Reading null's journal

The US Gov't has already made up *their* mind. Notice how I said their mind and not the mind of the American people.

Frank has a point here. The US administration and its executive forces is acting as an autonomous entity here. Unless they're upsetting a major part of their voting public a campaign rally won't revert them later (I'm talking about Vietnam-like proportions), they are free to do whatever pleases them.

It's all within US law, so impeachment is out of question. The only justified allegation you can make is that their president might be a crook (I wouldn't feel good doing that looking at our record at this over here) and, much more important, that they are ignoring international conventions if they invade Iraq without a mandate.

This would set a horrible precedence.

'Yeah, That's what Jesus would do. Jesus would bomb Afghanistan. Yeah.' - snowlion

I think most of the US presidents have found the after-effects of war the hard way, be it Roosewelt or Sr. Bush. And, sadly, I feel that Jr. Bush is going the same way. People know how wars affect economies in general. World War 2 was different in many ways, but any other wars after that have crippled the economy, always. The recession of 1991 after the Gulf War is the most recent example, and many people have not forgotten that.

The kind of unpredicatability that Iraq War is going to bring, and the more the casualties it is going to cause, the more American public will swing against it. The demonstrations and protests are the only way to let the Government know that they are not doing the right thing, and it is not what the public wants. Unfortunately, it looks like that people are going to act on this, only once the war starts, and the casualties start building up!

Love is blind, but marriage is a real eye opener.

Let me first clarify that I don't want war. I don't want deaths, and I don't want killing of any kind.

We see Saddam as a potential threat holding nukes. Can you really blame us? Suppose we ignored the threats that Saddam Hussein is holding nukes. Do we really think he won't use them? Is it worth taking the chance? No nation should have the power to possess nukes if they are willing to use them.

If you don't think Saddam is willing to use nukes, I think you are seriously giving him too much credit. Null himself said the following:

Honestly, if I had a nuke I'd give it to Bin Laden at once if he only promised to drop it over Washington DC. (Apologies to anybody living there, I would of course warn you beforehand.) I so can't stand that hypocritical, lying, moronic crypto-fascistic government any longer! How can such damn mafiosi be given the power to decide over the lives of millions of people?

Null, I dont' mean to pick on you inparticular. I'm making a point. Hussein would use nukes if he had them. If we think we are above resorting to nukes, null has proved us all wrong. In my personal opinion, Null is no different than you or I, so why should leaders be given faith to be more mature in that fashion?

So now we have one of two options. Put complete faith in the inspectors to find weapons of mass destruction and risk a nuclear winter and quite possibly the extinction of the entire human race, or strike now and and save the masses. US doesn't look good doing this, I know, but this isn't the sort of thing we can just stand by and wait to happen. I'm not justifying the killings of any innocent civilians you realize. I hope you realize that while invading could be bad, the worst possible scenario could be infinitely worse.

In my opinion, if invading Iraq meant saving many lives, so be it. Optimally, nobody would die, and this would be resolved without deaths. Those of you so certain this war is about the economy, I can see why you are upset. Try to see it another way though. I don't want bloodshed just like you. I hope you'll all agree that the use of nuclear weapons is catastrophic, and that this should be avoided at all costs.

If the world should blow itself up,the last audible voice would be an expert saying it can't be done

This post was edited by Hawkeye on Jan 24, 2003.

I will just ask one question (which we have discussed earlier too). What makes you 'believe' that Saddam has nukes?

If you know that he has nukes, you should have provided your evidence to the UN or to the inspectors, and they would have found them by now. You can not hide a nuclear weapon! The fact of the matter is that he doesn't have any nukes at all. No nuclear activity has been reported in any of the areas the inspectors have gone till now. Yes, he may have checmical and biological weapons (as those were gifted by the US to Iraq during the Iraq-Iran war). And, there is no account for tons of it. But, again, do you think Iraq kept track of all the weapons that it used against Iran in the 8 years of the war that it had with that country? Come on, be realistic. Everyone knows that Saddam doesn't have any nukes.

This is just politics, and don't let your leaders fool you with another set of lies. A pre-emptive war, with absolutely no evidence is simply ridiculous. And, if the inspectors want some more months to do their jobs, you can not stop them from finding the evidence (of course, you know, that there isn't any). Please, please open your eyes to the reality! This is not a war of Saddam posing a grave danger to the whole mankind. This is exactly the opposite!

Love is blind, but marriage is a real eye opener.

Well basically I agree with what RCD says. Shrub and his lackeys keep claiming that they have proof that Saddam has nukes, yet they refuse to share their 'evidence' (if there really is any) with the rest of the world. They try to justify the whole war with that 'evidence'. If Saddam claimed to have proof that Shrub is lying and waging war only for financial interests, would you approve of a 'preemtive strike' against the US to protect the innocent Iraqi people?
The problem for me is that I wouldn't trust Shrub and his lackeys to tell me what time it is, let alone blindly believe them that their damn war is justified! And (you might remember the NAO thread on that topic) I can't accept the argument that they keep it secret to protect their people. If Shrub is about to kill tens of thousands of innocent people (and this is what it's gonna be like!) I can't show consideration for one or two CIA or whatever guys. Let's see how Shrub's guys like it when their own people's life is at risk!

I understand that some people may be concerned about the stories that Saddam is gonna drop his nukes over the US. But frankly, until Shrub shows me the oh-so praised evidence he's babbling about, I wouldn't believe a single word of what he says!
And, between the two of us, it wouldn't be the first time that an US government brings misery and chaos to an innocent country out of their own questionable interests. Please don't let this happen again!

Consider yourself hugged.

This post was edited by null on Jan 24, 2003.

No evidence is necessary. I know this seems crazy, but hear me out.

If you are in your car and nobody is on the road, do you hit the acceleration pedal and speed down the road? No, you wouldn't (probably). Why not? There are no signs of cars, much less policemen. What consequence could there be? The answer you will always give yourself is that "The moment you speed, you will zoom past a hidden cop and get ticketed, or even worse, you will crash into a car pulling out of the driveway." You are cautious, not because there is a policeman behind you, but because there could be unforseen consequences that could be much more devastating.

Sure, we could ignore Iraq and hope Saddam doesn't have nukes. Why don't we do this? Maybe not because the evidence points to it, but because if we did anything otherwise, the consequences would be unthinkable.

Why is it so inconceivable to see how a small group of inspectors couldn't inspect every building on Iraqi territory big enough to hold nuclear warheads? It really isn't so far fetched. If we are wrong, we aren't talking about a slap on the wrist.

Suppose Saddam announces to the world he has well over 90 nukes planted in major cities in major countries all over the world. Then, Saddam marches in with his army to say Germany, and nobody can stop him. Why? Because if we tried anything, he'd blow up a city. Seriously, how could we stop a threat like that? Perhaps the best answer to that is to stop the threat before it happens.

The U.N. inspectors were instructed to verify the claims made by Iraq in the 12k page paper. Among which of what we were expecting to find was a detailed-description of the disarming and obliteration of all its chemical, biological, and yes nuclear weapons of mass destruction from after the Gulf War. Surprisingly enough, this wasn't mentioned at all in the 12k paper. When brought up, it was discussed by Iraqi ambassadors as if they had never existed, but we have documentation that they did from previous inspections! Maybe this isn't proof that they have weapons of mass destruction, but the big question everybody should be asking is "what did you do with those weapons?" I like to think that US is doing this to find an answer to that question. I fail to see how this question isn't important enough to have answered.

If the world should blow itself up,the last audible voice would be an expert saying it can't be done

This post was edited by Hawkeye on Jan 25, 2003.

Hawkeye, its so amazing, no, frightning!, how fiece your perception of reality is blurred! I can only hope you belong to the exception to the rule regarding the general public opinion over there. OTOH, it may well be we are sentenced to see right into the eyes of the product of modern US ~~brainwashing~~ education, if so, not only Saddam has a problem. Really scary!

Ever thought of it that its people like you, just about your age (btw, why are you not in Quatar or on some flattop at the moment? Oh, yes, maybe you're a lil too young yet!) who are gonna die in a foreign country only to be shipped back home in a black plastic bag if at all? Of course their families and loved ones will be proud of it and its an honor to die for your believes! Appears to me as if I heard that from some other weird guys before......mmmh.

After decades of construction my website is finally up an running: www.kkds.de

This post was edited by Martin on Jan 25, 2003.

Well, for me it all boils down to one question: Does the fear, the unconfirmed, unproven possibility of a threat justify a 'preemptive strike' which will kill tens of thousands of innocent (yes, innocent!) people, and bring misery to millions?
Currently the US are a far bigger threat to Iraq than Saddam could ever be to the US. From Saddam's point of view, your argumentation would give him the right to wipe the whole US off the planet in a 'preemptive strike'.
Do you think this would be the right thing to do? Try to see it as an uninvolved observer, not as an US citizen.

On a side note, driving slow doesn't kill people, even if it's a 'preemptive measure'.

Consider yourself hugged.

This post was edited by null on Jan 25, 2003.

I don't know if you're aware of this (I didn't find the time to skim all the threads for it), but the bombing on Iraq in fact never stopped since 1991.
More details can be found here.

I also reccommend you to read The Culture of Fear by Barry Glassner. Excerpts can be found here and here.

On a side note for Jaz: Inserting hyperlinks still doesn't seem to work...

That makes me a sa-a-a-a-a-ad Panda...