why are some furry and squirrely peeps opposed to a war on iraq?

[bsd]

why are some furry and - in the words of charlie munger - squirrely peeps, who cant see the big picture, opposed to a war on iraq?

 

[NogginBoink]

Oh, maybe because war, you know, has this tendency to kill people. Maybe because there's no hard evidence that America's interests are directly threatened by Iraq. Maybe because people are sick of the fighting. Choose any number of reasons.

 

[vladgur]

Some of them dislike bush,
Some of them are brainwashed by the liberals
Some of them go to San Francisco State or UC Berkeley
None of them see the big picture

 

[StageLeft]

Just because you're against the war doesn't mean you're squirrely. I'm sitting on the fence with a slight lean towards the attack, but maybe that's because I like war movies and it will be a good backdrop for some in the future

Those opposed to it may think that it's a bad idea because war sucks. It sucks bad.

 

[NewSc2]

wow congrats on first post, bsd

 

[vladgur]

Originally posted by: NogginBoink Maybe because people are sick of the fighting.

fighting? what fighting? We've been taking the beating lately, I dont call teh Afganistan as fighting... We need to show those anti-americans who's the boss. The only language they will understand is that of force. And we must speak it

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: vladgur

Originally posted by: NogginBoink Maybe because people are sick of the fighting.

fighting? what fighting? We've been taking the beating lately, I dont call teh Afganistan as fighting... We need to show those anti-americans who's the boss. The only language they will understand is that of force. And we must speak it

Iraq has the potential for more real fighting, although obviously the US would win. Of course the chances of Saddamn using a weapon of mass destruction are high, whether it's on his own people for giggles or tries it against US troops.

 

[bsd]

Originally posted by: NogginBoink
Oh, maybe because war, you know, has this tendency to kill people. Maybe because there's no hard evidence that America's interests are directly threatened by Iraq. Maybe because people are sick of the fighting. Choose any number of reasons.

yeah but as long as the public dont have to confront too many bad images, then they can think of the low oil cost, and get on with their own lives, and keep out of the way of politics which they can't fathom, and that means these protesters are impressionless.

 

[bsd]

imlookingforward to some good news coverage over xmas, while im at home, and its cold outside, and mayhem in downtown, anti-american baghdad. i like the luckiest man and splashdown vids.

 

[ElFenix]

above anyone else in the administration i trust colin powell's judgement on these sorts of things. what does he think?

 

[WinkOsmosis]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
above anyone else in the administration i trust colin powell's judgement on these sorts of things. what does he think?

He was against it until he became a house slave.



The very idea of a pre-emptive war is severely flawed. You don't just go attacking countries because you think they may in the future attack you. "Pre-emptive strike" is just a pretty word for attack. What if Iraq decided to pre-emptively strike the US? Wouldn't it be valid and just defense since we are preparing to attack them?? An attack is an attack, and especially unjustified when it's based on assumptions and hunches.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Jellomancer

Originally posted by: ElFenix
above anyone else in the administration i trust colin powell's judgement on these sorts of things. what does he think?

He was against it until he became a house slave.



The very idea of a pre-emptive war is severely flawed. You don't just go attacking countries because you think they may in the future attack you. "Pre-emptive strike" is just a pretty word for attack. What if Iraq decided to pre-emptively strike the US? Wouldn't it be valid and just defense since we are preparing to attack them?? An attack is an attack, and especially unjustified when it's based on assumptions and hunches.

realist policy is a bitch, ain't it?

 

[hungrypete]

especially unjustified when it's based on assumptions and hunches.

yep, Saddam doesn't want those inspectors to view his Girl Scout Cookie factories..... :disgust:

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Perhaps furry, squirrely peeps are brighter than asshats.

 

[MajesticMoose]

Originally posted by: vladgur

Originally posted by: NogginBoink Maybe because people are sick of the fighting.

fighting? what fighting? We've been taking the beating lately, I dont call teh Afganistan as fighting... We need to show those anti-americans who's the boss. The only language they will understand is that of force. And we must speak it

How about it isn't our business to overthrow soveriegh states for the good of our economy at the cost of their lives?

 

[HappyPuppy]

I think that a lot of the people opposed to attacking Iraq are terrified that the war might drag on and escalate to a point where their cushy lives might be interrupted and they might have to play cannon fodder for the Army or Marines. Instead of living in dorms, partying and playing computer games, they would have to sleep in a hole they dug in the sand, eat MRE's and worry about being shot or blown to pieces by an artillery shell.

Poor little babies.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: HappyPuppy
I think that a lot of the people opposed to attacking Iraq are terrified that the war might drag on and escalate to a point where their cushy lives might be interrupted and they might have to play cannon fodder for the Army or Marines. Instead of living in dorms, partying and playing computer games, they would have to sleep in a hole they dug in the sand, eat MRE's and worry about being shot or blown to pieces by an artillery shell. Poor little babies.

Some do perhaps, but not all. HP, I have troubles with this at many levels, some moral, and some practical. I hope the poor little babies can live in their dorms, and not have to deal with what ill thought out policy can wreak.

 

[olds]

Originally posted by: bsd
why are some furry and - in the words of charlie munger - squirrely peeps, who cant see the big picture, opposed to a war on iraq?

Hmmm... Why is it that I think you're a Troll?

 

[HappyPuppy]

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider

Originally posted by: HappyPuppy
I think that a lot of the people opposed to attacking Iraq are terrified that the war might drag on and escalate to a point where their cushy lives might be interrupted and they might have to play cannon fodder for the Army or Marines. Instead of living in dorms, partying and playing computer games, they would have to sleep in a hole they dug in the sand, eat MRE's and worry about being shot or blown to pieces by an artillery shell. Poor little babies.

Some do perhaps, but not all. HP, I have troubles with this at many levels, some moral, and some practical. I hope the poor little babies can live in their dorms, and not have to deal with what ill thought out policy can wreak.

You believe it is ill thought out policy. I believe it is well thought out, far thinking policy.

 

[WinkOsmosis]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Jellomancer

Originally posted by: ElFenix
above anyone else in the administration i trust colin powell's judgement on these sorts of things. what does he think?

He was against it until he became a house slave.



The very idea of a pre-emptive war is severely flawed. You don't just go attacking countries because you think they may in the future attack you. "Pre-emptive strike" is just a pretty word for attack. What if Iraq decided to pre-emptively strike the US? Wouldn't it be valid and just defense since we are preparing to attack them?? An attack is an attack, and especially unjustified when it's based on assumptions and hunches.

realist policy is a bitch, ain't it?

Realist or idealist?

 

[JellyBaby]

I'm against an Iraqi invasion for several reasons. For me it boils down to three questions 1) does Iraq really threaten us? 2) it is right to invade Iraq? and 3) does invasion pass a cost/benefit analysis? My answers: 1) No, 2) No, 3) No.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Obviously HP, we have vastly different views on this. Hopefully the whichever of us is right has his wishes realized. Time will tell on this.

 

[fluxquantum]

if we do go to war with iraq when do you guys think it will happen?

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: fluxquantum
if we do go to war with iraq when do you guys think it will happen?

Well if it's a Cakewalk like GWI was we'll party but if for some reason we lose a lot of soldiers then we'll become concerned and the public will turn on Bush like a hungry Dog going after a half eaten Pork Chop sitting in the bottom of a Garbage Can.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: fluxquantum
if we do go to war with iraq when do you guys think it will happen?

I'll respond by telling you when it will NOT happen. Not in the heat. Marching in a biohazard suit in the summer is impossible, so the major ground war would have to be completed by then. Figure end of April at latest. Also, allow 3 months to do this ( No one has any idea how long it will take to secure Baghdad). Bush is in no hurry to invade before the elections, and Saddam will be given some token time to respond. So now the earliest would be December. Looks like late January to me. ***Warning- this is the most tenuous of speculation*** Seems like a reasonable scenario, but dont bet the farm.