quote:

---

Originally posted by yam:
Even if it's technically in the uh, mission statement of this thread, maybe stuff not about fears should go in a new thread?

---

I don't think we should censor all debates from this thread, but I hope everybody will play REAL nice. Normally, I can withstand heated discussions pretty well, and appreciate them, but these days I feel too much fear and sadness to be really rational.

Most of the time, I hesitate before opening this thread because I'm not sure if it won't make me down for several hours afterwards.

Then again, I value the possibility of being able to hear diverging opinions (especially yours, Epi. It's important for me to hear intelligent and well-formulated opinions that are different from mine, since most of the "pro-war" or "less-anti-war" opinions I hear elsewhere are mindless propaganda... So even though you often make me mad, I'm glad you're there to force me to reevaluate my ideas. Ok, I'm not very clear here, but I hope you get the idea)

quote:

---

Originally posted by Epicurus:
Vietnam was never technically a war. It was a "police action." For a while, the VFW (Veterans of Foreign Wars) wouldn't allow Vietnam vets to join because of the semantic difference. I'm not sure about Korea.

---

Korea was considered a police action while it was happening, though I have no idea if or when that was revoked. What an absurd title.

Hi guys! I've been avoiding this thread like mad, primarily because I didn't want to think about my own fear until something had happened. Now that it has, I can't really avoid it for too much.

Things about this war that make me feel afraid:

* the actual or implied hatred and scorn of the rest of the world, including some of the things that have been said on these boards about Americans. I've never felt hunted before. Maybe that's a very dramatic way to phrase it, but that's the way it feels.

* the phrase that has stuck with me since the first attack last week-- Saddam saying that the wives and daughters of the men who wage war against him will "bleed from the eyes."

* the thought that civilians are being killed

* the thought that soldiers are being killed

* the awful destruction of such beautiful and ancient lands and structures

For some reason this situation has opened the door in my mind to think about the hideous suffering that people endure all over the globe, where normally I can keep the door shut so as not to go crazy thinking about so much suffering and how little I can personally do about it. So that's another one, though it's not really a fear, it's more a horror.

* the idea of bringing a child into this world within the next year or two: is it a dumb one?

quote:

---

Originally posted by emmalou:
* the idea of bringing a child into this world within the next year or two: is it a dumb one?

---

It's not a dumb idea at all, Emmalou. I think in the next few decades the world is going to need the help of children raised by parents like you and our other Digsmoms. Parents who will raise their children to be strong, compassionate, intelligent, and free-thinking.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Epicurus:
Just for clarification, Becca, are you suggesting that no one mention the legal status of the war at all? I will immediately agree not to claim it is a legal war as long as no one else claims it is an illegal war. But if it is ok for people to state their feelings that this is an illegal war, then it should be just as ok for me to state my feelings that it is not an illegal war.

Please don't think I am being disrespectful--but I really do want to establish the parameters of discussion. My understanding was that this thread was open to the discussion of all points regarding the war, and we have never to my knowledge closed down a respectful debate simply because no one had a degree on the subject matter.

Regarding expertise, I will gladly acknowledge that I am no more versant in international law than the average well-read citizen of the world who knows how to get on Google and find the text of the Hague Conference on the Law of War or the several Geneva Conventions. I would suggest that the overwhelming majority of Digsters are intelligent enough to discuss the topic even though we all know that none of us are justices of the ICJ.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by kena:
So even though you often make me mad, I'm glad you're there to force me to reevaluate my ideas.

---

Kena's glad I'm here? I think an angel somewhere just sounded its trumpet

In all seriousness, however, I appreciate that you took the time to write that. The feeling--in its entirety--is mutual.

I know I must sound like an opinionated blowhard a lot of the time (and that's because I am), but I try to make sure I can back up my opinions and that I present them respectfully. If I ever fail to present them in respectful fashion I fully expect to be reprimanded; if I ever have my facts wrong I fully expect to be corrected.

quote:

---

Originally posted by becca11:
coming from an untrained lawyer your arguments will have very little weight compared to those of a person with decades of international law experience.

---

I don't think there is anyone on this board who can claim that particular credential. By setting that standard, are you saying that none of us should be discussing the legality of the war at all?

If you are, I would tend to disagree with that view. None of us--or very few of us--have graduate degrees in Political Science, but we talk about politics all the time. Politic Science is a pretty complicated field that encompasses the work of scholars going back several thousands of years. We discuss matters of law, theology, and health constantly. All of those are fields where you could make the argument that opinions hold no weight if they don't come from PhDs or MDs or JDs or Maitre-Ds or Whatever-Ds. Yet we discuss them. Just because no one here serves on the Hague Tribunal I don't think we should shut down what could be a very valuable and interesting discussion.

No, I'm not an expert. But I read the points made by both sides and then I did enough independent research to make an informed decision about where I stand at this time. All of us could do the same. That we have not studied it for decades does not mean we should not form and discuss our own opinions. If we waited for experts to tell us what to think we would never think anything at all--because they all have different opinions themselves. "Experts" have spoken out both in favor of the legality and against the illegality of this conflict, so as far as I am concerned it is up to us as individual world citizens to figure out what we believe and why we believe it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by becca11:
So, if you would like to discuss the legality topic maybe a seperate thread would be a good idea.

---

Again, I respectfully disagree. General opinion so far seems to be that this thread is open to discuss all aspects of the war, so I don't believe that starting another thread just for this aspect would be helpful. If no one else wants to discuss legality, the topic will die within this thread. I myself, though, will not keep harping on it unless others strike the chord first.

Edited to add:

OK, I think I see a point where one of my previous posts may be causing part of this hang up. It has to do with my sentence structure, I think. I put my interjection in the wrong place and I should have expressed more clearly that I was voicing an opinion when it comes to international law.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Epicurus:
I feel it necessary to point out that it is, in fact, a legal one and the US does have international support.

---

I have changed it to read:
"I feel it necessary to point out that I believe this is a technically legal war and the US does, in fact, have international support."

Better? Less forceful? Clear enough that I don't consider my opinion to be law but that I have very good reasons for holding it?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Epicurus:
What I'm afraid of now is that our administration is going to turn Iraq into a Disney World for Big Corporations. Halliburton (Dick Cheney's former employer) is already licking its chops hoping for the big government contracts.

---

It's already starting:
Halliburton subsidiary wins Iraqi oil firefighting contract

WASHINGTON (AFP) - The US army said it gave the main Iraqi oilwell firefighting contract to a unit of Halliburton Co., a firm once run by Vice President Dick Cheney, without any bidding. (emphasis mine)

quote:

---

Originally posted by Epicurus:
I don't think there is anyone on this board who can claim that particular credential. By setting that standard, are you saying that none of us should be discussing the legality of the war at all?

If you are, I would tend to disagree with that view. None of us--or very few of us--have graduate degrees in Political Science, but we talk about politics all the time. Politic Science is a pretty complicated field that encompasses the work of scholars going back several thousands of years. We discuss matters of law, theology, and health constantly. All of those are fields where you could make the argument that opinions hold no weight if they don't come from PhDs or MDs or JDs or Maitre-Ds or Whatever-Ds. Yet we discuss them. Just because no one here serves on the Hague Tribunal I don't think we should shut down what could be a very valuable and interesting discussion.

---

Yeah, I'd have to agree. Credentials have never stopped us from discussing a topic before. I'd hate for any topic to be censored just for that reason or because it's uncomfortable.

Edited for really bad sentence structure.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Princessjeanne:
it irks the hell out of me that the current administration seems to be auctioning off contracts regarding the assets of a country they don't control.

---

Me too. I really think the rebuilding should be an international effort--but once again dumbass political rhetoric has gotten in the way. Chirac has hamstrung himself on that front by blustering and blowing when it has already been proven that the US Administration DOESN'T CARE WHAT FRANCE THINKS!!! If Chirac had politely offered to help rebuild Iraq, it might have been a little easier for him.

On top of that, one of the French economic ministers berated French companies who are trying to strike deals with US corporations to win subcontractor positions. Gee, French businesses are looking out for their own best interest despite the government's exhortation to be strong, be French. It looks ridiculous to me that the French government would get upset that French companies are trying to make money. "Hey, Chirac has spoken--who are you look for profit? If he wants to piss off America and ruin any chances you have of getting in on the pork-fest you should just accept that!"

Edited to correct my facts. It was not a French economic minister, it was Gilles Munier, an executive board member of the "French-Iraq Association for Economic Cooperation".

I also believe that if the Bush Administration is pro-war for economic reasons, the Chirac Administration is anti-war for economic reasons.

According to the Associate Press:
"French telecom equipment maker Alcatel clinched a US$75 million contract to upgrade Baghdad's phone network, and French car maker Renault sold another US$75 million worth of tractors and farming vehicles to Iraq. French oil giant TotalFinaElf probably has the biggest stake in postwar Iraq. It spent six years in the 1990s doing preparatory work on two giant oil fields and has signed two tentative agreements with Saddam to develop them."

Then there are the military transactions.

Chirac and his French business buddies are just terrified that they're going to lose all those billions that Saddam owed them.

Additionally, the Russians are probably just thrilled that US forces found and destroyed the Russian-made GPS jammers "someone" sold illegally to Iraq. I'm sure Putin is happy that the obviously stolen equipment has now been accounted for. Now if we could just figure out where the shiny new Iraqi Kalashnikov assault rifles came from.

Sometimes I get so frustrated when certain anti-war elements claim that the US is motivated solely by a desire for an economic foothold in Iraq when it seems to me that countries like France and Russia just want to protect their own. What does Moscow care if Saddam kills his own people as long as he pays his bills on time and keeps buying those AK-47s? What does Paris care if Saddam has women raped while their husbands watch as long as TotalFinaElf gets to help him build his oil wells?

Fair play to Jordan, I say. Jordan has stopped purchasing Iraqi oil even though they had a UN exception allowing them to purchase it and were getting 50% of it for free from Saddam.

As I've said before, I wanted to see this action to go through the UN--but I wish for once politicians on both sides would drop the B.S. and admit their real reasons. Just once.

Bush: "I want to toast that towel-wearing bastard because he tried to off my daddy, and I know that starting a war will divert the attention of 70% of Americans away from the fact that our economy sucks butt right now. On top of that, when we go in there and rebuild Iraq, our economy will take off like a Tijuana Bottle Rocket because of all the contracts we'll be dishing out. Yeeeehaaaaaw!!!"

Blair: "Well, I am with the US because I'm terrified of the EU, don't want their lousy currency, and do more trade with the US than I do with anyone else. That and I, like most Brits, still don't trust a body where the French and the Germans run most of the show. It really pissed us off that we had to ask for an EU dispensation to sell Cadbury as "real" chocolate."

Chirac: "Nooooooo!!!! You're going to ruin the sweetest Middle East plum I've got! Saddam and I have been buddies for more than 25 years and he owes me tons of cash! That, and I want to prove that France matters on the world stage!"

Schroeder: "We're Germans, we're not allowed to support war--remember? That and we make some pretty good cash selling gyroscopes and high-tech gadgets to the Elite Republican Guards. That, and Saddam loves a good Benz sedan for his many public parades. Oh yeah, and I want to prove that Germany matters on the world stage!"

Putin: "Oh crap, we've been selling them stuff for YEARS despite the sanctions--we're hosed now. And I wouldn't mind proving that we matter on the world stage."

Xiang Jemin: "Bloody hell. How would it look if we supported a war to oust a murdering dictator when we do the same thing to our own citizens? Quick--burn the files on Falun Gong!"

Just once.

Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world, indeed it's the only thing that ever has.
-Margaret Mead (U.S. anthropologist)

(They were the closing words of this morning's service at the Montreal Unitarian Church)

Qualcomm have hopped on the wagon, and are now lobbying hard for a CDMA mobile phone network to be established in post-war Iraq, rather than the GSM that is prevalent in the rest of the world, because every single phone call made on a CDMA network generates a royalty payment for Qualcomm. It doesn't matter that Iraqis might prefer the GSM that is standard across the middle east - that's no use to Qualcomm. There's an article about it in the Tech & Business section of Salon.com. Qualcomm will win - they did in South Korea, because the US government threatened trade sanctions if Seoul went with a GSM network.

The longer it goes on the more likely (I feel) that terrorists will bomb us.

I keep getting upset with the emphasis on war games. It seems so direspectful to everyone involved, people whose lives are on the line.

Epi I can't think of anytime we actually discussed theology, more peoples personal experiences with religion. And I guess the broader answer is religion and political science don't have definite answers (well, not ones we'll know in our life time ) whereas law and science do (in the case of law, it's the opinion of the governing body). And I'm not prepared to keep on discussing it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by becca11:
Epi I can't think of anytime we actually discussed theology, more peoples personal experiences with religion.

---

In my recent memory we discussed aspects of Judeo-Christian theology as well as Muslim theology in the "Theology 101" thread. We also briefly touched on modern Catholic philosophy in the "Newly Religious Friend" thread.

quote:

---

Originally posted by becca11:
definite answers ...(in the case of law, it's the opinion of the governing body).

---

Is that opinion a "definite" answer, or is it just an opinion? "Ruling bodies" reverse themselves all the time. The US Supreme Court does it, the ICJ can do it, and even the Vatican has done it. There are no definite answers in law, either. Law is a constantly changing entity, and even laws that seem to be clearly defined are always open to interpretation or dismissal based on intent, current social values, and a host of other factors.

quote:

---

Originally posted by becca11:
And I'm not prepared to keep on discussing it.

---

With all due respect, then why did you bring it up again and address me specifically? I hadn't said anything about it in an entire week.

quote:

---

Originally posted by becca11:
The broader issue for me is - does international law matter?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Epicurus:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=1503&e=16&u=/afp/iraq_war_canada_w iesel

Nobel peace laureate Elie Wiesel says Iraq war justified

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by breana:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=1503&e=16&u=/afp/iraq_war_canada_w iesel

Nobel peace laureate Elie Wiesel says Iraq war justified

Don't be misleading, that's not what he said at all.
The fifth paragraph says he does NOT justify the war and is not comfortable with it. He simply understands the necessity of disarming Iraq.

---

First of all, *I'm* not being misleading--the words I posted beneath the URL are the headline on the article.

Second of all, the fifth paragraph says that he does not justify "war"--not that he does not justify "the war". The sixth paragraph is a direct quote and he says he believes the war in Iraq is necessary.

The Romanian-born Wiesel, who became a US citizen in 1963, said he did "not justify" war and was "not comfortable" with it, but that he was not a pacifist and believed in the "right to interference".

He added: "You can accuse me of being naive, but I think in all conscience that this war was necessary."

In light of the sixth paragraph--I don't think the headline is misleading.

Jimmy Carter, Jimmy Carter? My humble opinion is that Jimmy Carter has no place speaking about how we should handle Iran or Iraq seeing as he played such a large part in allowing the situation to arise. In 1979 he told the Shah of Iran and his military commanders to surrender to the Ayatollah Khomeini. The Shah was forced to flee and Khomeini executed the military commanders--who had laid down their arms at Carter's behest. Khomeini's rabid Anti-Americanism and hard-line bastardization of Islam led not only to the hostage crisis but the war with Iraq. Who was the US going to support in that war, seeing as Iran was being run by an once-exiled fanatic who wanted to kill all American's and Iraq was being run by a secular leader who had yet to show how unstable he actually was? Thank you, Mr. Carter.

Additionally, shall I even guess at the amount of money the Carter Center receives from Arab interests? Three of the founders of the center are King Fahd of Saudi Arabia, Agha Hasan Abedi of the fraudulent BCCI, and the CFR's Senior Fellow for the Middle East Hasib J. Sabbagh. Is it worth mentioning that Carter wrote speeches for Yassir Arafat even as homicide bombers were blowing people up in Israel? Jimmy Carter, oh, Jimmy Carter. Hardly a neutral, unbiased statesman. Not that such a thing exists anywhere--but I just get frustrated when I see him held up in the media as some sort of paragon of statesmanship. They have awfully short memories.

But you're right, Yam. Both sides have pretty powerful names backing them up. I was pretty intrigued that Wiesel chose to voice his opinion, and that his opinion supported the invasion of Iraq.

(A link to an article about BCCI: http://www.observer.co.uk/business/story/0,6903,877668,00.html)

This is exactly the type of fuel that other countries use to justify their hate of the United States. We claim to be so fair.... so just.... so diplomatic. This whole scandel makes us look anything but.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jumpinmonkies:

This is exactly the type of fuel that other countries use to justify their hate of the United States. We claim to be so fair.... so just.... so diplomatic.

---

Exactly - something like this comes to light and then when a large scale attack happens people tend to look baffled and then whine "why does this happen to us?". Well - THIS is why things happen to us. I know we cannot be all things to all countries. No one is entirely just and perfect and good. But situations like this - are probably tip of the iceberg - and are enraging. Of course the other side is enraged - they should be enraged. We all should be.
Last night they were showing footage of hearings and I don't know who they were interviewing - but who ever it was - the question was point blank "Why did this happen?"
He said it was poor training, a mistake etc. And I thought "We're spending how much on our military? The govt. wants how much more and you want to tell me that the soldiers we have now are poorly trained? They need training on what - how to treat people decently??"
It just infuriates me.

I am just so upset over right wing talk radio's response to these pictures of abuse at Abu Ghraib. To say they are no worse than fraternity hazing (I have heard this first hand and attributted to Rush second hand) is insulting disgusting,and completely off the mark. I have asked my friends who were in fraternities- "If a pledge is told 'masturbate in front of my girlfriend', and the pledge says 'no! I have dignity and I quit this pledge class'" will they let him leave? Uniformly the answer is yes. Obviously no prisoner has given any kind of consent to their abuse.

I understand there is a spectrum of torture and that according to many in the Arab world that what happened in those photos is "torture lite" but I am nonetheless outraged at those who are dismissive of it.
There may or may not be legal basis (I would not presume to know ;-) )for Bush not giving prisoners at gauntanamo the status of prisoners of war, but I do think this attitude Bush has that the US courts and public should just "trust them" to do the right thing unchecked has filtered down to the MPs at Abu Ghraib. Do any of us now doubt that torture is an ongoing and systematic toold used as Guantanamo?

As a patriotic American who loves the oppurtunities and freedom this country has afforded me, I am embarassed at the actions of these soldiers and I feel it reflects poorly on me.

Having gotten that off my chest, I still believe in fighting terrorism aggressively. I think if there is one thing the terrorists have learned, it is that terrorism works. US pulls its forces out of Saudi Arabia, Israel is talking about pulling out of Gaza,
and the war effort in Iraq is losing support.
How many of us can really stomach these televised beheadings? And for how long?

I live and NYC and maybe I may personalize terrorism too much, and while I am voting for either Kerry or Nader, I do blv that the civilized countries of the world (in which I include the US) have to work together to combat terrorism is a harsh and sometimes violent manner.

Is it normally common to to "bend the rules" (for lack of a better term) in times of war, or is this administration taking way more liberties with them than usual (i.e. not considering the prisoners at Gu@ntanamo Bay POWs, the Patriot Act, not declaring combat over officially b/c they have yet to find weapons of mass destruction, etc.)? I honestly don't know, b/c I was pretty young during the Gulf War and am not a history buff.

This is all so scary. While I don't agree that we should have gone to war with Iraq, obviously what's done is done and I support our troops and want them to return safely. We can't leave the Iraqi people in a lurch again and pull out with the country in ruins, but I don't see how there'll ever be a peaceful end to this.

Rumsfeld says that the prisoners do not belong to a country but rather an organization. He also said "Terrorists don't comply with the laws of war. They go around killing innocent civilians".
So - we're stooping to their level? That's no excuse. Didn't his mom ever teach him that?

As a patriotic American who loves the oppurtunities and freedom this country has afforded me, I am embarassed at the actions of these soldiers and I feel it reflects poorly on me.

I do blv that the civilized countries of the world (in which I include the US) have to work together to combat terrorism is a harsh and sometimes violent manner.

I agree. And I think one main way to do this is to a. work together (something I'm not sure Bush can do given the way he is viewed by other world leaders) and b. to rise above this. Don't say "But they did it to us" and except that to fly. That does not fly with me. I do not want my government, my military to act based simply on "but they did it first".
I feel like we're dealing with three year olds. I remember my mom telling us this when we were little. "I don't care if she pulled your hair first - it doesn't make it right for you to pull her hair. Be the bigger person here."

quote:

---

Originally posted by maxpower:

I am just so upset over right wing talk radio's response to these pictures of abuse at Abu Ghraib. To say they are no worse than fraternity hazing (I have heard this first hand and attributted to Rush second hand) is insulting disgusting,and completely off the mark.

---

you are fucking kidding me. This is how it's being reported in the US?

They're not even calling it "abuse" in the UK papers anymore, they're using the word "torture". Which is simply calling a spade a spade. I was pretty annoyed when the story first broke that you would often read in papers that really ought to have known better "the pictures that have caused outrage and disgust in the Arab world". I'm a WASP Australian and I found them nauseating.

While I feel deeply sorry for that poor telecom worker and his family, I think it's pretty clear that you can't compare a murder done by a couple of lunatics to a system of institutionalised torture by the occupying army of a foreign invader.

For one, ummm, don't we have Saddam for his crimes against humanity? So why is GWB not being called up, as commander in chief, for his country's torture tactics?

"Well, what we did isn't as bad as what THEY do . ." Huh? what the? At what point do we accept responsibility and recognize that YES,w hat we are doing/have done is JUST AS BAD. Remember, this is what we KNOW about. (I, too, think it's the tip of the iceberg.)

And also, we are told to not listen to what Al Jazeera reports because the media in the middle east is controlled by the government. THen why did CBS NOT run the story for THREE WEEKS? USAToday ( the McPaper) even reported on that.

This is why I do not say the pledge each morning, which I'm supposed to do, as a public school teacher.

UGH. I hate this feeling of shame for my country.