I guess this topic proves that humans agree to disagree. Argon, have you heard of a certain policy called appeasement? It involves giving a power-hungry nation small tracts of land, money, etc in exchange for the promise of peace. Hailed by pacefists as a giant step forward, it was the first policy used in dealing with Hitler and the Nazis. I think that says enough right there. War is not good. I konw that. However, it is a necessary evil in certain situations. Had Europe and the US not been so afraid of war in the 1930's, millions of lives could have been saved. That's right, lives SAVED. If military action had been used when the Nazis first began  invading their neighbors, WWII and the Holocost could easily have been prevented, again, SAVING LIVES. I'm not saying the US is perfect. It's not (policy's prior to WWII were moronic). However, we need to learn from our mistakes and realize that if we do not stop power hungry maniacs like Saddam and whoever the heck runs North Korea, their violence will come back to us. Leaving them alone will not solve the problem. As I said before, Al Quida attacked the US WITHOUT provokation. We were not invading a Muslim nation. We were not bombing the Taliban, but they attacked ANYWAY, and WILL CONTINUE to do so. We HAVE to defend our selves our we will be killed in our sleep.   ----------------------- "The point of war is not to die for your country, but to make the other &*@#$% die for his!"                                                  -General Patton FM/LCRW Chipmunk Man/Viper 1-4/Phoenix/mSSD Atrus/DEF/VEN/VE/(=A=)

Chipmunk: are you nuts?  There's no way that Saddam should have the land he does now, much less more.  However, if Britain and France had stepped in and said "Bad Hitler" when he annexed Austria, instead of waiting for him to invade France, the war would have gone a lot more smoothly and maybe not even happened at all, nowhere near the bloodbath it turned out as. My primary argument is not the protection of some countries, but the invasion of another.  Had we continued in the first Gulf war, that would have been justified, an insurance against that sort of attack never happening again.  However, we backed down, and, in doing so, gave up our right to call it a justified attack.  What we are doing now is nothing more than warmongering, we see an bug on the ground and we are preparing to bash its skull in.  That's not exactly justified anymore. If we wanted to stop terrorism, military force isn't the way to go.  We could almost instantly isolate the extremist forces from the moderates by sending in an entire division of troops and put them to work building roads and plumbing.  Heck, it worked for the Romans, and it's probably the best thing we could do right now. Instead, we pile more and more guns and go looking for someone to fight.  That's not going to pull the moderates to our side, it's more likely to push them to the extremists as the usual accidents occur near automatic weapons and explosives. /me pauses to listen to REM "Night Swimming" Oh yeah, Fury's argument.  No, Iraq is not a Muslim nation unless you mean the majority religion (as the US is called a Christian nation).  However, that large population is what people are worried about, no one cares if Saddam gets it, but they don't want thousands of innocents to get it too.  Anyways, I've always found referring to religious extremists funny if you consider what the religions are supposed to mean.  An example would be Osama bin Laden; Islam is supposed to mean peace.  Another example would be Jerry Falwell; Christianity is supposed to mean following the principles of Christ (i.e. love thy neighbor, thou shalt not kill).  It just never seems to match up for me.  Heck, on religious grounds, war should be illegal/immoral. Anyways, that's my $0.02($4.59 Canadian).  Enjoy  BTW, Chipmunk, people can always agree, I argued socialism with my ultra-capitalist friend for a few months and we eventually came up with a perfectly plausible system that would work for both sides.  You just have to be willing to go at it and work for the core values rather than just the little stuff 
 
-----------------------
Argon Viper
IW COL Argon Viper{ret}
Fallen Angel and Proud of It!
"History is on the move, those who cannot keep up will watch from a distance, and those who get in our way will not watch at all" - Grand Admiral Thrawn
"In combat, second place is only the last to die."- Anonymous
"Condemnation does not liberate, it oppresses" - Carl G Jung

Argon, you asked if I was nuts, then said the same thing I did. Saddam should not have his land, Hitler should have been delt with when he first starting taking over his neighbors. And when I said "muslim nation," I was not implying Iraq specifically. You are correct in saying we screwed up bad by pulling out early in the first Gulf War. We should have overrun them from border to border, gotten rid of Saddam, and ensured that situation didn't happen again. But we didn't, and doing nothing now will not solve the problem. I have yet to hear one viable solution other than war. The inspectors MIGHT work, but it will take a massive amount of them to do the job right. Building roads for them won't work, Saddam isn't interested in economical improvement. All he wants is to beef up his military. That's why we starves his people while spending all his cash on weapons. Plus, the Romans didn't build anything until AFTER they took control of a province. Basically, they offered the nice buildings with one hand while threatened war with the other; they didn't just give charity. As for religious reasons for not fighting, you do have a point, but from a certain perspective. In some interpretations, "thou shalt not kill" is taken literally, while in others it is taken as "thou shalt not MURDER." And remember that the Old Testement frequently has Israel at war with its neighbors, and God smiting his foes in battle. Even the Book of Revelations mentions a Rider, frequently interpretated as Jesus, leading the forces of Heaven in battle. Yes Bear, you Brits owe us Americans, we kicked your butts twice then saved 'em twice!  
 
-----------------------

"The point of war is not to die for your country, but to make the other &*@#$% die for his!"
                                                 -General Patton

FM/LCRW Chipmunk Man/Viper 1-4/Phoenix/mSSD Atrus/DEF/VEN/VE/(=A=)

I know Kjerri, and I apologize. I meant it as a half joke, but in hindsight it probably wasn't smart to post. The US wouldn't even be a country if not for France, and the English setteled the colonies in the first place.
 
-----------------------

"The point of war is not to die for your country, but to make the other &*@#$% die for his!"
                                                 -General Patton

FM/LCRW Chipmunk Man/Viper 1-4/Phoenix/mSSD Atrus/DEF/VEN/VE/(=A=)

Allow me to quote one of America's greatest politicians and patriots. See if you can figure out who this is/was before the quote is over. "Besides, sir, we have no election[choice].  If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest.  There is no retreat but in submission and slavery!  Our chains are forged!  Their clanging may be heard on the plains of Boston[Iraq]!  The war is inevitable-and let it come!  I repeat it, sir, let it come!  It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter.  Gentlemen may cry, "Peace, peace"-but there is no peace.  The war is actually begun!  The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms!  Our brethren are already in the field!  Why stand we here idle?  What is it that gentlemen wish?  What would they have?  Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?  Forbid it, Almighty God!  I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!" Thaaat's right sports fans, it's Patrick Henry, in his speech to the Virginia convention.
 
-----------------------

"The point of war is not to die for your country, but to make the other &*@#$% die for his!"
                                                 -General Patton

FM/LCRW Chipmunk Man/Viper 1-4/Phoenix/mSSD Atrus/DEF/VEN/VE/(=A=)

Well, I'll say this: that's definately an interesting point. But on the other hand, we need at least a tiny amount of patriotism or the people will become demoralized masses, won't vote or participate in any other way to help the country in any way, and then look what will happen. I think that when you said "patriotism" is bad, you meant that "nationalism" is bad. Nationalism is more militant, but you can be a patriot without supporting war. Unfortunately, they are too often mixed.
 
-----------------------

"The point of war is not to die for your country, but to make the other &*@#$% die for his!"
                                                 -General Patton

FM/LCRW Chipmunk Man/Viper 1-4/Phoenix/mSSD Atrus/DEF/VEN/VE/(=A=)

Unfortunately for the pro war side, no one has actually proven that Iraq actually has a nuclear weapons program anymore, and without that, he's as impotent as Bob Dole (Mr Viagra  ) *Cheap Shot*.  His conventional forces were blasted to several almighty and many limited dieties during the Gulf War and due to the sanctions on anything weapons related, he has yet to recover even halfway. Even his chemical and biological weapons stockpiles are dwindling, also having been destroyed in the Gulf War.  One point no one has brought up yet is the fact that most experts agree that, if all his stuff if vintage Gulf War, most of the chemical and biological stuff is decayed already, and if we are prepared to wait him out some more, all of it will decay quite quickly. I don't think he should hold power, and I don't agree with what he's doing with his power, but not only is it not our place to dictate the internal policy of another country, the cost of several thousand lives is not worth the gain of removing him from power since we have such a great track record on that  To prove that point, I'd like to point out what a great job of "uniting" Afghanistan we've done so far. 1) We've freed the individual warlords from Taliban control, allowing them to now fight more freely among themselves and against us. 2) We've put in place a democratic government that will be democratic as soon as we can figure out how to get voting machines past the Kabul city limits. Basically we went into a country that has no history of central government and attempted to set one up.  This will be the same thing in Iraq, even if the disjointed tribes manage to unite, the Kurds will never agree to it, and the Turks will never agree to letting the Kurds have their freedom. Now, from what I've seen, neither of Saddam's sons are really secretive, and Saddam recently celebrated the big six-five (I believe).  Why don't we knock them off and just settle down for him to die?  At that point, no successor will be able to keep the reigns on any sort of power, and if the people want a democratic government, they will seize it. Anyways, I'm just saying that, not only are we trying to force our idea of government on these people, I'm saying that it's entirely incompatible with their culture.  Left on their own, they will eventually mimic us and eventually join us, but not if we try to force them. Thanks for listening to this off topic ramble 
 
-----------------------
Argon Viper
IW COL Argon Viper{ret}
Fallen Angel and Proud of It!
"History is on the move, those who cannot keep up will watch from a distance, and those who get in our way will not watch at all" - Grand Admiral Thrawn
"In combat, second place is only the last to die."- Anonymous
"Condemnation does not liberate, it oppresses" - Carl G Jung

For the con side: We already know he has weapons which are in violation of the UN resolutions against him. But thats not the question.. the question is this: Do we allow a Swedish Doctor (Hans Blix, head of the UN weapons inspection team in Iraq) to go in and destroy them, or do we just attack and let Saddam Hussein wipe tens of thousands of American soldiers off the face of the earth? For a start, let me say this: The US isn't facing up to their responsibilities. It is their job, as the worlds only superpower, to press the UN to do more in Iraq. And are they? No. There should not be 300 weapons inspectors in there. There should be 1000, at least. 3000 would be better. Add to that several hundred millitary advisors and 2 bodyguards per inspector (6000 in total), and we're getting somewhere. In all, there should be at least 10,000 UN staff in Iraq. Instead, theres 300, and 500 in Kuwait running away. Isn't it about time America faced up to their responsiblities? Really, in a country the size of Texas, what can 300 people do in A WEEK?!  168 hours.. divide by two for sleeping.. 84 hours. Are you really saying that 300 people have 84 hours to disarm a world power..? 10,000 people could destroy weapons around the clock. They could work with world airforces to spy on every square inch of that country. If an Iraqi picked his nose, the UN would know about it. Instead, the US makes tiny concessions, allowing tiny numbers of inspectors to go in, with pathetic amounts of intelligence (if you can even call it that). If you want to be a world Superpower, you have to start acting like one. 10,000 Inspectors could disarm Iraq in a week. Two weeks at the very most. A war will result in thousands of dead Americans. And, if any of you want to have children in the near future, forget about it. This war will take away so much from health, education and social security that your child will stand twice as much chance of being unhealthy, illiterate and desperately poor. Just think about it.
 
-----------------------
           Captain Aaron "Bear" Le'pue, NCC Adjutant & VE Today Chief Editor
                                                        ~~~
       NCC:A/CAP Aaron "Bear" Le'pue/Raptor/Offensive Fleet/mSSD Atrus/VEN/VE
(=A=) (=SA=) (=MA=) (=FOCE=) (=JCPA=) (=SCPA=) [BRC] [BRC] [LSM] [LoC] [NDM]
                                                        ~~~
                                      Bear : [email protected]
                             Vast Empire Today : [email protected]

Hmmm...  I'm not exactly sure how I feel about war.  On the one hand, we'll be destroying what infrastructure Iraq has left and killing thousands more in the process, but on the other hand, Saddam is a ruthless dictator who has shown no respect for the sovereignty of the countries around him. However, that has nothing to do with what I think of this war.  The United States has been acknowledged as the only superpower left in the world since Britain, France, and Germany gave up the title after WWII and Russia gave it up when it quit the USSR.  As the only remaining superpower, it faces not just extraordinare responsibility in its actions, but in how it does them, anything it does and how it does them will set a precedent many countries will be only too happy to follow. For example, if we attack Iraq for flouting UN resolutions, we could spark a whole string of wars declared for the exact same reasoning.  If we attack Iraq for economic reasons (oil), then we've just justified their invasion of Kuwait (which happened for the same reasons) and justified (among other things) the Northern Sudanese slaughter of their Southern countrymen for resisting their dominace over the oilfields located there. The most frightening reason we could go to war would be "national security".  If we used such a vague term as an excuse to launch an attack on a sovereign nation, no amount of diplomacy would be able to curb the outbreak of violence that would follow as thousands of militant nations launched attacks on neighbors that might eventually attack them. I'm going to follow Kjerris' advice and not use any more old quotes, so I found a new one.  I heard it on NPR last night, so bear with me: "Let me get this straight; We are going to war with Iraq, Because peace is the best thing for the world. We are going to protect democracy, By ignoring the democracy of the UN security council. We are gathering over 300,000 troops in the Middle East, To show a ruthless dictator that might doesn't make right. We are going to bypass the UN, To show the world that the UN cannot be bypassed. Do I have that right?" I have no real problems with going to war with Iraq (other than the fact that I'm a pacifist, but I won't force that on others), what I have  a problem with is that we are going to war with Iraq for all the wrong reasons, reasons which will make the whole world unsafe to live in, and which will destroy all that leaders have fought for fifty years to create. As to them having WMD, if we attacked every nation with WMD, we'd end up attacking Israel, North Korea, Japan, South Korea, India, Pakistan, France, Germany, Italy, Great Britain, Russia, etc., etc., and even ourselves.  The fact that we are not letting peace work is the worst part, Bear's right about the inspections, they are infinitely preferable to war. BTW, Chipmunk, he only approved of the plan because he knew Saddam wouldn't do it and it would make him look like a good guy.  Politicians are like that, don't take anything they say at face value 
 
-----------------------
Argon Viper
IW COL Argon Viper{ret}
Fallen Angel and Proud of It!
"History is on the move, those who cannot keep up will watch from a distance, and those who get in our way will not watch at all" - Grand Admiral Thrawn
"In combat, second place is only the last to die."- Anonymous
"Condemnation does not liberate, it oppresses" - Carl G Jung