Don't Start the Second Gulf War

National Review Online ^ | 8-12-02 | Doug Bandow

[Protagoras]

"For instance, that Saddam Hussein is an evil man who has brutalized his own people. "

Your comment;
This is a straw man argument. It is not why we're going to war. The reason the author brings it up is because it is so easy to knock down.

Are you saying that the administration has not used this as a reason? I think you need to watch more carefully. They have used it numerous times, it is easily discovered, they have used it all the time.

It may be easy to knock down, but it is not a strawman. I suggest you look that term up. It has to do with attributing postions to people which they do not hold. That is incorrect in this case.

[VRWC_minion]

Can I assume you advocate pre-emptive strikes against all regimes in the world who fit the same criteria?

Absolutely. Count me in. To stand by and ignore someone who continually threatens your death and contintually works at accomplishing it is idiotic.

Can you imagine having a neighbor who has repeatedly told you he wanted you and your family dead and was in the process of building a bomb big enough to accomplish it. He has already paid people to attack you. You are telling me the proper course of action is to wait until after he completes the bomb, moves it to your basement and lights the fuse before responding ? Not a rational response. But thats just my opinion.

[Poohbah]

My thoughtful consideration:

[Focault's Pendulum]

I have not taken a final postion on the question myself.

I'm not usually given to one word answers, but here goes....Chamberlain.

[rintense]

Well you have a wonderful way of twisting words, don't you? I trust what they say in public. Why? Because I have faith in the President and his administration. Looks like you need to give more credit to the administration. Or perhaps you don't trust the gov't in general. If this is the case, I seriously doubt any evidence presented will be to your liking.

As far as speculation, did you hear Blair's dossier? Did you read it? Is that not enough- let alone the numerous reports from UN Inspectors saying they were not given unfettered access in Iraq? Hell, even Scott Ritter (before he took the money from the Iraqi gov't) admitted he didn't have compete access. Oh, and let's not forget that even Koffe Anan admitted in July of this year that Iraq is in violation of the resolutions.

Now me, I could give a flying F___ what the UN thinks or does. But if Iraq and Saddam were completely innocent and had no intent of developing WMDs, then why refuse inspectors???? It defies logic because it is simply illogical.

You asked for honest replies. I've given you mine. Sorry if you don't agree with it. Didn't expect you to.

[RedBloodedAmerican]

Except for the innocent ones that got killed

Could you please cite a source? I have not seen anything along those lines, in fact the contrary where families who lost loved ones in the fight for freedom were accepting of the sacrifice. They were not cowards, or willing to live in fear.

where do you live?

[Protagoras]

Please limit yourself to addressing the article and avoid attacking people who are of your own invention. Thank you for keeping the debate on a high level. I appreciate it.

[RedBloodedAmerican]

It is always important to raise questions about policy when it has far reaching consequences. It is the essence of the informed consent of the governed to the governors

Translation: We hate and don't trust George Bush, and we love the terrorists.

[rintense]

Well you were the one who wanted to ask the Afghanis if they prefered death over the Taliban. Since many have said living under Taliban was like being dead anyway, you have your answer. Adieu, adieu, parting is such sweet sorrow...

[ohioman]

"Nuke the sand nazis back to the stone age, wait they never left the stone age, well nuke them anyway."

It is a simple as you state. Why do so many dumb asses fail to see that. Well, even if we don't Nuke 'em Glowing, merely killing our enemies the conventional way will work for me. I wish we had more men like General George S. Patton.

[Whilom]

Would Baghdad turn atomic weapons over to al Qaeda or similarly motivated terrorists? Not likely.

Very reassuring. Okay, guys, fold up the tents and let's go home.

[stuartcr]

I have neither the time, nor the desire to do any research for your question, but do you truly believe that no innocent people were killed in the Gulf war, or in Afghanistan? If you do, fine, I don't.

[rintense]

I trusted in the need for 'honesty debate' replies. What a fool I was.

[ohioman]

No Thom. This is how most Americans feel. I know it may feel foreign to you, but most real Americans wanna kick the crap out of her enemies and get this thing over with. The more we dither, the more Americans die.

[gop4me]

I know OBL didn't have them. But, you said that Saddam might get them and he would then use them. I'm saying he has no chance whatsoever of obtaining ICBM's. Lets face it, he is not a threat to us. If he truely is, then you know our government would be showing us the proof. Do you think they would take all the abuse they have taken from the Dems if they actually had proof? If they had the "smoking guy" you had better believe we would be seeing it.

[rintense]

Yeah, 'not likely' seems like such a compelling argument, someone should forward this to the Bush Administration.

[RedBloodedAmerican]

Agreed. Republican Congressmen on the News today stated they trust George Bush, and that this is not a War the media is painting, and that the gullible are believing (the lies and spin of the media). It is as Bush laid out in his speech to members of the House and Senate the week following 9-11.

These people are anti-war, and anti-Bush (and likely anti-Govt and authority), that's all.

[Huck]

The rest of us will continue to debate this important decision until we make up our minds on whether we support this particular course of action or not.

For what it's worth, I held the article in higher regard than you, but then, my mind isn't already made up.

It's not as if I stopped thinking about the subject. I have been listening to the Senate testimony on the radio these last few days. I am paying attention. I just didn't see anything new or even very deep from this article. Mostly worn out cliches that don't make much sense to me.

[Huck]

Better to light a candle than curse the darkness

I agree with you.

[RedBloodedAmerican]

Can I assume you advocate pre-emptive strikes against all regimes in the world who fit the same criteria?

IS that it? "Don't bomb Saddam, because that means bombing others like him"?

What is your Nationality? Thanks.