POLL: WMD and future war...

[cpumaster]

If WMDs are never found in Iraq (doesn't mean they are not there, just not found), will you support the current administration if they go to war with another country over allegation of possesing WMD and supporting terrorists?
Thanks for participating in the poll.

 

[BaDaBooM]

I'm sorry, but I won't vote on this poll. I won't say yes or no (but I do care) until the situation presents itself. I won't give Bush blanket support for war, but I also won't say I won't support another one without knowing anything about this theoritical situation.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

I think the concept cpumaster is presenting relates to the "Trust based on Faith" which would be available to this administration. I always trust based on facts and this administration was shockingly short on details before the conflict. Their excuse was the protection of sources and tipping off the enemy . . . both quite reasonable albeit not full contraindications to justifying war. Those excuses are no longer viable. You either have to believe the Saddam (inexplicably destroyed MASSIVE quantities of WMD immediately before invasion/but the US has no proof), Saddam transferred WMD to Syria/Iran (but the US has no proof), or Saddam's WMD was not significant (absence of evidence to the contrary to date).

If months pass on without a significant cache in Iraq . . . or evidence to support other theories . . . the Bush administration looks like the waged war under clearly false pretenses. Soft allies (all the countries which joined the coalition despite citizen opposition) will NOT join another coalition and real Americans SHOULD seriously question how much they can trust this government.

 

[cpumaster]

just to clear up...
actually there are also other reason to support going to war beside trust the govt based on faith (or fact as some might have seen it), such as fear of terror attack, hate for other nations, etc. just some of the examples I can think of. Of course the same could be true for not supporting another war, ie fear of terrorist retaliation, doesn't trust the govt, economy, peace-loving war-hating etc.
anyway, I think other nation join or against US not based on the fact we present, that's just for show and for public opinion. Most govt/countries make decision based on what is their best interest, direct or indirect, real or imaginary. ie British join us not because they trust us, but because they feel threatened by the aleged threat of Saddam, also maybe they feel indebted to us or Poland join us because they know they could profit from the war and also it's better to align with us than against us, , while France and Germany is against the war because it's their best interest, ie public support against war could be converted into election, doesn't want a hyper-power America that project its will to the world, Saddam debt and business with their companies, etc

 

[CaptnKirk]

In a world of technology, given the capability of our satellite imaging, there is no way that the 'Aledged Mass Quantities' of WMD could
have been moved ANYWHERE without confirmed observations. 24 hours of every day there is a string of consecutive satellites with
about 5 minute separation from one to the next, coming from over the North Pole, receiving setup commands and downloading the
data from the previous scan. Infared, optical, thermal image sensors humming away - how far can a ground vehicle with the tonnage
or configuration required to transport this equipment move in a five minute span ? Less than 2 miles. (These aren't racecars folks)

A run to the Syrian border would have taken hours - we would have a movie picture show of vehicle after vehicle running desparately
across the dessert at the blinding speed of 15 - 20 miles an hour, thats 10 hours to go 150 to 200 miles. Frame after frame of color
glossy 8x10 pictures, complete with circles and arrows to show to the world. We watched them for 12+ years, who's kidding who ?

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

actually there are also other reason to support going to war beside trust the govt based on faith (or fact as some might have seen it), such as fear of terror attack, hate for other nations, etc. just some of the examples I can think of. Of course the same could be true for not supporting another war, ie fear of terrorist retaliation, doesn't trust the govt, economy, peace-loving war-hating etc.

It would be a rejection of basic decency to attack another nation just because we don't like them or vice versa. Unfortunately, it appears we have already reached the threshold of striking at other nations based on "fear". A discerning public will hopefully challenge Bush's "Fear Doctrine" b/c it could easily get out of control.

 

[cpumaster]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

It would be a rejection of basic decency to attack another nation just because we don't like them or vice versa. Unfortunately, it appears we have already reached the threshold of striking at other nations based on "fear". A discerning public will hopefully challenge Bush's "Fear Doctrine" b/c it could easily get out of control.

Not only we have reached the threshold, apparently the president has crossed it or prepare to cross it (depend on which view), check this out
Bush jr.: we will attack first, ask question later. And don't mess with America or we will bring our jihad on you!

 

[jst0ney]

Originally posted by: cpumaster
If WMDs are never found in Iraq (doesn't mean they are not there, just not found), will you support the current administration if they go to war with another country over allegation of possesing WMD and supporting terrorists?
Thanks for participating in the poll.

Depends, does the other country have oil. My SUV is getting expensive to drive. So if we can secure a couple of millions barrels of oil while only killing a couple of thousand people I'm all for it.

This post is dripping of sarcasm.

 

[jjones]

Not for WMD but I would for terrorism. A country having WMD is not reason enough to go to war; if it were, several of the big boys would be fighting each other. I would support another war such as what took place in Afganistan, when a regime houses and supports terrorists. Syria comes to mind but first I think the international community should apply pressure; however, they won't because Syria's terrorists are harrassing Israel, which is just fine with the Europeans.

 

[cpumaster]

harrassing Israel is not the same as harrassing US, I don't think we should go to war for Israel as this administration seemed to prepare to to do...
I feel like we are becoming more and more of Israelis guard dog now. What a pitty, just because Israel is the only democratic and our ally in middle-east doesn't mean we should go to war for them. What have Israel been contributing to our interest lately or even 50 yrs back?

 

[jjones]

Originally posted by: cpumaster
harrassing Israel is not the same as harrassing US, I don't think we should go to war for Israel as this administration seemed to prepare to to do...
I feel like we are becoming more and more of Israelis guard dog now. What a pitty, just because Israel is the only democratic and our ally in middle-east doesn't mean we should go to war for them. What have Israel been contributing to our interest lately or even 50 yrs back?

I don't think we should go into Syria over Israel either; the point is though, they are housing and supporting terrorism. I'm not too sure what may have been meant about the US' so-called "war on terrorism" but I wouldn't think that would just mean terrorists who have recently struck at the US. The war on terrorism should be a worldwide effort and a fight against all terrorist groups.

 

[cpumaster]

Including the irish IRA? how about the rightist guerrilla operating in South America countries? or the rightist group branded terrorist by Cuban govt?
or how about the muslim rebels branded terrorist by China and Russian? Terrorist term actually doesn't mean sh*t, and only worth as much as it cost to type them. US govt could easily label the greenpeace a terrorist group (French govt did that once if I remember correctly, when the group tried to stop them from testing nuke bomb somewhere in Pacific) if they want to, does that mean we go after them?

A good foreign policy is to not label every group terrorist group, only the one that directly threatened or attacked us, otherwise we will be saddled with shitty deal of taking care of other country problem (ie Israel vs Hizbollah, Hamas, Jihad etc) or be prevented from supporting terrorist group in other countries that work best for our interest (Russian vs Checnyan rebels).

 

[Siddhartha]

Originally posted by: BaDaBooM
I'm sorry, but I won't vote on this poll. I won't say yes or no (but I do care) until the situation presents itself. I won't give Bush blanket support for war, but I also won't say I won't support another one without knowing anything about this theoritical situation.

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
In a world of technology, given the capability of our satellite imaging, there is no way that the 'Aledged Mass Quantities' of WMD could
have been moved ANYWHERE without confirmed observations. 24 hours of every day there is a string of consecutive satellites with
about 5 minute separation from one to the next, coming from over the North Pole, receiving setup commands and downloading the
data from the previous scan. Infared, optical, thermal image sensors humming away - how far can a ground vehicle with the tonnage
or configuration required to transport this equipment move in a five minute span ? Less than 2 miles. (These aren't racecars folks)

A run to the Syrian border would have taken hours - we would have a movie picture show of vehicle after vehicle running desparately
across the dessert at the blinding speed of 15 - 20 miles an hour, thats 10 hours to go 150 to 200 miles. Frame after frame of color
glossy 8x10 pictures, complete with circles and arrows to show to the world. We watched them for 12+ years, who's kidding who ?

clouds, sandstorms, tunnels, found plenty of those to the airport, planes, trains, automobiles, we cannot monitor the movement of every vehicle in Iraq via satelite even if we could even see them all the time, just not possible, even if we could, how could we determine the contents of every one of them?......

By all accounts from former Iraqi scientists they were kept small and mobile, any plants were designed as dual use with much deception used to cover the intended purpose. The scientists themselves gave independent accounts all very similar, their day was broken into 2 4hr parts. 4 hrs devoted to production and development of WMD and dispersion methods, the other 4 hrs developing methods to hide these although this was the most important philospohy, every decision was always influenced by the need to hide everything. Their programs were higly compartmentalized, most never knew many others within the programs, yet they all give similar statements. Even the current ones from those that surrendered recently claimed they were destroyed just before the war are coming from those unaware of the others involvement as far as we can tell. Hopefully that is the case, I would be happy with the evidence it was gone for good. Then Iraq can even rightfully claim THEY did it themselves.

I did not partake in your poll, every case is different and needs to be judged on it's own merits. I'm not even sure any other country even compares to Iraq and Saddam. Who would you suggest?

Show me another country with a history like
this.
This is a complete breakdown on Iraqi WMD.

 

[LilBlinbBlahIce]

Originally posted by: Alistar7

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
In a world of technology, given the capability of our satellite imaging, there is no way that the 'Aledged Mass Quantities' of WMD could
have been moved ANYWHERE without confirmed observations. 24 hours of every day there is a string of consecutive satellites with
about 5 minute separation from one to the next, coming from over the North Pole, receiving setup commands and downloading the
data from the previous scan. Infared, optical, thermal image sensors humming away - how far can a ground vehicle with the tonnage
or configuration required to transport this equipment move in a five minute span ? Less than 2 miles. (These aren't racecars folks)

A run to the Syrian border would have taken hours - we would have a movie picture show of vehicle after vehicle running desparately
across the dessert at the blinding speed of 15 - 20 miles an hour, thats 10 hours to go 150 to 200 miles. Frame after frame of color
glossy 8x10 pictures, complete with circles and arrows to show to the world. We watched them for 12+ years, who's kidding who ?

clouds, sandstorms, tunnels, found plenty of those to the airport, planes, trains, automobiles, we cannot monitor the movement of every vehicle in Iraq via satelite even if we could even see them all the time, just not possible, even if we could, how could we determine the contents of every one of them?......

By all accounts from former Iraqi scientists they were kept small and mobile, any plants were designed as dual use with much deception used to cover the intended purpose. The scientists themselves gave independent accounts all very similar, their day was broken into 2 4hr parts. 4 hrs devoted to production and development of WMD and dispersion methods, the other 4 hrs developing methods to hide these although this was the most important philospohy, every decision was always influenced by the need to hide everything. Their programs were higly compartmentalized, most never knew many others within the programs, yet they all give similar statements. Even the current ones from those that surrendered recently claimed they were destroyed just before the war are coming from those unaware of the others involvement as far as we can tell. Hopefully that is the case, I would be happy with the evidence it was gone for good. Then Iraq can even rightfully claim THEY did it themselves.

I did not partake in your poll, every case is different and needs to be judged on it's own merits. I'm not even sure any other country even compares to Iraq and Saddam. Who would you suggest?

Show me another country with a history like
this.
This is a complete breakdown on Iraqi WMD.

If they have it, it will be found, there are no excuses. What about all those nice pictures Powell showed to the UN, that was supposed to be indisputable evidence wasn't it? How come they cannot go to those locations and find traces of any kind? Sandstorms and clouds? Come on man, I agree with CaptnKirk, with our technology I cannot beleive that Iraq could have mobilized all the WMD they had, and we claimed they had tons of the stuff, without us seeing something. You need to stop making excuses for Bush, he wanted this war because of WMD, if none are found, hes going to look like a jackass. Besides, I cannot buy the fact that Saddam had all these weapons and decided to destroy them on the eve of a US invasion instead of using them on our troops. If he was going to destroy them anyway, he could have done so and shown proof thereby preventing the attack all together. No, the WMD angle is going to downplayed until most people forget about it. I wonder how long it will take before most war mongerers forget what WMD even stands for.