There is certainly no way to know for certain, but in your heart of hearts, what do you feel is the percentage of honourable intention involved in the upcoming war with Iraq?

Originally posted by bookhead There is certainly no way to know for certain, but in your heart of hearts, what do you feel is the percentage of honourable intention involved in the upcoming war with Iraq?

I'm not sure. Since they can't really tell anyone WHERE the weapons are that they are going to war over, I wonder what they are going to do in this war? They can't really destroy his overall capabilities because it sounds like he doesn't have many to begin with. Are they just going to blow everything up and hope they get the weapons?

60%
(because there's a chance they may have this info but will not divulge it to the public)

http://www.bayarea.com/images/realc...24258825250.gif

Look at the bottom-left-hand side of this graphic.

The US government has pretty weak support for the Iraq war as it is. How many of the war supporters are basing it on the belief that Iraqis were directly responsible for 9/11?

Can you clarify? Do you mean honourable intentions by bush, the US in general, the united nations, the rest of the world? or just absolute honourableness. I have refrained from voting because i would say that there is some honourable intentions to this war despite bush. Even bush himself might have some honourable intentions in this war (the crusade against the axis of evil - which he probably believes in, in his heart) but that the bottom line for the US government to get involved is that it's all about oil and money....there are lots of evil dictators out there treating their citizens very badly but nobody cares unless there's money involed. You need only look so far as Afganistan, the terrible human rights injustices of the taliban had been going on for years and years and it was no secret to the rest of the world (i remember getting an email forward about it in 97) but everybody looked the other way and nobody cared until some wackos fly planes into the world trade center....

Another thing to add, this topic made me think of an article that i read (interestingly enough on snopes.com - so addictive that site, but i digress) by John le Carré entitled The United States of America has gone mad . Here's an excerpt:

To be a member of the team you must also believe in Absolute Good and Absolute Evil, and Bush, with a lot of help from his friends, family and God, is there to tell us which is which. What Bush won't tell us is the truth about why we're going to war. What is at stake is not an Axis of Evil -- but oil, money and people's lives. Saddam's misfortune is to sit on the second biggest oilfield in the world. Bush wants it, and who helps him get it will receive a piece of the cake. And who doesn't, won't. If Saddam didn't have the oil, he could torture his citizens to his heart's content. Other leaders do it every day - think Saudi Arabia, think Pakistan, think Turkey, think Syria, think Egypt. Baghdad represents no clear and present danger to its neighbours, and none to the US or Britain. Saddam's weapons of mass destruction, if he's still got them, will be peanuts by comparison with the stuff Israel or America could hurl at him at five minutes' notice. What is at stake is not an imminent military or terrorist threat, but the economic imperative of US growth. What is at stake is America's need to demonstrate its military power to all of us - to Europe and Russia and China, and poor mad little North Korea, as well as the Middle East; to show who rules America at home, and who is to be ruled by America abroad.

The whole article is here (go to rumours of war and then the click on the name John le Carre in the top point):

The United States Has Gone Mad

I have also seen articles saying that the war might even be partially televised by allowing journalists to mingle with front-line soldiers. The Pentagon excuse for allowing it is to counteract any anti-US propaganda that might come out during the war. They will apparently be free to report on anything they want, with no military censure.

The is worrying for a number of reasons:

- intrinsically

- "counteract any anti-US propaganda". It could never do this. You can't show everything that goes on in the war, you'd just be showing the stuff you want people to see. This is worrying because of what they might be trying to cover up.

- you know that if it's really worth reporting, it probably will not get to the mainstream media

- as with the argument against courtroom cameras, how differently will these soldiers behave when they know they're being taped? Will they act crazy or out of character to keep the camera on them?

- journalists are already in boot camp preparing for the war. The fact that these agreements have already been struck makes you wonder if it's a case of WHEN war will happen and not IF, if you didn't already see it that way to begin with

- ..and probably many more

The US has already bought 100,000 body bags

Some highly-relevant propoganda posters:

http://homepage.mac.com/leperous/PhotoAlbum1.html

(use the slideshow link for easier viewing)

Originally posted by GoldfishLegs Some highly-relevant propoganda posters: http://homepage.mac.com/leperous/PhotoAlbum1.html (use the slideshow link for easier viewing)

Very subversive - I thought you were a non-combatant?

OK, I have to interject here. I think Bush is a powerhungry freak! Honestly, the US has the ability to send someone in and QUIETLY take out Saddam. When Saddam is out of the picture, odds are pretty good that the whole Iraqi government would be in such an uproar that the US should be able to walk in and take over! But this whole war is being played out in the media. Nothing like sending out a flare and saying HEY READY OR NOT, HERE WE COME! Come on! It's not like they can't get CNN in Iraq! I don't think there's an honorable thing about this whole thing! YES I know that there's chemical weaponry, etc. BUt again, I go back to my first point. Kill SAddam and take over when the country is in confusion! There would be a lot less bloodshed!

( K, I'm done now. I just have a very close friend whose husband, who has been in the US Army for 18 years, has been activated. He's never had to leave the country before. Now he's leaving in 2 weeks for 1.5 yrs.)

Originally posted by angelface OK, I have to interject here. I think Bush is a powerhungry freak! Honestly, the US has the ability to send someone in and QUIETLY take out Saddam.

Do they?

You seem to think that the Iraqi guard don't also know this. I guess it wouldn't matter..? America can just go wherever they want and take what they want because they are invisible and can walk through walls. That's how they captured Osama Bin Laden.

Originally posted by angelface BUt again, I go back to my first point. Kill SAddam and take over when the country is in confusion! There would be a lot less bloodshed!

Personally, I would find that a lot less honourable! If someone is killed during a war, or deposed as a result of one it is one thing, but what you are proposing is unsanctioned murder. If this was acceptable any country could just murder any leader any time that policies didn't agree with their goals.
Assassination is morally repugnant and illegal all over the world.
Just getting rid of Saddam would also not be likely to have the result you envision. There is a whole military structure in place and someone in his hard-line faction would just step in and take his place.

OK, Agreed to both of you. But would you really prefer to see the whole country blown off of the map? Kill anyone who happens to be standing under a bomb? Personally, I'd rather see them at least try to 'walk through walls' and see what can be done. I'd like to see SOME kind of semi peaceable action! Dewcat, I agree. murder sucks. But how is it LESS murder when there is a beautiful 6 year old and her mother and their whole family and the neighbours and they all get blown away!? To me, killing ONE man or even a dozen is somehow a more acceptable risk. Just my personal opinion, I'm not asking you to agree with me.

Originally posted by angelface To me, killing ONE man or even a dozen is somehow a more acceptable risk. Just my personal opinion, I'm not asking you to agree with me.

Of course it is, but what if that's not possible?

I'm not really in support of this war, only because I don't think they have made it clear what they are hoping to accomplish. If they could say where the weapons they wanted to destroy were, that might help. How do you go to war when you don't know what you're hoping to accomplish? (I don't really think they are this stupid, but it'd be nice if there was a hint of what they wanted to get done).

When you try to link Saddam to Bin Laden as a reason for going to war, I think it suggests that you're struggling (maybe if I was Bin Laden, I might do the same just to expedite the removal of Saddam and use the US to do it

Flattening Iraq won't really put it at much less of an advantage than it is at now, if they don't oust Saddam (they couldn't find him during the Gulf War).

Good thread. However the first lesson in Political Science is Politics is WAR. I believe it was stated in the movie JFK that the "main principle in a governing society is its war capabilites".
War is big business, why if Bush is so concerned with weapons of mass distruction when the US own most of them? One may suggest that Canadians are at risk when according to CSIS there are 350 terrorists in 50 different groups operating in the GTA-Niagara area.
On the news last night Saddam is proposing a TV debate with George W. Bush. The propoganda for the media is interesting to say the least. Imagine no one on the TV would ever lie to the public.