A liberal's argument for war.....

sarettah · 03-16-2003

http://www.deanesmay.com/archives/000769.html

February 08, 2003

UK and Iraqi News

It's been floating around from various sources that Tony Blair's report on Iraq was in part plagiarized from an academic paper. Anti-war activists have seized on this as proof of perfidy. What they don't much point out, however, is that there's no disputing any of the evidence in the report, nor that it wasn't the only source, nor that nothing in it contradicts the evidence that Colin Powell laid out last week.

I was also surprised by this extraordinarily combative interview with Tony Blair. Clearly, he's putting up with a lot, and is holding up with extraordinary grace and courage. One has to wonder what will happen to all that resistance he's facing if the security council sees the handwriting on the wall and approves military action.

What continues to astound me is how few pundits point out the incredible cruelty of the anti-war position. It assumes that Iraqis are incapable of living under real democracy, even though that's already been disproven in northern Iraq. It also virtually requires that we continue the no-fly zones forever, and that we also continue the terrible economic sanctions to prevent Saddam from getting too powerful. Those sanctions hurt everyone in Iraq.

Those who talk about how expensive this will be don't talk about how expensive it is to maintain those no-fly zones, and to keep Iraqi oil off the market. They don't talk about how, if they were free to sell their oil (i.e. if we lifted the sanctions), they could largely pay fo their own reconstruction.

It is in America's best interests to see a free Iraq. It is also in the interests of the Iraqi people. I increasingly fail to see how anyone can argue that it is anything but the height of cruelty to continue this charade of no-fly zones and economic sanctions while leaving that monster free to oppress the rest of the country. I can understand people who are afraid of war, but I can't understand--anymore--people who won't acknowledge that leaving Saddam in power is a horrifically heartless thing to do.

Speaking of which, thanks to Lynn S., I jut came across this astonishing blog maintained by a resident of Baghdad. He fears war, mistrusts America, and ever so clearly deserves better than the monster that today stands on his neck.

We need to prove to people like this that the ideals of freedom are the birthright of all people, and that Americans can, have, and will help spread that freedom. They deserve no less

Torone · 03-17-2003

"Let there be Light, Halleluja!" Saretta, your stock is on the upswing!

Trev · 03-17-2003

I see day after day the growing pressure on Tony Blair over Iraq, due mainly to the fact that the country is divided into

1) Without the UN we can't back the US
2) Back the US with or without the UN (had to edit because I got the

I'm a fool I know)
3) NO WAR!!!

I fall into the 2 category and believe it is our duty to follow our ally into a war to liberate a nation from an evil madman. Unfortunately the 1 & 3 categories have a large following as well. I only hope Blair doesn't crumble under the pressure and maintains his direction.

*edit* don't catagorize in a, b, c or you'll look foolish

Last edited by Trev at Mar 17 2003, 02:36 PM

Mike AI · 03-17-2003

sarettah congradulations for getting it!

I would think liberals would want the removal or Saddam more then anyone else. He is a dictator, who loves to torture and kill people, not only his own.

It was the liberals who were eager to get into WWI against Hitler... the Conservatives at the time, wanted to stay out of war.....

JR · 03-17-2003

Quote:

Originally posted by Trev@Mar 17 2003, 06:34 AM
I see day after day the growing pressure on Tony Blair over Iraq, due mainly to the fact that the country is divided into

1) Without the UN we can't back the US
2) Back the US with or without the UN (had to edit because I got the I'm a fool I know)
3) NO WAR!!!

I fall into the 2 category and believe it is our duty to follow our ally into a war to liberate a nation from an evil madman. Unfortunately the 1 & 3 categories have a large following as well. I only hope Blair doesn't crumble under the pressure and maintains his direction.

*edit* don't catagorize in a, b, c or you'll look foolish

i have a tremendous amount of respect for Tony Blair.

he laid it all out on the line for something he believed in. he did it and continues to do it knowing that it most likely means the end of his political career. he has had some tough choices to make and he has stuck to his guns even as pressure continued to build and it became increasingly clear that he is far in the minority not only with Britain but with France and Germany and other EU countries and even within his own political party.

Trev · 03-17-2003

Quote:

Originally posted by JR@Mar 17 2003, 04:56 PM
it became increasingly clear that he is far in the minority not only with Britain but with France and Germany and other EU countries and even within his own political party.

This is true, but the most surprising thing to come of all this is that the Conservative party who are Labor's opposition are backing Blair, yet there are talks of Labor MP's resigning if we go in without the UN... go figure...

gigi · 03-17-2003

Excellent article Sarettah. An eye opener.

I think that the trouble alot of people are having with this war is that Bush is/was trying to have it fall under the guise of the 'War on Terrorism'. That article mentions nothing of this.....

I think that was Bush's biggest mistake. He should have called it like it was...a call to Saddam to disarm because he is a moron, not because of any link to terrorism.

Saddam certainly is a madman and needs to be removed....I think we would be hard pressed to find someone from either camp (pro-war, anti-war) who wouldn't agree. However, as was stated many times even by people here at Oprano, the link between Al Quada and/or terrorism and Iraq is weak.

I think the Bush admin. felt that using the post 9/11 anti-terrorism momentum to their advantage when promoting a war against Iraq would be beneficial. IMHO, they would have been better off leaving that alone and gunning for the real reasons....

Ah well.....hind sight is 20/20.

Ironhorse · 03-17-2003

Let's just hope that in this case, the end will justify the means..

The problem with the Saddam-Osama connection is that there is none but it does not mean there will not be in the future, the only trouble is convincing an audience (even after watching Minority Report) that the future threat is real and it needs to be dealt with in the present..

Last edited by Ironhorse at Mar 17 2003, 11:23 AM

Torone · 03-18-2003

If you don't believe the Saddam-Osama connection...
You probably never heard of Salman Pak, which means...
You must get all of your information from TV (likely CNN)

Almighty Colin · 03-18-2003

Quote:

Originally posted by Torone@Mar 18 2003, 07:21 AM
If you don't believe the Saddam-Osama connection...
You probably never heard of Salman Pak, which means...
You must get all of your information from TV (likely CNN)

How does that demonstrate a Saddam/Osama connection?

The official US position is that it is unlikely that the terrorist training at Salman Pak
was related to 9-11 activities. You don't believe them? No one that I know of has demonstrated a connection to al Qaeda.

Torone · 03-18-2003

Unfortunately, there are those who will never be convinced...

"There is none so blind as he who WILL not see..."

PornoDoggy · 03-18-2003

Colin, aren't you glad he cleared that up for you?

Last edited by PornoDoggy at Mar 18 2003, 08:56 AM

Mike AI · 03-18-2003

There is no doubt there are strong connections between Iraq and terrorists, INCLUDING Al Quada. Now is the connections as strong as other countries, like Afganistan, or Saudi Arabia - nope.... but it is still there.

Since the first Gulf War, Saddam has been looking for revenge on the US, including by using terrorism.....

The guy is an all around bad-guy, an equal opportunity scumbag...

Almighty Colin · 03-18-2003

Mike, Torone,

How can we know for certain that there are connections between al Qaeda and Iraq? What evidence is there to that effect? Osama doesn't seem to be Saddam-friendly at all, more like a lesser of two evils.

I was watching the British House of Commons earlier today and Blair said that he BELIEVED that there was a connection between al-Qaeda and Iraq but that the evidence was pretty scant at best.
I have no idea if al-Qaeda is connected to Iraq. There doesn't seem to be much EVIDENCE though connecting the two. Certainly there is no evidence connecting Iraq and 9-11.

Trev · 03-18-2003

Quote:

Certainly there is no evidence connecting Iraq and 9-11.

What about the Boeing 747 fuselage bought by Saddam and used to train the terrorists...

Almighty Colin · 03-18-2003

Quote:

Originally posted by Trev@Mar 18 2003, 11:00 AM

Quote:

Certainly there is no evidence connecting Iraq and 9-11.

What about the Boeing 747 fuselage bought by Saddam and used to train the terrorists...

Terrorists have been hijacking plans for decades. It used to be their Modus Operandi. al-Qaeda doesn't have a monopoly on airline hijackings.

Neither of the two Iraqi defectors that knew about thetraining camp said that there a connection to 9-11 or al Qaeda. They mentioned Saddam’s Fedayeen Fighters and that the training camp was used by Al- Mukhabarat Intelligence Service. No mention of Al Qaeda.

Seems like a hell of a leap to not believe either the official US position OR the word of the Iraqi defectors.

wig · 03-18-2003

I can't say that I have seen any real "smoking gun" evidence to tie the two together, but common sense says the possibility is there.

This article highlights some of the possibilities and connections... http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110003213

I think we have to be careful that Nations such as Iraq don't advance their own agenda of killing Americans by providing WMD's to terrorists. After all, it is not the terrorists that we have to worry about creating WMD's.

There may be no smoking gun, but I would say the odds are in them collaborating against us.

Almighty Colin · 03-18-2003

Wig,

I agree with everything you just said.

JR · 03-18-2003

for me personally, Colin Powells speech was a dissapointment. I think the whole US case has been a dissapointment. Not so much the case against Saddam but the way they went about it. they tried to take too much evidence and stretch it too thin... and included too much flimsy and circumstantial evidence with the hope of building a broader case against him. 12 years of defiance, 16 failed resolutions, Saddams past record of deciet and a refusal to account for weapons known to be in their possession should have been enough. as it was... i had to try to dig up the information on weapons, past inspections and resolutions just to know what the hell it meant when Bush kept saying "Saddam must dissarm"

I think that Blair has totally burried the US adminstration in terms of making a more convincing argument.

the British government in general kicks ass. i love watching the House of Commons. thats a tough crowd... more heckling than a comedy club and and more rambunctious than a high school assembly on a Friday afternoon.

it takes little talent to stand before Congress and read a speech written by the nations best political speech writers. it takes tremendous talent however for Blair to stand in the House of Commons and fight his way through an open Q&A session every few days where everyone is trying to verbally beat your ass on live TV.

Trev · 03-18-2003

Quote:

it takes tremendous talent however for Blair to stand in the House of Commons and fight his way through an open Q&A session every few days where everyone is trying to verbally beat your ass on live TV

Yeah we demand that extra mile out of our MP's

03-16-2003	#1
sarettah Stay Out Of The Box Want to see your own Advertising Here! Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Lost in the ozone Posts: 10,318	http://www.deanesmay.com/archives/000769.html February 08, 2003 UK and Iraqi News It's been floating around from various sources that Tony Blair's report on Iraq was in part plagiarized from an academic paper. Anti-war activists have seized on this as proof of perfidy. What they don't much point out, however, is that there's no disputing any of the evidence in the report, nor that it wasn't the only source, nor that nothing in it contradicts the evidence that Colin Powell laid out last week. I was also surprised by this extraordinarily combative interview with Tony Blair. Clearly, he's putting up with a lot, and is holding up with extraordinary grace and courage. One has to wonder what will happen to all that resistance he's facing if the security council sees the handwriting on the wall and approves military action. What continues to astound me is how few pundits point out the incredible cruelty of the anti-war position. It assumes that Iraqis are incapable of living under real democracy, even though that's already been disproven in northern Iraq. It also virtually requires that we continue the no-fly zones forever, and that we also continue the terrible economic sanctions to prevent Saddam from getting too powerful. Those sanctions hurt everyone in Iraq. Those who talk about how expensive this will be don't talk about how expensive it is to maintain those no-fly zones, and to keep Iraqi oil off the market. They don't talk about how, if they were free to sell their oil (i.e. if we lifted the sanctions), they could largely pay fo their own reconstruction. It is in America's best interests to see a free Iraq. It is also in the interests of the Iraqi people. I increasingly fail to see how anyone can argue that it is anything but the height of cruelty to continue this charade of no-fly zones and economic sanctions while leaving that monster free to oppress the rest of the country. I can understand people who are afraid of war, but I can't understand--anymore--people who won't acknowledge that leaving Saddam in power is a horrifically heartless thing to do. Speaking of which, thanks to Lynn S., I jut came across this astonishing blog maintained by a resident of Baghdad. He fears war, mistrusts America, and ever so clearly deserves better than the monster that today stands on his neck. We need to prove to people like this that the ideals of freedom are the birthright of all people, and that Americans can, have, and will help spread that freedom. They deserve no less __________________ Free Adult Webcams

03-17-2003	#2
Torone Members Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Houston, TX Posts: 1,137	"Let there be Light, Halleluja!" Saretta, your stock is on the upswing! __________________ Why me? Why always me?

03-17-2003	#3
Trev Cunty Want to see your own Advertising Here! Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 10,150	I see day after day the growing pressure on Tony Blair over Iraq, due mainly to the fact that the country is divided into 1) Without the UN we can't back the US 2) Back the US with or without the UN (had to edit because I got the I'm a fool I know) 3) NO WAR!!! I fall into the 2 category and believe it is our duty to follow our ally into a war to liberate a nation from an evil madman. Unfortunately the 1 & 3 categories have a large following as well. I only hope Blair doesn't crumble under the pressure and maintains his direction. edit don't catagorize in a, b, c or you'll look foolish Last edited by Trev at Mar 17 2003, 02:36 PM __________________ Sucks to be you.

03-17-2003	#4
Mike AI Administrator Want to see your own Advertising Here! Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 11,618	sarettah congradulations for getting it! I would think liberals would want the removal or Saddam more then anyone else. He is a dictator, who loves to torture and kill people, not only his own. It was the liberals who were eager to get into WWI against Hitler... the Conservatives at the time, wanted to stay out of war..... __________________ Make big money on your Domains! Why wait 40 days to get paid with the other guys? Parked.com pays the most for your traffic, and cuts checks twice a month!

03-17-2003	#7
gigi on prozac - be gentle Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Canada, eh! Posts: 1,069	Excellent article Sarettah. An eye opener. I think that the trouble alot of people are having with this war is that Bush is/was trying to have it fall under the guise of the 'War on Terrorism'. That article mentions nothing of this..... I think that was Bush's biggest mistake. He should have called it like it was...a call to Saddam to disarm because he is a moron, not because of any link to terrorism. Saddam certainly is a madman and needs to be removed....I think we would be hard pressed to find someone from either camp (pro-war, anti-war) who wouldn't agree. However, as was stated many times even by people here at Oprano, the link between Al Quada and/or terrorism and Iraq is weak. I think the Bush admin. felt that using the post 9/11 anti-terrorism momentum to their advantage when promoting a war against Iraq would be beneficial. IMHO, they would have been better off leaving that alone and gunning for the real reasons.... Ah well.....hind sight is 20/20. __________________ A bit of fragrance always clings to the hand that gives the rose mail me

03-17-2003	#8
Ironhorse Members Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Chicago Posts: 282	Let's just hope that in this case, the end will justify the means.. The problem with the Saddam-Osama connection is that there is none but it does not mean there will not be in the future, the only trouble is convincing an audience (even after watching Minority Report) that the future threat is real and it needs to be dealt with in the present.. Last edited by Ironhorse at Mar 17 2003, 11:23 AM __________________ Tib ICQ: 790728

03-18-2003	#9
Torone Members Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Houston, TX Posts: 1,137	If you don't believe the Saddam-Osama connection... You probably never heard of Salman Pak, which means... You must get all of your information from TV (likely CNN) __________________ Why me? Why always me?

03-18-2003	#12
PornoDoggy Cramming 3 people in a Room to Attend Show Want to see your own Advertising Here! Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Amid the Cornfields of Illinois Posts: 5,366	Colin, aren't you glad he cleared that up for you? Last edited by PornoDoggy at Mar 18 2003, 08:56 AM __________________ SEX STORY TEXT Exotic Material for Adult Websites Available for part time (project or ongoing) work ...

03-18-2003	#14
Almighty Colin Members Want to see your own Advertising Here! Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 8,059	Mike, Torone, How can we know for certain that there are connections between al Qaeda and Iraq? What evidence is there to that effect? Osama doesn't seem to be Saddam-friendly at all, more like a lesser of two evils. I was watching the British House of Commons earlier today and Blair said that he BELIEVED that there was a connection between al-Qaeda and Iraq but that the evidence was pretty scant at best. I have no idea if al-Qaeda is connected to Iraq. There doesn't seem to be much EVIDENCE though connecting the two. Certainly there is no evidence connecting Iraq and 9-11. __________________ Almighty Content. Your one stop for live content. Secret Friends, LATINA Secret Friends , My Cam Friends

03-18-2003	#17
wig Members Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 1,248	I can't say that I have seen any real "smoking gun" evidence to tie the two together, but common sense says the possibility is there. This article highlights some of the possibilities and connections... http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110003213 I think we have to be careful that Nations such as Iraq don't advance their own agenda of killing Americans by providing WMD's to terrorists. After all, it is not the terrorists that we have to worry about creating WMD's. There may be no smoking gun, but I would say the odds are in them collaborating against us.

03-18-2003	#19
JR Members The global leader in pay-per-view AEBN Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: in my chair Posts: 3,320	for me personally, Colin Powells speech was a dissapointment. I think the whole US case has been a dissapointment. Not so much the case against Saddam but the way they went about it. they tried to take too much evidence and stretch it too thin... and included too much flimsy and circumstantial evidence with the hope of building a broader case against him. 12 years of defiance, 16 failed resolutions, Saddams past record of deciet and a refusal to account for weapons known to be in their possession should have been enough. as it was... i had to try to dig up the information on weapons, past inspections and resolutions just to know what the hell it meant when Bush kept saying "Saddam must dissarm" I think that Blair has totally burried the US adminstration in terms of making a more convincing argument. the British government in general kicks ass. i love watching the House of Commons. thats a tough crowd... more heckling than a comedy club and and more rambunctious than a high school assembly on a Friday afternoon. it takes little talent to stand before Congress and read a speech written by the nations best political speech writers. it takes tremendous talent however for Blair to stand in the House of Commons and fight his way through an open Q&A session every few days where everyone is trying to verbally beat your ass on live TV. __________________