Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

War... HUA! What is it good for... (poll)

Comments Filter:
  • Always have been. I don't want to wait around for Saddam or anyone under him to do something terrible to our population.
    My brother-in-law is a specialist in the army (linguist: Arabic), and, yes, he's already over there. So there is a direct affect on my family. We support him.

    I hate anti-war rallies. People would change their tune if they had a dirty bomb sitting in their favorite mall, killing thousands of innocent men, women, and children. No one wants to kill. No one wants to die. But someone
    • I hate anti-war rallies.

      Just in general, you hate any anti-war rallies? So, there has never been a war for which you feel a protest is/was/would have been justified?

      People would change their tune if they had a dirty bomb sitting in their favorite mall, killing thousands of innocent men, women, and children.

      I think a lot of the pro-war attitude of many Americans in regards to Iraq comes from the very fact that they don't feel any real world consequences from it. If Americans really felt like there were

    • It's very unlikely that Saddam, or anyone under him, will do anything significant to the population of the US, though waging war on Iraq only increases the likelihood. The Bush administration wants everyone to believe Iraq is this huge terrorist threat, but has not presented too much evidence.

      I hate anti-war rallies. People would change their tune if they had a dirty bomb sitting in their favorite mall, killing thousands of innocent men, women, and children.
      And I hate it when people use graphic imager

    • Innocent until proven guilty?

      Bush asks us if we should wait for a smoking gun when a smoking gun might be a detonated bomb. I say yes. We can't just do whatever we want because we're America. Until he does something, or we find he has nuclear and biological weapons, then I don't believe we should do anything.

      As you said, someone has to stand up and threaten so neither will happen to the innocent, but we don't know that Saddam isn't innocent. Search him and call me when we confiscate a weapon of mass destr
    • Bush has no leg to stand on. Why go to war with Iraq at all? Did you read the Blix report? I do not mean the carefully edited version that showed up on CNN for a while that cut out the part where he pointed out that the inspection teams were getting increased cooperation Iraq was making effort to comply. Is it about WMD? If so, I have three words for you:

      depleted fucking uranium

      Used by the US military in Iraq and Serbia. Hey, you brought up dirty bombs.

      War? Sure. Against Iraq? No. Bush has

  • If there is a single reader on Slashdot who is unaware of my opinions on this matter, I will eat my hat. But, for the record:

    What's your opinion of the (soon to be) new gulf war?

    First, that it's not a soon-to-be new war at all. It is, in fact, the continuation and, hopefully, conclusion of the war that started in 1990 when Iraq invaded Kuwait.

    That said, though, I believe that while war is never a great thing, there are times when it is preferable to the alternative. In 1990, it was preferable to go to
    • Minister de Villepin assumes that our goal-- the goal of the world community, I mean-- is disarmament of Iraq. It's not. Our goal is compliance.

      I am going to switch back to using the word "our" to mean the USA. Didn't James Baker III state clearly that in order for sanctions to be lifted Saddam would have to go? Hasn't the removal of Saddam been a mojor part of our policy since the early 1990's? Knowing that sanctions wouldn't be lifted while he was still in power, Saddam has had less incentive to coop

      • Hasn't the removal of Saddam been a mojor part of our policy since the early 1990's?

        No, it hasn't. In fact, regime change in Iraq wasn't really considered to be a viable, or even desirable, option by the highest levels of the government until about 1998.

        Knowing that sanctions wouldn't be lifted while he was still in power, Saddam has had less incentive to cooperate.

        Saddam doesn't need an incentive to cooperate. He needs to be reminded that he has no choice in the matter at all. This isn't wheeling and
    • Remember, half of /.'s readership doesn't read the comments, so what kind of hat are we talking about? How about a tasty beret, stolen from some surrendering frenchman.
    • LOL. You're hat is safe.

      I'm going to be getting my wine from Australia instead.

      California wine is better. :)
  • by dmorin (25609)
    Let's be reasonable, nobody in their right mind *wants* war. That's not what we're talking about. But my thinking is that Saddam is a danger, and he's not going away. So we have a choice, we can either ignore him until he does something really awful (again), or we can take him out now. Do it hard, do it fast, come home safe, get back to work straightening out the economy. Anybody that thinks any amount of protest is gonna make Bush say, "You know what? You're right. Bring everybody home," is being ri
  • by Em Emalb (452530)
    I am never for war.

    That being said, should we be over there stomping a mud hole in Saddam's ass? Yes.

    I have friends that I served with and several reservist friends who are sitting in various parts of that region of the world. As I used to call it while I was there:

    The middle east is the sweaty, smelly armpit of the world.

    That being said, I hope we get through to Saddam relatively easy, since I doubt we will run into much real resistance until we hit Baghdad.

    I am worried a little about terrorist reta
    • I think that war is a bad thing in general, like corporal punishment, but it needs to be used, because there is always going to be evil till the rapture. It's just a matter of when & where it will be used.

      I'm deeply saddened to see that Canada isn't going to war with the US. We should be using any opportunity [that's morally just, that is] that we can to exercise our military to build experience & a reputation.

      If it isn't obvious, I totally support GWB & the US.
  • I think that Saddam is terrible. It is too bad that we didn't get rid of him back in 1992, though at the time restraint seemed like a good idea. Iraq will be better off without him. The people of Iraq have been suffering due to sanctions since the invasion of Kuwait while Saddam has been pocketing billions of dollars.

    That said, our timing right now is terrible. I guess that after 9/11 we feel that we have the justification needed to attack "terrorist countries" wihtout direct provocation. I don't thi

    • I don't think that Iraq had much if anything to do with 9/11 and Bin Laden.

      Maybe, maybe not. We're not sure. This article [opinionjournal.com] in the Post by Laurie Mylroie, while by no means conclusive, is certainly food for thought.

      Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks, is a Pakistani Baluch. So is Ramzi Yousef, who masterminded the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. In 1995, together with a third Baluch, Abdul Hakam Murad, the two collaborated in an unsuccessful plot to bomb 12 U.S. airplanes. Years

      • Have you ever heard the expression, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend?" Or how about, "Politics makes strange bedfellows?"

        I am certainly aware of those concepts. While the evidence you presented was interesting I don't think that the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" thing is a rule that is automatically applicable. I think that if we had hard evidence of a connection we'd be very vocal about it. That said, I admit that I think this is a side issue and not that important. Iraq is a problem regardless

        • Hey, no need for that. Have I provoked you in some way? If so, I am sorry.

          I didn't mean for that to sound so condescending. It sounded completely benign in my head. Going back and reading it again, I realize that it came off rather differently from what I meant. My bad; I'm sorry.

          However I think that in this case we are undermining an institution that we set up.

          I would argue that the institution itself is fatally flawed-- the Security Council is a joke, and always has been; it has only ever successf
          • would argue that the institution itself is fatally flawed-- the Security Council is a joke, and always has been;

            Which leads me to ask a question: Why the heck does France get a permanent seat on this council? I can understand all the others, just not France. They really didn't do much in World War 2, unlike the other permanent members. Hell, Canada and Australia did more in World War 2 than France. Or is it because they have nukes? Anybody could have had them, just chose not to.
  • Go after Iraq, keep the soldiers safe, institutionalize a nice democracy. Offer huge export packages to businesses willing to relocate an office or headquarters in Iraq to create businesses.

    Iraq could be a gold mine for IT, Oil, and the sell of dirt. IT is needed to suppor the Oil industry, and if the Iraqi people can take control of their Oil industry it'll help everybody.

    Saddam needs to go away. He wont do it peacefully, and I think that 12 years is enough time to make a decision. He's made his deci
  • My views on france are on my website. Still at a loss as to why you people capitalize any variant of that word.

    I am for the action in Iraq, oppoosed to the 'Kill Kurds, Not Mumar' set.

    Never thought I would ever say anything like this, but I hope that all of these Worker's World Party/ANSWER/NION leaders get rounded up and jailed for sedition. Add Jimmy Carter to that list, Bill Clinton is not far away from the line either.

    BTW, the a chunk of DC near the Washington Monument is being heald hostage as I w
  • I agree that we should do "something". I am against the war, but see no alternative. But this is a very delicate issue. Not as cut and dry as Bush seems to make it out as.

    Bush is taking the old upper management stance on making decisions. He made up his mind and doesn't care about the details. He expects someone else to fix the problems.

    The other problem is, of course, Cheney. He stands to make the most money from war with Iraq. Not Bush. Business wise, Bush is/was a flunky. Which of course does
    • But Cheney has a direct financial gain for this war.

      How? I mean, apart from the obvious fact that he, like many of us, is more likely to keep his job come November, 2004, if the war goes well?
      • The fact that he has a nice job waiting for him back at a company which supplies military items and made tons of money off of the 1991 gulf war.
        • The fact that he has a nice job waiting for him back at a company which supplies military items and made tons of money off of the 1991 gulf war.

          Are you talking about Halliburton? Servo, Halliburton is a petrochemical company. They build natural gas processing plants and whatnot. They have no connection to the military, and they gained nothing from the Gulf War.

          Also, he hardly has a "nice job waiting for him." A gentleman named David Lesar took the job of chairman, president, and CEO in July, 2000, when M
  • Don't care much for war wholesale, but first and foremost I support the troops that go out in the name of our country. They have to go, and nothing I say can change that, so it's foolish to beat an anti-war drum in that context (not that I have been anyways). I think Saddam's evil, so it's not that I don't think it's at least a little justified, I just don't like the idea of a bunch of people being blown up/killed/held prisoner in a foreign country.

    So, in summary:
    War - you gotta do what you gotta do
  • 1. Saddam Hussein is an evil dictator.

    2. I don't believe that we can not fuck this up. Bush needs a little foreign policy lesson. The WTC attacks gave him an unbelievable amount of political capital, but, like a new lottery winner, he went and blew the whole lot on a mansion up in the mountains. He neglected, however, to leave some for taxes, insurance and furnishings.

    3. As always, I feel the need to clarify that there is a difference between the message and the messenger. A person's opinion on foreig
    • George:Let UN inspectors in or we'll attack you.
      Saddam:Okay.
      George:Ummm...Disarm or we'll attack you.
      Saddam:Okay.
      George:Dance like a monkey or we'll attack you.
      Saddam:Okay.


      My followup:
      The UN inspectors were never truely allowed everywhere, only in places of Saddams choosing.
      Iraq isn't disarmed in the least. Thats the whole point of us going in there.
      Saddam has a funny beret like a monkey, but I haven't seen him dance, yet. ;-)
    • Can you say Moving Target?

      That's not even remotely how it went.

      Mr. Bush: Comply with the Safwan Accords or we'll attack you.

      Saddam: Okay, here's our declaration.

      Mr. Bush: Your declaration is inaccurate and incomplete. Comply with the Safwan Accords or we'll attack you.

      Saddam: Okay, see the inspectors?

      Mr. Bush: Your declaration is still inaccurate and incomplete, and the inspectors need more access, more interviews, and more overflights. Comply with the Safwan Accords or we'll attack you.

      Saddam
      • raq could have complied with the Safwan Accords in 1991. Or in 1992. Or 1993, or 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, or 2002. Or they even could have complied with the Safwan Accords in 2003. But they didn't do any of those things. Now, sometime in the next... 32 hours and five minutes by my watch, Saddam, Odai, and Qusay Hussein can pack their bags and fly to Paris or wherever. Any of those things would have prevented an attack by the Alliance.

        Or they could have just stayed in Iraq, ignored J
  • I think we (the UN?) failed in diplomacy. I'm deeply saddened that war is the result but that is out of my control. I am supportive of our troops and wish the quickest possible end to this conflict with as little destruction as possible.

    France and Russia were looking out for their business interests much like how the US is looking out for theirs. They deserve no more or less blame in that regard than we do.

    I feel sorry for the innocent Iraqi women and children who will be hurt as the result of these big

  • by Liora (565268)
    You have managed to start a war thread without a single one of those "lily-livered limousine liberals (fine words courtesy of Charlie Daniels)" posting a comment. I'm shocked. Of course, I didn't check your fans list, so it may just be that everyone dropped you and then started their own thread via someone else's journal. Nope, just checked, you still have more fans than me.

    That said, while I am not necessarily down with the notion of doing this to continue the last Gulf War, I do think that something n
    • When is this war clearly going to be over?

      We've got really good, sound military and political goals here. The war will be over, for all practical purposes, when the whole country is governed by an Iraqi Interim Authority. The war will be over well and permanently when the Iraqis establish their own constitution and elect a government, and that government normalizes relations with the United States and the other members of the Transatlantic Alliance.

      We're doing here basically the same thing we did in Afgh
      • Does Saddam represent an illegitimate government, or just an undesirable one?
        • Does Saddam represent an illegitimate government, or just an undesirable one?

          Illegitimate, although this point really boils down to how you define "legitimate government." There's no hard-and-fast rule on that point.

          The American point of view is that a government that's legitimate rules by consent of the governed. That doesn't necessarily mean that all legitimate governments must be democratic; the government of China is hardly democratic, but in general and barring several notable exceptions the Chinese
      • Well... I don't know what I'm thinking here... I might be thinking a liberal thought... I certainly hope not, anyway.

        Do you really think that the Iraqi government isn't a legitimate government? Some Iraqis (and admittedly only some, but that's as true there as it is here) love Hussein. What exactly makes it an illigitimate government? The fact they won't comply with the UN mandates? Because if for instance the UN told the US government that it had to allow inspectors in and destroy all weapons of mass
        • Do you really think that the Iraqi government isn't a legitimate government?

          Yes [slashdot.org].

          I'm not sure we will be able to set up a decent government in Iraq...

          We've already done most of the job. We've got a framework in place with which the Iraqi opposition groups are in tentative agreement to leave most of the Baath government's structures and personnel in place as an interim authority under the supervision of a US governor-general, transitioning that system to a permanent federal republic with semi-autonomou
      • In other words, the war -- WITH IRAQ -- will end as soon as we put a puppet government in place.

        The war on "terrorism", on the other hand, will continue as long as the current administration is in power, and perhaps even longer.

        • In other words, the war -- WITH IRAQ -- will end as soon as we put a puppet government in place.

          Basically, yeah. Except I'm not sure how you can call it a puppet government when it has no strings.

          (Great. Now I've got that Pinocchio song running through my head. "I've got no strings / to hold me down / to make me fret / or make me frown / I had strings / but now I'm free / there are no strings on me.")

          The war on "terrorism", on the other hand, will continue as long as the current administration is in po
  • If we have such good intelligence (specifically the claim put forth by our government that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction and we know how many and where), then why haven't we made any of the intelligence available to Hans Blix? In other words, if we know where the weapons are, why haven't we told the inspectors?

    My opinion of the coming war is moot. Doesn't matter what I or you or anyone else believes anymore. War is coming and now is the time to rally and prepare.

    France? Well... I think Chira
    • Short answer? Because we want to continue to have good intelligence.

      Let's say just hypothetically that we have a spy in Iraq who works in the military intelligence directorate, and who knows where the VX stockpiles are. We pass the locations of those stockpiles on to UNMOVIC, and then UNMOVIC tells the Iraqi government that they're going to be inspecting these three buildings the day after tomorrow. Iraqi military intelligence, who despite having absurdly poor judgement are not a bunch of idiots, realize t
      • Right. You have to come to the point where you realize that the people doing the jobs in the intelligence industry know what they are doing (at least most of them). You have to let them do their job with out 4th, and 5th guesses on their intel (that you don't know).

        I am sure the President knows many more of the horrible things that Saddam has done but the administration cannot reveal them to the public because it would get the source(s) killed. At some point you have to say, "I am a programmer, not a CI
    • France? Well... I think Chirac is simply listening to his people. 80% of the French people don't believe in the war. And French leadership is listening.

      This sounds so hauntingly similar to WWII. Neville Chamberlain's appeasment strategy was wildly popular in the UK (over 90% of the population supported it). That did not make it the right thing to do, though.
  • and get back to some loving.
    I would hate for anyone to lose their life over this, But 6000 years of recorded history prove that we will never as a people stop being asshats without divine intervention.
    My Brother-in-Law is over there on the biggest(displacement) ship in the fleet. (although we aren't too sure of the Lincoln's location these days. there was rumors it was headed to Japan. If anyone knows drop me a note.)
    My sister would like to have him home with all the original parts and I'm pretty sure his m
  • First off ask yourself a question, is Iraq a threat to the United States?

    No, Iraq has never attacked the United States or funded Terrorism against the The United States.

    The next question to ask is, would we be attacking Iraq if 9-11 didn't happen?

    Of course not, well explain to me again what Islamic fundamentalists upset over the US occupation of Saudi Arabia have to do with a secular dictator?

    The real question to ask is, how many lives and dollars are worse loosing for Bush's obsession?

    For th

    • First off ask yourself a question, is Iraq a threat to the United States?

      Yes. Iraq has the capacity to attack the United States directly, using a drone armed with chemical or biological agents launched from off our shore or outside our borders. Iraq also has the capacity and the connections to provide a terrorist or a terrorist organization with a chemical or biological agent for use in an attack against the United States.

      Iraq also poses an indirect threat, merely by their continued defiance. Consider th
    • No, Iraq has never attacked the United States or funded Terrorism against the The United States.

      Sadaam has been giving money to terrorists regularly, out in the open. When a Palestinian suicide bomber successfully kills one or more Israeli citizens, his family gets a check from Sadaam.

      That is directly funding terrorism against one of America's closest allies. If he's doing this out in the open, how can you say he's not giving money to people willing to do the same to us?

  • A disappointing failure of diplomacy. I'd feel much better with a new UN resolution directly authorizing military response. Res. 1441 and the resolutions from the first Gulf War are technically sufficient, but Bush should have had more patience with the Security Council. And he should have resisted entering a pissing contest with France.

    I keep hoping Bush will finally come up with the analogy that would convince more Americans that military action in Iraq is inevitable. It would have softened last night's

    • Mom: Time for bed, Billy!
      Billy: Aw, c'mon, Mom. Five more minutes? Please?
      Mom: I know you're watching Fastlane up there. Now turn off the TV and go to bed.
      Billy: No, I'm not. I'm watching Spongebob!
      Mom: It doesn't matter, because you're turning it off. NOW.
      Ten minutes later...
      Mom: Billy, I told you to go to bed ten minutes ago.
      Billy: But Mom, I turned off Fastlane!
      Mom: I thought you weren't watching Fastlane. Now turn the TV off and got to bed, or I'm sending Daddy up there.

      Right. The sit

      • You can't just look at the Iraq situation completely by itself and ignore anything else that is going on.

        Like what? If you think there are links between the war and other issues that we are not presently aware of, won't you explain them to us?
        • I explained some of it in another comment.

          First off, at home, there is the economy. By focusing on Iraq, the economic situation is being left by the wayside. Not only that, but the spending for the war with Iraq will have a significant impact on the economy. Both the cost of fighting, and the cost of rebuilding a new Iraq if we succeed. And since we're not going with the UN, who knows what sort of outside aide we will have.

          Then there is the relations with Arab nations, and Islamic people. Even if the
          • By focusing on Iraq, the economic situation is being left by the wayside.

            The government is not composed of just one guy, you know. It's a big organization, capable of carrying out more than one policy focus at a time. Nothing is being left by the wayside, not the economy, not the war on terrorism, not the human cloning ban or the partial-birth abortion ban or the tax cut plan or any of the administration's other policy initiatives.

            Then there is the relations with Arab nations, and Islamic people.

            I agr
            • The government is not composed of just one guy, you know. It's a big organization, capable of carrying out more than one policy focus at a time.

              There is only so much money, that is why balancing the budget is such a big deal. If we put in hundreds of billions toward the war with Iraq and its aftermath, that is significant funding that is drawn away from all other major programs.

              I agree that relations with the peaceful peoples of the world are an important priority for our State Department. Relations wi

              • If we put in hundreds of billions toward the war with Iraq and its aftermath, that is significant funding that is drawn away from all other major programs.

                I don't believe it actually works that way. I won't pretend to be an expert on this-- when I can't sleep at night I don't count sheep; I imagine budget appropriations hearings instead-- but the money required to wage war in Iraq is coming from outside the normal budget. It's not appropriated money, so it doesn't have to come from anywhere. It's deficit
                • Okay, I'm going to reply to myself here to clarify something that I just posted. I screwed it up pretty good, so let me try again.

                  The Department of Defense gets a budget appropriation just like every other department at the start of the budget cycle. The government basically says, "Here, you get $X to spend on defense and, if you should need it, on war this year." There's contingency built in to that. If we should need additional money for the war, there will be a supplemental appropriation that, if necess
                • It's not appropriated money, so it doesn't have to come from anywhere. It's deficit spending, basically.

                  Yeah, and that just plain works fine. I forgot.

                  Base foreign policy decisions on avoiding and appeasing it? Also no.

                  Of course you don't want to appease terrorists, but basing foreign policy decisions on avoiding terrorism? That is certainly not a bad idea, especially if our Middle-Eastern policy is screwed up to begin with.

                  What I think is that I do not care why terrorists hate the US.

                  Well, if tho

                  • I'm saying, let's just take a whole new and fresh approach to that region.

                    Aha, now we're getting constructive. What would you suggest for this new and fresh approach?

                    The EU is split nearly in half on the Iraq-disarming issue.

                    Let's see, there are 15 member states, right? And you say that seven of them are opposed. Okay, that's half. Granted.

                    But let's look at the candidate countries: of the 13 candidate countries up for membership in the EU, ten of them are members of the Coalition, and Turkey is expec
                    • Aha, now we're getting constructive. What would you suggest for this new and fresh approach?

                      The main thing is that we shouldn't put Israel on a pedastal above the other countries in the region. We shouldn't sell arms to them, and we shouldn't take their side 90% of the time. This is just a little bit of what I think, and I imagine you will disagree. I'm sure Israel/Palestine could be another debate in and of itself so let's just leave that alone.

                      Let's see, there are 15 member states, right? And you s

                    • The main thing is that we shouldn't put Israel on a pedastal above the other countries in the region. We shouldn't sell arms to them, and we shouldn't take their side 90% of the time.

                      Well, first of all, I thought we were talking about Iraq. But if you want to talk about Israel instead, that's fine. Israel is our ally, and has been ever since its inception. By definition, when one of our allies is threatened or attacked, we take their side. Are you suggesting that we no longer consider ourselves to be an
                    • If it would not have changed our course of action, what difference does it make whether we give it greater or lesser consideration?

                      Each one of these things on its own is not enough to change the course, but all of these things together under consideration might, and when one is making a decision as to whether he supports the US's action, he ought to take everything under consideration.

                      I'm sorry; I didn't mean to imply that. Let me be more clear. There is a right choice; we know the real truth. That bett

                • Shouldn't we be looking at doing things differently to keep new generations of Arabs from turning to terrorism, instead of just confirming their reasons for hating us?

                  We are. We're demolishing oppressive, totalitarian regimes and replacing them with democracies that embrace the values of pluralism and liberty that will allow different, incompatible cultures to coexist.

                  LOL!!!! You're damn right! America is going in there to kick some totalitarian ass and saying to the Iraqi people, "YOU WILL BE A CAP

      • I never meant for it to represent the end-all, be-all of American foreign policy. I just think it's a good way of answering the question "Why now?" in a way that anyone who has ever raised, baby-sat, or otherwise cared for a child could understand. It has nothing to do with North Korea, Israel, Palestine, or the economy. Although it does have everything to do with Dubya clutching at the remaining straws of his post-9/11 popularity.

        If I wasn't clear on that point, I apologize. I was in one of my "flowery p

        • I know you were not taking those other major issues into account with the analogy, but I was trying to say that you can't decide on the action to take with Iraq without addressing these other issues. In my opinion, this attack on Iraq will strongly affect Israel/Palestine, the economy, terrorism, North Korea, US/Europe relations, etc. So, if you believe that, then there is no solution that only deals with Iraq.

          (And I'm not saying "everything affects everything, so they are all connected"-- I feel that th
  • I really have no clue if war is the right answer or simply the best of the worst. The only good solution is for Saddam to just leave, but that's not going to happen so something has to be done otherwise.

    That said, my brother is a Marine in intelligence at the tip of the spear in the coming war. And regaurdless of my views I wouldn't directly prevent him from doing what he feels is right, which in the case is to oust Saddam.

    Since it is inevitable that we will now go to war I just want it to get done and
    • Since it is inevitable that we will now go to war I just want it to get done and over with asap, and pray that Saddam doesn't add to his war crime charges in the process.

      Why? Get real: the man has nothing to lose. He knows he will either die or be tried and get life inprisonment (unless in Texas, where he'll get a lethal injection).
      Honestly, if I were an evil dictator and knew I'd go down in flames I'd do it in style and take as many innocent souls as possible with me. If I was Saddam and had weapon

  • Since I have written over fifty pages on this subject on slashdot and other public fora, I'll keep it (comparatively) brief.
    Anybody who feels like responding to this post on grounds of lack of specificity is directed to said fifty pages of existing posts. If you can't be bothered to read at least two of the extremely detailed, point by point, costed out, broad-ranging alternatives that I have repeatedly posted then I can't be bothered to respond to you.

    I have spent quite a lot of time in the past ten yea
  • I think we are doing what we need to do.

    France? should keep their cheeseholes shut...
  • ...is that the economy goes in the toilet with it. Just look at the value of the dollar vs. euro [yahoo.com] on a 1-year scale: anyone should get the idea. It will take years for the economy to recover, and all natious outside the US suffer too.

    And I don't believe that anyone will ever be able to reinstate a democracy in Iraq either. IMHO.

  • Being a long time member of the FK journal circle, I'd be remiss if I didn't throw my hat into the ring (which Twirlip may or may not be eating. Unfortunately for him, my hat(s) are motorcycle helmets.)

    Back in 1992, most people I spoke with wondered WTF we didn't bust a cap in Saddam's ass. Should we have done it then? Yes. Has anything changed WRT him that indicates we shouldn't do it now? No.

    Is Saddam/Iraq a 'clear and present' danger? No. Guys who pull strings and write checks seldom are. But there are
    • If the Palestinians would get jobs, they wouldn't have time for [terrorism and related activities]
      Well, since many, if not most Palistinians are living under as many as six or seven overlapping curfews (border sched.s, when they can be in the streets, etc.),
      the schools haven't been reliably open, let alone staffed or funded for years now,
      many towns have been subject to complete quarantine on no notice for as much as a year at a time,
      Palistinians are subject to frequent time-consuming search, followed by
  • It's gone on too long. Do it and be done. Then fix the economy, stupid.

    One of my best friends from high school is an F-16 pilot [slashdot.org], now stationed in Italy. I have no idea what he's doing, but I'm guessing he's not gonna be doing too much flying around Italy. He's good, I think he'll be fine. He's not on the ground.

    France, whatever. Went to EuroDisney when it was EuroDisney, not Disneyland Paris. Someone in the train station was trying to rip me off. Like the cheese, wine's overpriced. My favorite part abou

  • I think that, although Saddam may be a problem,
    • There are worse offenders in the world, and Saddam should not be our primary concern
    • Bush almost certainly has other motives in mind when attacking Iraq.
    • After the attack, conditions will not improve for Iraqis.
    • It is rather hypocritical to attack, against the wishes of the UN, to "punish" Saddam for not following the instructions of the UN.
    • It is really quite ironic that the banner ad here is for anti-war lapel pins.
    That is all.
  • in the end i think it's unavoidable. i just wish the US had used a little more tact in it's diplomacy with traditional allies. the world isn't like texas. but then, i also wish traditional allies had handled the US a little nicer.

    oh well. hopefully we'll sort it all out later.

    i would like all of the gross human rights violations to stop, including the ones in iraq.

Your fault -- core dumped

Working...