd just be repeating what I've said three times already . . . . .we're starting to go around in a time wasting circle . . . . We can agree we have mutual contempt for each other's position and let's face it, we'll probably be back to pummel each other periodically anyway.

Cowperson