Well said Justin. It's nice to hear someone talking calmly and clearly about what is becoming a very grave situation. I am British so I won't comment on the Bush situation; that is a matter for the American people to sort out.

Like you I have an earnest belief that a more intelligent and less destructive solution can be found to the present dilemma.
My main problem in supporting any sort of attack on Iraq is this. I am led to believe that the initial attack on Baghdad will be in the region of 300/400 missiles in a day using Shock and Awe tactics.

~
“Shock and Awe”

30th Jan 2003 - CBS news reported last weekend that the invasion will begin with war planes and ships launching between 300 and 400 cruise missiles on day one. This is more than the number of missiles launched during the whole of “Desert Storm” in 1991. Another 300 to 400 missiles will follow on the second day.

At an average rate of one weapon every four minutes around the clock, missiles will relentlessly rain down on Baghdad and knock out water supplies, electricity services, communications, government buildings, roads, bridges and other essential infrastructure.

To prepare for the bombardment, the Air Force has stockpiled 6,000 satellite guidance kits in the Persian Gulf to convert so-called “dumb bombs” into satellite-guided bombs. In the first Gulf War, the Pentagon’s “smart bombs” were responsible for widespread atrocities. Tens of thousands of Iraqis, civilians as well as soldiers, were slaughtered during the brief 1991 war.

This time, Pentagon officials have declared, the saturation bombing will exceed anything previously seen in history. “The sheer size of this has never been seen before, never been contemplated before,” a Pentagon official told CBS. “There will not be a safe place in Baghdad.”

~

If they intend knocking out the water and electricity supplies we can expect famine and death on a huge scale. I was initially under the inpression that they wouldn't target civilians but would concentrate on the supposed chemical and WMD factories that they have so much detail on. When you think that one cruise missile would bring down the WTC then 400 seems like a holocaust. The shock and awe tactics are used to obtain a non-nuclear result equivalent to that at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

If we are sincere in wishing to liberate the people of Iraq how do we justify such a large scale attack? Saddam will no doubt callously place women and children in the line of fire to emphasize the barbarity of the allied attacks which will only serve to underline the resistance to the bombing.

If they do manage to oust Saddam I also have grave reservations about their ability to install an alternative leader without provoking a civil war, but that's for another time.

I'm sorry you are ill Justin. Get well soon.

~Kevin

Kevin said, "If we are sincere in wishing to liberate the people of Iraq how do we justify such a large scale attack? Saddam will no doubt callously place women and children in the line of fire to emphasize the barbarity of the allied attacks which will only serve to underline the resistance to the bombing."

You're probably right, but deciding not to bomb to appease good ole Uncle Saddam isn't acceptable to me either. We've catered to Saddam's stall tactics, we'ver tried the economic sanctions, and diplomacy has failed in a rather grandiose way. So, what's left?

Certainly outright war is always an option and perhaps one that is chosen all too often. But, what else is there? There's a part of me that just wants to morph from self-proclaimed world citizen to mind-numbed isolationist American who extracts comfort, sadness, and hope from watching the latest sensation around Michael Jackson. In addition to gaining satisfaction that I am now well informed from watching the latest installment of his current life event, I can consider the benefits of climbing trees for fun and relaxation. In so doing, I can simply let the rest of the world fend for itself for a change; they don't seem to really appreciate "us" anyway. But, I'm not sure that is the answer either. In fact, I know that it isn't.

So, that does lead us back to military force. It seems to work, even if the change is only cosmetic. And that is something even Michael Jackson would agree has some merit.

MarkPaul -- but why? What's the reason?

His stall tactics have led to ... what? The status quo, where he isn't threatening anyone, isn't invading other countries, and is isolated from geopolitical affairs? How is that a bad thing?

War and Jacko's plastic surgery have one thing in common: both completely unecessary.

Bombing Iraq because we just don't like Saddam, or because he's such a bad guy he just must be tight with Osama, makes about as much sense as MJ implanting a silicon tube in his nose.

And consequently, could Bush's bloodlust for war in Iraq be viewed internationally with similar horror as we look at Jacko's face?

Mark Paul, you mentioned that "deciding not to bomb to appease good ole Uncle Saddam isn't acceptable to me either. "

Appeasement, according to the OED, was "freely used in political contexts in the 20th century, and since 1938 often used disparagingly with allusion to the attempts at conciliation by concession made by Mr. Neville Chamberlain, the British Prime Minister, before the outbreak of war with Germany in 1939; by extension, any such policy of pacification by concession to an enemy."

The tricky issue is whether there is proof that we are conceding something to Saddam, and by extention appeasing him. Partial proof will come when Saddam tries to start making weapons again or if he tries to throw out the inspectors. Full proof will come if he tries to attack somebody.

Obviously, the UN will not concede him that. Until that happens, as long as you don't support the doctrine of
"attack the countries labeled as 'enemies' when the timing's right," and destroy their culture and civilians, there is no issue of appeasement, and therefore you are left only with unprovoked aggression.

Mark Paul, you mentioned that "deciding not to bomb to appease good ole Uncle Saddam isn't acceptable to me either. "

Appeasement, according to the OED, was "freely used in political contexts in the 20th century, and since 1938 often used disparagingly with allusion to the attempts at conciliation by concession made by Mr. Neville Chamberlain, the British Prime Minister, before the outbreak of war with Germany in 1939; by extension, any such policy of pacification by concession to an enemy."

The tricky issue is whether there is proof that we are conceding something to Saddam, and by extention appeasing him. Partial proof will come when Saddam tries to start making weapons again or if he tries to throw out the inspectors. As long as he doesn't try to put the weapons that are unaccounted for to use, continuing inspections to find those weapons would certainly be much cheaper and safer than the war and its aftermath. If there's no way Saddam can use weapons, then he is neutralized, not appeased, for now, and we can concentrate on Al Qaeda. Time passes, and he dies.

Without appeasement, you are left with the doctrine of "attack countries labeled as 'enemies' when the timing's right." This is simply unprovoked aggression and sets a very dangerous precedent for the 21st century.

I apologize. please disregard the first comment.

Chris posted, "His stall tactics have led to ... what? The status quo, where he isn't threatening anyone, isn't invading other countries, and is isolated from geopolitical affairs? How is that a bad thing?"

Bejamin offered, "Without appeasement, you are left with the doctrine of "attack countries labeled as 'enemies' when the timing's right." This is simply unprovoked aggression and sets a very dangerous precedent for the 21st century."

I'm not really trying to defend the position for war. It confounds me that it is even a consideration in the 21st century. However, I believe that we are not yet able to escape our own human condition and so I do believe war is as necessary to us as air and the next celebrity scandal just waiting to be told.

Chris, I think Saddam is threatening us. He just hasn't taken action on his threats in a very obvious way yet. At what point do we say enough is enough. I think there is something to be said for taking preventative measures. And, I do realize the implications of taking those measures. For what it's worth though, it truly bothers me.

Benjamin, I'll be the first to admit I have not fully collected all the facts. But, at some point we must globally hold each other accountable to a standard set of sensibilities. Does the USA have the right to impose its sensibilities on the rest of the world? Does the free world have the right to impose its will on the non-free world? Should one cultural mindset be allowed to dominate another one? True, we all want to imagine a world where all the people can just be free to their own nature. But, the world quite simply is not constructed that way. It just isn't.

Believe it or not, I'm an idealist that resents authority based rules and regulations. But, for some reason, I'm not entirely convinced we should just let Sadaam be. I don't know for sure, but I get the sense he's not quite as harmless as we might find it convenient to believe. I don't want a war; I don't want to go to war; I don't want to see others acting in a war-like way. As for getting caught up in the patriotic rhetoric, I've always taken Robert Heinlein's view as my own that blind faith in anything - including religion or government - is nothing more than intellectual laziness. But, I'm not so sure Sadaam deserves the benefit of the doubt. I'm not so sure "our" motive to stop Sadaam in his tracks, no matter how contaminated the purity of that motive turns out to be, is really so twisted after all.

Thanks, Justin. Breaching the topic for the first time is always difficult. The first time I made any public statement about the war to someone who I didn't know would agree with me, I honestly feared they'd sock me in the mouth, or at least point and call me un-american. Cheers to you for venturing your opinion. Not that you need to harp on it, but it does matter.

suggestion:
stay away from heavy topics such as this. the topics are just a bit more than you can handle.
trust me, stick to games.
big words dont seem to be yr strong suit.
peace.

Here's how it's going to go down.

Here's how it's going to go down.

sorry for glitchy double post.

ok dokie

I like your website.

Great! I like to come.