reason why the antiwar movement did not catch on in US

[epicstruggle]

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/interactive/world/0304/gallery.iraq.war.0408/reaction/reax.07.ap.jpg
source:cnn
A Jordanian journalist carries a picture likening President Bush to Adolf Hitler in a protest over the death of an Al Jazeera reporter in coalition airstrikes in Baghdad

I see that around the world people have protested this war to free the people of Iraq, and to free the world of the WMDs that it has. But many here in the US have discarded most of the arguments solely because of the fringe elements of the antiwar movement.

Case and point the above picture. Can you really say that President Bush is just like adolf hitler.
lets look at some facts:
hitler: over 8 million civilians killed (if my history lessons have not been forgotten.)
Bush: may be a total of less than 1000 civilians killed after all conflict finished.

hitler:world domination
Bush:liberation of people of Iraq, and destruction of their WMDs

Yeah, their both the same right.:roll: This is some of the reasons why the peace movement has not really worked here in the US. The peace movement has embrace a fringe element that is very *insert crazy-like word here* to grow their numbers.
Here are other stupid reasons against the war:

-well the US has WMDs too.
-the US just wants to kill muslims
-its all about the oil
-the US is evil and must be put in its place
:roll:

As I write this I see on the tube, a crowd cheering the Coalition troops in Iraq. Looks like the crowds of Iraq will be speaking soon, hope your news outlets carry how much the people of Iraq are enjoying their lives as saddams regime is crumbleling. I doubt youll see it as most of these news outlets in other countries will not show it.

later, :roll:

[nutball]

The anti-war brigade are still at it over here. There's a march organised by the Stop The War campaign for April 12th! With a good luck and a following wind the war will be over by then, so that could be a very interesting march!

There's one members of the Labour party calling for Blair to be indicted fo war crimes. It takes all sorts I guess.

I seriously do wonder which planet these people live on :?

[DemoCoder]

From the looks of what is going on in Iraq now, Iraqis may be pissed in the future about people trying to interfere with the US liberation, like Afghanis were pissed with Al-Qaeda getting involved with the civil war between Taliban and the north. There may be some definate divisions in relations with the rest of the Arab World's complicity in keeping Saddam.

You have Syrians, Egyptians, Jordians, Saudis, entering Iraq and prolonging the fight. I doubt most Iraqis want their "help" anymore than they want the help of the antiwar movement.

From the US point of view, it's great that the most extreme, violent, hateful people are sacrificing themselves to the US military. It gets them out of the way and out of the countries they inhabit. Send all the worlds zealots to Iraq to be chewed up like the Pakistani jihadis were when they volunteered to go assist the Taliban, flocked across the border, and got chewed up.

It's better to have terrorists throw themselves at tanks in the desert than have them stay in their own state planning attacks on civilians.

[epicstruggle]

nutball, I think there are many valid reasons against the war. I just wish people would use the more reasonable/sane reasons for the war. I also wish we had a better debate about it.

valid reasons against the war IMHO:
-how much will it cost, and is that too much.
-will it cause an islamic rage
-can the kurds, shiates, sunniy live in peace
-can the turkes be kept in check (in regards to the kurds in iraq)
-can target strikes (assasinations) against the leadership cause iraq to crumble without a war

these are just some arguments the antiwar movement could have used to more effect. I at least would have listened to what they said if these were their main arguments. Too bad, they werent.

later,

[DemoCoder]

Also, please take away France's veto. Weak countries who have a history of surrender should not be made responsible for world security. India is a better choice.

[nutball]

these are just some arguments the antiwar movement could have used to more effect. I at least would have listened to what they said if these were their main arguments. Too bad, they werent.

I agree 100% with that. This is my fundamental problem with the anti-war brigade, their reasoning isn't straight. I have my doubts about the war, which I've expressed here, but "No War. Ever." just doesn't sit with me as a defensible position.

India is a better choice.

Tell that to Pakistan!

[Fred]

I kinda want to track down some of the quotes and predictions by some of the vocal antiwar members on this board from a few months ago. And proudly throw it back in their faces.

Things such as...
War for oil! No WMDs! War is going to be extremely grueling with huge loss of life for civilians and Americans! Going to last an eternity like Vietnam! Iraqis won't be happy that Coalition forces liberate them. Etc etc.

While some of these are still debatable (eg potential WMD hits still under scientific scrutiny and skepticism), a lot of credibility from the rest of the highly dubious arguments is fading (fast I must admit).

Ask yourselves this if you threw around these quotes and rhetoric, and were proven wrong thereafter. Perhaps next time you'll learn to have the intellectual grace to NOT be an activist about things which you are not an expert in. Arm chair analysis, internet chat and opinions are fine, violent demonstrations and protests otoh can be dangerous when performed by the uninformed.

[Deepak]

India is a better choice.

At last I heard an intelligent voice.... :lol: :wink:

[Snyder]

nutball, I think there are many valid reasons against the war. I just wish people would use the more reasonable/sane reasons for the war. I also wish we had a better debate about it.

valid reasons against the war IMHO:
-how much will it cost, and is that too much.
-will it cause an islamic rage
-can the kurds, shiates, sunniy live in peace
-can the turkes be kept in check (in regards to the kurds in iraq)
-can target strikes (assasinations) against the leadership cause iraq to crumble without a war

these are just some arguments the antiwar movement could have used to more effect. I at least would have listened to what they said if these were their main arguments. Too bad, they werent.

I'd add the following argument to the aforementioned:
-are the 1000+ civilians killed in this war really worth it?

[RussSchultz]

Where the 10's of thousands that Saddam killed worth keeping him in power?

[Snyder]

So two evils make one right, yes? Or: A lesser evil is good if it is to defeat the greater evil?

[pascal]

War for oil! No WMDs! War is going to be extremely grueling with huge loss of life for civilians and Americans! Going to last an eternity like Vietnam! Iraqis won't be happy that Coalition forces liberate them. Etc etc.

-As you said the WMD we have to wait and see.
-The oil we have to wait too. Dont say that oil is not a pressure point and real concern. Lets see it in a few years.
-The casualities are not as high as it could have been.
-This war looks like will be faster than many predicted.
-About Iraqis IMHO a mixed feeling will be there, some people will lost their relatives or people they know. Some problems may happen during the reconstruction of the country.
- About the middle east we have to wait and see too.
- About the international relations damage we have to wait too http://www.economist.com/world/na/displayStory.cfm?story_id=1683253

About the demonstrations I think there was some large and civil demonstrations in Europe. Violent protests are really a shame.

[RussSchultz]

So two evils make one right, yes? Or: A lesser evil is good if it is to defeat the greater evil?

I'd say its quite clearly the lesser of two evils.

It angers me to a degree I'm suprised at (Usually, I'm pretty passive/nonchalant about most everything) the duplicity of the world.

All these stupid f'kin muslim clerics claiming that "war on any muslim is a war on all muslims because we're all brothers and everybody is equally as important" just piss me off. Where was their righteous indignation for the past 20 years? Why do these jackasses stick up for heinous people using religion as the reason, when these heinous people are so completely against the tenets of that religion?

And then people like you throw up a few thousand deaths (and yes, I wish Saddam had just stepped down and those thousand didn't have to die) and try to use it as an excuse or an indictment as to how wrong it is to interfere.

Life is all fine and dandy in my part of the world and your part of the world, but it aint there, and it aint in many parts of the world.

Call me a pax americana lover/warmonger, but the world has remained silent for way too long and allowed Rwanda, Iraq, Zimbabwe, etc continue for way too long. I blame the US for this also.

I'm not suggesting conquering the world, but I do think the US should stand up and fill its moral shoes. The whole world should. We should cast off ties with dictators like the Saudi's, the Kuwaiti's, etc. and deal only with democratic/representative countries. We should make our displeasure known to all despotic regimes, through no uncertain terms: No economic or military aid given to any of those governments of countries like Saudi Arabia or Egypt. (direct humanitarian aid not withstanding). And yes, in extreme cases, use our military might to enact a change.

Or, you could sit pretty in your (generally) lily white ivory towers and let those darkies suffer, since you'd prefer not to dirty your hands.

[nutball]

I'd add the following argument to the aforementioned:
-are the 1000+ civilians killed in this war really worth it?

That's not for you or I to judge. Ask the Iraqi people. Go on, ask them.

[JF_Aidan_Pryde]

I'm not suggesting conquering the world, but I do think the US should stand up and fill its moral shoes. The whole world should. We should cast off ties with dictators like the Saudi's, the Kuwaiti's, etc. and deal only with democratic/representative countries. We should make our displeasure known to all despotic regimes, through no uncertain terms: No economic or military aid given to any of those governments of countries like Saudi Arabia or Egypt. (direct humanitarian aid not withstanding). And yes, in extreme cases, use our military might to enact a change.

Or, you could sit pretty in your (generally) lily white ivory towers and let those darkies suffer, since you'd prefer not to dirty your hands.

Thank you Russ, thank you.

What I ponder is how can one exercise moral captialism. I guess you have to set a moral standard then allow free growth under that standard. Unfortunately this is not yet the case. It seems the US is not willing to act in any moral confrontaion with loss of life if its only gain is a moral one.

[zidane1strife]

Perhaps next time you'll learn to have the intellectual grace to NOT be an activist about things which you are not an expert in.

Well, I was one who opposed the war... true I'm no expert, but lets face it the enemy that was presented before us by the media, and by the gov. in order to justify the war.... wasn't the enemy that was really out there.

I mean, they painted a ruthless dictator with possibly hundreds if not thousands of bio-weap. missiles/ or other delivery mechanisms... One who would resort to anything to stay in power, who had killed even his own.... One who'd vowed to annihilate the irakis the day he was gone... One who in the not too far future would pose a significant threat to the world...

What we really got was an old f@rt with a pathetic military with crumbling morale... with few or nearly no wmds... It was a joke, a complete and utter joke.

True it was costly, all those helicopters damaged, all those bombs, those troops, those supplies, etc... but at the end it was worth it, to liberate the people(particularly those in the camps.).

At the end I think the US exaggerated the threat that saddam posed in order to start the war, and I REALLY doubt they did this with the intention to help the people(that was just a side-effect, although in reality it was the best that came out of all of this.). I'd say it was done probably to stabilize a region, to have a presence there, and other economical reasons...

[RussSchultz]

Eh? Even without the chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons, he (was) still a ruthless dictator.

I'd trade my entire military to put all of them out of business.

[Natoma]

Well said zidane1strife.

Russ: And I agree with you. I believe the ends are definitely noble and worthy. It's the *means* that I'm at odds with.

[Sxotty]

Also, please take away France's veto. Weak countries who have a history of surrender should not be made responsible for world security. India is a better choice.

actuall considering indias population, they do have more right than france.

[zidane1strife]

he (was) still a ruthless dictator.


Indeed a ruthless dictator, but the image I got from the media was of a pre-hitlerish guy... That although he might not have the armies or military power to pose a threat. Through terrorism and bio/chem weaps. He'd be a global threat in the not so distant future...

The reality is... he was/is a ruthless old geezer, with little to no real power with a regimen that we could easily take care of.

[Sxotty]

So two evils make one right, yes? Or: A lesser evil is good if it is to defeat the greater evil?

I'd say its quite clearly the lesser of two evils.

It angers me to a degree I'm suprised at (Usually, I'm pretty passive/nonchalant about most everything) the duplicity of the world.

All these stupid f'kin muslim clerics claiming that "war on any muslim is a war on all muslims because we're all brothers and everybody is equally as important" just piss me off. Where was their righteous indignation for the past 20 years? Why do these jackasses stick up for heinous people using religion as the reason, when these heinous people are so completely against the tenets of that religion?

And then people like you throw up a few thousand deaths (and yes, I wish Saddam had just stepped down and those thousand didn't have to die) and try to use it as an excuse or an indictment as to how wrong it is to interfere.

Life is all fine and dandy in my part of the world and your part of the world, but it aint there, and it aint in many parts of the world.

Call me a pax americana lover/warmonger, but the world has remained silent for way too long and allowed Rwanda, Iraq, Zimbabwe, etc continue for way too long. I blame the US for this also.

I'm not suggesting conquering the world, but I do think the US should stand up and fill its moral shoes. The whole world should. We should cast off ties with dictators like the Saudi's, the Kuwaiti's, etc. and deal only with democratic/representative countries. We should make our displeasure known to all despotic regimes, through no uncertain terms: No economic or military aid given to any of those governments of countries like Saudi Arabia or Egypt. (direct humanitarian aid not withstanding). And yes, in extreme cases, use our military might to enact a change.

Or, you could sit pretty in your (generally) lily white ivory towers and let those darkies suffer, since you'd prefer not to dirty your hands.

AMEN

And the reason the US doesn't do it is b/c it will be expensive, piss people off, and we don't have enough help, and to many hindering like france. If Iraq actually goes well, then I think we will see more dictators lose contorl even if the US does not intervene b/c their people will realize the lies they are hearing

[fbg1]

We should cast off ties with dictators like the Saudi's, the Kuwaiti's, etc. and deal only with democratic/representative countries.

Funny you mention that. That will probably be one result of our deposing Saddam. Turn Iraq into a stable, human-rights-respecting, free, capitalistic, economicly progressive, democratic(?) nation, that just so happens to have the world's 2nd largest oil supply. We will be able to stop dealing with the Saudis and Kuwaitis, in favor of the new Iraq.

We should make our displeasure known to all despotic regimes, through no uncertain terms

I think deposing Saddam has done just that. Look at Kim Dong Little in NK, thrashing about impotently, trying to bait the US into making a mistake there, or at the Ayatollah quaking in his boots with the US/UK military next door. The message has been sent. Let's see if they get it.

[fbg1]

That's not for you or I to judge. Ask the Iraqi people. Go on, ask them.

Which ones? If you were to ask a random sample of the 24 million Iraqi people, the number who would have a personal connection to at least one of the "collateral damage" civilian casualties would most likely be insignificant compared to the number who would have a personal connection to the at least one of the people Saddam has tortured and murdered during his reign. Go on, ask them.

[fbg1]

What we really got was an old f@rt with a pathetic military with crumbling morale... with few or nearly no wmds... It was a joke, a complete and utter joke.

What we really got was aging yet no less ruthless & barbaric dictator who had demonstrated an unflagging desire for WMD. Saddam's military may have been a joke to the uber-technological & professional US/UK/Coalition militaries, but his secret police was no joke to the innocent Iraqi civilians.

Further, Saddam's pattern was clear - if left to his own devices, he would begin rebuilding his WMD. Even Scott Ritter has admitted in interviews (before his pedofile scandal) that while UNSCOM may have ridded Iraq of 90%+ of its actual WMD, they were unable to rid Iraq of the plans, blueprints, and documents that would allow Hussein to rebuild his WMD capability when the UN pulled back. Does anyone believe the UN would have had the fortitude and perseverance to maintain anti-wmd sanctions on Iraq indefinitely? The sanctions were causing nation-wide pain and hardship on the Iraqi people while Saddam and his regime was hardly affected, and the Hussein sympathizers in the UN (France, probably primarily at the behest of their national oil company Total Fina Elf) was pushing for relaxing or ending the sanctions.

There is an overriding fact to this situation that Bush's administration has not stated in so many words, to the detriment of its own PR efforts. That fact is that non-proliferation has failed. After the fall of the USSR, non-proliferation took on a huge new importance, and became one of the primary jobs of the UN (and the CIA). The whole point of non-proliferation efforts was to prevent nuclear weapons (and other wmd) from spreading beyond the 5 nuclear nations - US, UK, France, USSR, China. It was successful in confiscating WMD in ex-Soviet satellites that wanted to disarm and rejoin the international community. But it failed elsewhere. During the 90s, India and Pakistan went nuclear, North Korea is on the verge, Iran is on the verge, Iraq was 6 months away by the beginning of Gulf War 1, and who knows what other shadowy terrorist groups are working in secret on the task of acquiring wmd. The whole point of non-proliferation was to prevent tyrancical dicatators or otherwise unstable nations from acquiring the power to exercise mass destruction at the whims of a few madmen. But make no bones about it, non-proliferation has mostly failed.

The only two options that failure left America, are to either allow np to fail completely and start kissing the asses of dicatators and caving to the demands of every other Osama that gets his grubby hands on some wmd. Or, put up a new firewall, draw a line in the sand, and say to would-be Saddams and Osamas, if you cross this line, we will hit you so fucking hard you'll wake up in the next life. Bush & Co. chose the latter, and Osama, North Korea, Iran, and their ilk are getting the message. They're a bit concerned, and rightfully so.

From now on, when the UN backed by the US tells these countries to disarm, the order will be more credible, to say the least. These dictators know they can bribe the French with oil (Google "Total Fina Elf + Iraq") or nuclear reactors (Osiraq/Tammuz1), or the Russians or the Chinese with business contracts, but they now know that they can't do that with the US and UK and the rest of the Coalition. The tyrants' diplomatic options have been drastically reduced.

At the end I think the US exaggerated the threat that saddam posed in order to start the war, and I REALLY doubt they did this with the intention to help the people(that was just a side-effect, although in reality it was the best that came out of all of this.). I'd say it was done probably to stabilize a region, to have a presence there, and other economical reasons...

In a way, perhaps. The administration probably should not have emphasized Saddam's current WMD so much as his obvious pattern of attempting to acquire WMD, the fact that he would most likely return to that pattern once the UN ended sanctions and withdrew, and the fact that at every opportunity he has attempted to elude the UN and the Gulf War 1 cease-fire terms. However, the long-term threat of allowing non-proliferation to completely fail was not an exaggeration. I just think Bush didn't communicate that very clearly b/c he favored the more simplistic argument that "Saddam is a bad man with bad weapons, let's get him".

As for economic reasons, I disagree. If Bush's primary concern was the immediate economic situation, he would never have gone to war. Financial and economic uncertainty tend to drive up interest rates, which stymies buisness investment, which slows economic growth and costs people their jobs. War is one of, if not the, biggest sources of uncertainty. If Bush cared more about the economy than anything else, he would have done what Clinton did for 8 years - avoid war and take potshots at the problem with cruise missiles. We all know how effective that was.

[fbg1]

The reality is... he was/is a ruthless old geezer, with little to no real power with a regimen that we could easily take care of.

Only b/c he couldn't get nukes or other significant wmd. WMD and the will to use them (or lack of will to not use them, as the case may be) drastically changes the balance of power.

[Sabastian]

There are all kinds of good reasons why the "anti war" movement didn't catch on in the US. For instance..... 1. The Weapons of Mass destruction 2. The removal of the brutal dictator Saddam was. 3. The liberation of the Iraqi people. 4. Terrorist training camps 5. The removal of a regime that supports terrorist activities 6. The removal of the possibility that Saddam would give terrorist organizations weapons of mas destruction 7. Ease unrest in the middle east and set in motion the peace process. 8. Show other countries that engage in terrorist activities that indeed they ought not to. ..... on and on there are plenty of good speculative reasons why the coalition did what they did.

The question I would have asked is why the "anti war" movement is so popular in the European community? I would suggest that it isn't that they are so much "anti war" but anti American. Many of the protests in Europe were indeed organized by left affiliated groups whom have an inherent distain for the Capitalistic/Individualistic nature of the US. At this point given the rather positive developments in Iraq with the fall of the Baath party the pacifist protestors are really looking like the morons they are. Love it. It is hard to believe but these pacifist were actually supporting Saddams oppressive Socialist Baath party and the poor people of Iraq to them. Doing nothing gets you nothing.

[Deflection]

It is hard to believe but these pacifist were actually supporting Saddams oppressive Socialist Baath party and the poor people of Iraq to them. Doing nothing gets you nothing.

Perhaps even more mind numbingly, the American anti-war for oil protesters are mostly the same ones that protest and spread the propaganda that prevents the US from using nuclear power as an effective alternative energy source.

[Sabastian]

"Greenpeace" is organized by some very extremely left wing thinkers. There are a number of these scare mongering outfits.

[Snyder]

So two evils make one right, yes? Or: A lesser evil is good if it is to defeat the greater evil?

I'd say its quite clearly the lesser of two evils.

It angers me to a degree I'm suprised at (Usually, I'm pretty passive/nonchalant about most everything) the duplicity of the world.

All these stupid f'kin muslim clerics claiming that "war on any muslim is a war on all muslims because we're all brothers and everybody is equally as important" just piss me off. Where was their righteous indignation for the past 20 years? Why do these jackasses stick up for heinous people using religion as the reason, when these heinous people are so completely against the tenets of that religion?

And then people like you throw up a few thousand deaths (and yes, I wish Saddam had just stepped down and those thousand didn't have to die) and try to use it as an excuse or an indictment as to how wrong it is to interfere.

Life is all fine and dandy in my part of the world and your part of the world, but it aint there, and it aint in many parts of the world.

Call me a pax americana lover/warmonger, but the world has remained silent for way too long and allowed Rwanda, Iraq, Zimbabwe, etc continue for way too long. I blame the US for this also.

I'm not suggesting conquering the world, but I do think the US should stand up and fill its moral shoes. The whole world should. We should cast off ties with dictators like the Saudi's, the Kuwaiti's, etc. and deal only with democratic/representative countries. We should make our displeasure known to all despotic regimes, through no uncertain terms: No economic or military aid given to any of those governments of countries like Saudi Arabia or Egypt. (direct humanitarian aid not withstanding). And yes, in extreme cases, use our military might to enact a change.

Or, you could sit pretty in your (generally) lily white ivory towers and let those darkies suffer, since you'd prefer not to dirty your hands.

*sigh* Is it always necessary to be so aggressive? I only tried to bring up a possible moral dilemma.
Just for your information: I'm not completely and absolutely against war under no circumstances. I have the opinion that all-out war should always be an utter last resort. It's quite idle to discuss the maybes and could-have-beens about alternatives because it happened otherwise.
Maybe a (relatively) peaceful revolt would have been possible, maybe the war really was the best option. But the way it was propagated was quite...damn, can't find a word...well, it just _seemed_ that the coalition didn't even look for alternatives. (I don't say thats a fact!)

I too understand your frustration about muslim fundamentalists, but usually war and percieved(!!!) oppression brings forth more terrorism. To bring up the thousands of civilian casualties again: What if only a handful of the remaining relatives are fundamentalist enough to decide that it's time to avenge their dead parents/siblings/children - voilÃ*: More terrorism.

About the other conflicts in the world: Yes, I think the western democracies should care more about them, do something about them.
But: I don't know if you realize this, but compared to the conflicts all over Africa the Gulf War II is nothing more than a tavern brawl. We are talking about millions killed over the last decades, and about an estimated ten million refugees roaming the continent. If you want to bring peace to this continent, there are many other things to do first, like e.g. maybe stop weapon deals with the dictators AND rebels down there. Or like stabilize the economy and not (how it is now) let it bleed out and only be a cash cow for the western world.
Believe me, I could cry out loud when I see what western (european) imperialism did (and still does, only today its just "economical imperialism") to this continent.

Oh, I have so much more to say, but I just can't find the right words...
It would be so easier to discuss if you didn't assume that everyone who might have a different opinion on matters is blind with hate/envy/etc. for the USA...

Just one more thing (and I'm sure I will get flamed about this): Someone stated here that the western coalition has moral high grounds compared to the terrorists. But isn't accepting (it's not the right word, but I just can't find the right one) thousands of dead civilians for the freedom of opression exact the same thing the terrorists propagate?
Again: I don't want to say that Coalition=Terrorists. But I demand that we are all self-critical about our actions. (And I think several EU members did enough things not to be proud of in recent times)

If war is neccessary, so be it. But it is nothing we should EVER be proud of.

I hope I was not too confusing with my statement (I'm not used to political discussions in English).

Edit: Yes I was. I completely ignored your last paragraph, which I almost fully agree with. (I'm sure we won't agree as to when military action should be used. ;) )
As you can see: I'm surely not sitting in some ivory tower not caring about the rest of the world. But as you yourself stated, there are many other alternatives to be taken before one should consider war.

[RussSchultz]

Sorry for being aggressive. Like I said, I'm suprised at how passionate I am about the situation.

Reading all the 'debates' on the web, and news has finally gone to my head, I supose. Don't take it personally. :)

[nutball]

That's not for you or I to judge. Ask the Iraqi people. Go on, ask them.

Which ones? If you were to ask a random sample of the 24 million Iraqi people, the number who would have a personal connection to at least one of the "collateral damage" civilian casualties would most likely be insignificant compared to the number who would have a personal connection to the at least one of the people Saddam has tortured and murdered during his reign. Go on, ask them.

Ummm... that was my point :?

[Snyder]

Sorry for being aggressive. Like I said, I'm suprised at how passionate I am about the situation.

Reading all the 'debates' on the web, and news has finally gone to my head, I supose. Don't take it personally. :)

No offense taken. I guess the same happened to me...:)
I think it's just difficult to discuss such a serious topic without one's emotions getting in the way, especially with so many people just out for pissing matches...

[Fred]

Machievelli still reigns supreme. THe ends sometime justifies the means. 1000 deaths is better than 10,000, etc etc

[Pete]

It saddens me how some in the "anti-war" camp complain that Saddam didn't put up more of a fight. How about this: his "army" lost the will to fight quite a few years ago (one million Iraqi wills, to be exact).

I guess it's hard to see the right thing to do through that haze of ignorant idiocy that blankets the world, huh?

(Feel free to substitute "flock of misguided sheep" for "haze of ignorant idiocy" if you think my tone was too aggressive. ;) )

[Crusher]

The question I would have asked is why the "anti war" movement is so popular in the European community? I would suggest that it isn't that they are so much "anti war" but anti American. Many of the protests in Europe were indeed organized by left affiliated groups whom have an inherent distain for the Capitalistic/Individualistic nature of the US.

Anti-American is a term used pretty recklessly these days, IMO. I honestly don't think the majority of the protestors are against the American way of life. I think it resembles more of a paranoia stemming from an uncertainty of the real goals of the U.S. government in taking this action.

Previously, the existence of the U.N. kept these people confident that the U.S. could be the world's only superpower and still be kept in line by the larger organization. Now that the U.S. has demonstrated that the U.N. can't always dictate what action it takes, these people are afraid of what is possible, even if it's not neccessarily what will happen. When you wonder how the Europeans can feel this way, try to remember how many empires have conquered different portions of Eruope in the past few centuries. I think the U.N. gave people a feeling that those days were over, and in the light of the breakdown of U.N. diplomacy leading to a war whose goal is explicitly to topple the government of an existing state, they are struck with a fear that all is not as well as it has seemed.

It seems to me that it doesn't matter to these people which country was attacked, or how awful the government there was, or how much their people were suffering, or whether the government had WMDs, or if they had ties to terrorist organizations that have attacked the U.S. and killed thousands of people. All they care about is the apparent ineffectiveness of the U.N. to control the world's only superpower. If I didn't have so much, I guess faith is the word, in the United States's ability to act in a morally correct manner the majority of the time, and if I didn't have so much empathy for the Iraqi people after hearing what the entire world knows to have happened to them, I would probably feel the same way.

I'm confident that the world's fear will be unfounded in the end, but as much as I'd like there not to be any protest, I can at least partially understand why it exists.

[pascal]

Congratulations Crusher, very good insight !

Fear is what many countries have now, not hate.

Only the Arab world hate US mainly because Palestina an the cold war.

[zidane1strife]

And then people like you throw up a few thousand deaths

Indeed I've heard the US has about 2million deaths a year...(read that somewhere, not sure though...). A few 1000 deaths, although regrettable, is an acceptable loss in order to help people get out of such an awful regimen... Not to mention now that the sanctions will be gone, and tech, education, etc... shall improve many lives will be saved from sickness, from hunger, from suffering needlessly.

that prevents the US from using nuclear power as an effective alternative energy source.


Thank god, not only are nuclear reactors quite bad for the enviroment, but if we'd had dozens of reactors across america... terrorism would take on a whole new meaning...

[Fred]

'Thank god, not only are nuclear reactors quite bad for the enviroment, but if we'd had dozens of reactors across america... terrorism would take on a whole new meaning...'

My god surely you are joking. BAD for the environment? About as clean a prominent energy source that exists exists.

Where do you get your information from?

As for security.. Well I can imagine that the 10's of thousands of various missile silos that exist are also heavily guarded. (as is our water supply, etc etc) I dont think that should be a reason to not go through something which is frankly a no brainer (Nuclear power is a clean, economically viable source for our energy problems)

[zidane1strife]

My god surely you are joking. BAD for the environment? About as clean a prominent energy source that exists exists.

Sure they run clean, but nuclear waste does indeed occur, and disposing it is anything but enviromentally friendly.

[DemoCoder]

Yeah, but what's better -- releasing nothing into the atmosphere, and depositing a few thousand tons of spent materials into 0.1% of the earth's surface, or emitting 22 billion tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere, and distributing low-intensity *radioactive* dust all over the earth's surface.

Sure, nuclear power plants produce more concentrated waste, but the radioactive waste from coal ash, while less dangerous per mass, is emitted and spread all over the place in much higher volumes.

I would argue that the denser the power source, and denser the waste, the better for the environment. Of course, concentraing waste leads to security problems because it becomes easier for people to move incredibly dangerous things around (who can turn radioative ash in the air into a concentrated terrorist weapon?) But security is a different concern thna environmentally optimal.

What if you could have a completely clean environment almost, but you had to turn 0.01% of the earth's surface into an uninhabitable hellhole by concentrating all your bad stuff in one place.


Is it really clear that laying down immense solar production facilities around the world to handle the future energy needs of a planet of 6 billion people living a western lifestyle will not negatively impact the planet?

[Crusher]

The moon = nuclear waste disposal site

Why else would a useless rock be endlessly circling our planet?

[Heathen]

Why else would a useless rock be endlessly circling our planet?
Believe it or not there's a heck of a lot of water up there and just imagine the game of gold you could have.

[zidane1strife]

What if you could have a completely clean environment almost, but you had to turn 0.01% of the earth's surface into an uninhabitable hellhole by concentrating all your bad stuff in one place.


Is it really clear that laying down immense solar production facilities around the world to handle the future energy needs of a planet of 6 billion people living a western lifestyle will not negatively impact the planet?

From my understanding current fusion technology is already sufficiently advanced to serve as a power source... that is if the reactors are made of a certain massive size, that would cost some $$$$$$$... still that would be preferable to fision reactors.... and I'm sure there are many ways to obtain the necessary money for such an endeavour.... still it appears that since this would severely hurt certain industries/companies it wont be done.

[RussSchultz]

From my understanding current fusion technology is already sufficiently advanced to serve as a power source.... still it appears that since this would severely hurt certain industries/companies it wont be done.

You're batting 0 for 10+ here. With an ongoing record like that, you should consider expanding your sources(quit listening to the conspiricy shills) and come visit reality.

Sustainable fusion reactions that are energy positive are still the holy grail(i.e. not within reach).

[zidane1strife]

Sustainable fusion reactions that are energy positive are still the holy grail.

Well, my sources are quite good...

Now I said nuke reactors create dangerous waste... it is TRUE.

I said the us has 2million deaths... that was probably at msnbc.com or the newspaper... true I shouldn't trust them...

As for the fusion reactor, I heard there's a theoretical one that might work and might be built in Europe, but it will cost billions of dollars to build, making it nonviable for most.... I think I read that in a Discover mag...

Again, I don't keep all the details of what I read/hear in my head, just the important Shocking stuff... True, I might've read/heard it wrong, but I don't think so....

Anyways one can always verify this stuff, so I might later...

[nutball]

There are working fusion reactors which can sustain fusion for short periods of time (seconds, maybe minutes if they push it hard). But, as Russ alluded to, it takes a lot more energy to initiate fusion than the machines produce.

I've seen quotes from fusion researchers saying that commercially viable fusion is five years away. Those quotes are from thirty years ago. I think that speaks volumes in itself.

[fbg1]

As for the fusion reactor, I heard there's a theoretical one that might work and might be built in Europe, but it will cost billions of dollars to build, making it nonviable for most.... I think I read that in a Discover mag...

You're referring to ITER - International Thermonuclear Reactor - an international collaboration on the next gen tokomak fusion reactor. Here's the site:

http://www.iter.org/

They have high hopes, but the reactor is still experimental. It's more a proof of concept to see if they can achieve a production-ready reactor. Unfortunately, this is a huge, expensive project, along the lines of the Superconducting Supercollider back in the 80s, early 90s. Even if it works, widespread fusion power generation based on this design is still decades away.

[Sxotty]

Anti-American is a term used pretty recklessly these days, IMO. I honestly don't think the majority of the protestors are against the American way of life. I think it resembles more of a paranoia stemming from an uncertainty of the real goals of the U.S. government in taking this action.

Previously, the existence of the U.N. kept these people confident that the U.S. could be the world's only superpower and still be kept in line by the larger organization. Now that the U.S. has demonstrated that the U.N. can't always dictate what action it takes, these people are afraid of what is possible, even if it's not neccessarily what will happen. When you wonder how the Europeans can feel this way, try to remember how many empires have conquered different portions of Eruope in the past few centuries.


That is a really good point, and I have never thought of it since I guess I live in the US it never crossed my mind.

[Sxotty]

Sure they run clean, but nuclear waste does indeed occur, and disposing it is anything but enviromentally friendly.

Nuclear waste can be dealt with much more proficiently than the current implementation, however for various reasons people do not want to.

Every choice you make has bad environmental outcomes that is a fact sorry.

My personal opinion is we should make a large solar array in Nevada instead of a waste storage depot.

In the day pump water in a sealed system up a mountain and the water can pour down at night to make energy. Since it is sealed none would evaporate.

There is many problems with this as all other ideas, cost for one but ignoring that.

The solar array would destroy the environment it was placed on. Producing solar cells relies on nasty chemicals that are bad for the environment.

That is how life is trade-offs.

[zidane1strife]

They have high hopes, but the reactor is still experimental. It's more a proof of concept to see if they can achieve a production-ready reactor. Unfortunately, this is a huge, expensive project, along the lines of the Superconducting Supercollider back in the 80s, early 90s. Even if it works, widespread fusion power generation based on this design is still decades away.

Yes, but according to the guys who did the article in the mag it's very promising.

As for the energy prob. It's just a matter of time until it's resolved. The enviromental damage will have to be tolerated for now.... and THERE IS NO WAY I'm living near any nuke reactor... no f#cking w@y... maybe later when people can withstand the explosion, and the radiation... then I might consider it...

[Crusher]

There's a small nuclear reactor about 8 blocks from where I live in the Mechanical Engineering building on campus. I don't think I've spent one second of my life worrying about whether or not it would explode, and it's being operated by 20 year old college students.

[Humus]

Why else would a useless rock be endlessly circling our planet?
Believe it or not there's a heck of a lot of water up there and just imagine the game of gold you could have.

Game of gold ... you mean like a Hockey match on the lunar ice? :)

[fbg1]

Yes, but according to the guys who did the article in the mag it's very promising.

Yes, promising, but longterm. Here's the 2-month old press release of the US announcement that we're joining ITER. Hmmm, coincidence? I think not. (Al Quaeda + Iraq - oil = ITER?)

http://www.energy.gov/HQPress/releases03/janpr/pr03026.htm

ITER could begin construction in 2006 and be operational in 2014. Fusion research would last for up to 20 years.

Don't get your hopes up for a fusion-powered world anytime soon.

[zidane1strife]

What are a few decades? That's gonna pass by in no time...

[zidane1strife]

Saw the link The fusion power produced in the ITER plasma will be 10 times greater than the external power added to the plasma.


If that is true, it means on paper it appears to succesfully produce more energy than is inputted. So if it works, it'll likely be like a test run for what's to come.

[Vince]

What are a few decades? That's gonna pass by in no time...

HA! As Nutball stated, sustainable Fusion has this mystical attribute to it where it's allways 5 or 15 years away.... been this way for the last half century. It's kind of funny when the history of it is put in perspective.

Also, although Princeton's tokamak closed, I think there is still significant research being done on the topic there and I remember hearing something about a collaberation with the US NFF - anyone know how the progress is going? Who else in the US even has experimental tokamak research? MIT?

Also, didn't a Japanese (?) University come up with a rival to the Tokamak system? I really don't know much on present, applied Fusion research. Anyone know where to find informatioin outside of ITER?

[zidane1strife]

Well, I think this time it might happen, isn't it just a scaled up tokamak?
Anyway, fusion, if there is no physics that make it unviable, will be here before the end of this century... The amazon is being destroyed too, but we'll just have to hope the planet can take a few decades beating.

[RussSchultz]

If the reaction takes more energy to sustain itself than it creates, you cannot make it viable by simply making it bigger! (This is the same reason 90% of the .com's failed--you can't make your losses up in volume)

I'm all for research, but your claim that fusion is here but "big oil" is preventing it from happening is simply ludicrous.

[nutball]

Anyway, fusion, if there is no physics that make it unviable, will be here before the end of this century...

Errr, well maybe it will be here before the end of the century, but that's not "soon" in my book. Certainly not soon enough to solve the worlds energy problems before they get started.

[fbg1]

Who else in the US even has experimental tokamak research?

Also, didn't a Japanese (?) University come up with a rival to the Tokamak system? I really don't know much on present, applied Fusion research. Anyone know where to find informatioin outside of ITER?

Not sure if this answers your question, but Sandia Labs has a tokomak-alternative called the Z-machine. Here's a recent slashdot post on it:

http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/04/07/2320227&mode=flat&tid=134

[fbg1]

What are a few decades? That's gonna pass by in no time...

Alright then. You and I just have different notions of "soon". I don't dispute that fusion will happen eventually, the question is, when?

[fbg1]

If the reaction takes more energy to sustain itself than it creates, you cannot make it viable by simply making it bigger! (This is the same reason 90% of the .com's failed--you can't make your losses up in volume)

Theoretically, ITER should solve that problem. Theoretically:

ITER will provide 500 megawatts of fusion power for 500 seconds or longer during each individual fusion experiment. ITER will demonstrate essential fusion energy technologies in a system that integrates physics and technology and will test key elements required to use fusion as a practical energy source. ITER will be the first fusion device to produce a burning plasma and to operate at a high power level for such long duration experiments. The fusion power produced in the ITER plasma will be 10 times greater than the external power added to the plasma.

http://www.energy.gov/HQPress/releases03/janpr/pr03026.htm

[jjayb]

My favorite image from the war:

http://www.pointlesswasteoftime.com/wankers.jpg

I guess we see how the Iraqi's felt about the war protesting human shields.

[Nagorak]

Call me a pax americana lover/warmonger, but the world has remained silent for way too long and allowed Rwanda, Iraq, Zimbabwe, etc continue for way too long. I blame the US for this also.

I'm not suggesting conquering the world, but I do think the US should stand up and fill its moral shoes. The whole world should. We should cast off ties with dictators like the Saudi's, the Kuwaiti's, etc. and deal only with democratic/representative countries. We should make our displeasure known to all despotic regimes, through no uncertain terms: No economic or military aid given to any of those governments of countries like Saudi Arabia or Egypt. (direct humanitarian aid not withstanding). And yes, in extreme cases, use our military might to enact a change.

Or, you could sit pretty in your (generally) lily white ivory towers and let those darkies suffer, since you'd prefer not to dirty your hands.

Wake up. The US doesn't give a damn about Rwanda, Zimbabww, Congo, Uganda or anything else. The major reason to oppose this war is the rampant hypocrisy of the United States. Is it oil, is it racism, who knows? But the bottomline is we'd never waste the effort intervening in an African country, meanwhile we wasted no time in going into the Balkans and Iraq. Liberating people, my ass... :roll:



And the reason the US doesn't do it is b/c it will be expensive, piss people off, and we don't have enough help, and to many hindering like france. If Iraq actually goes well, then I think we will see more dictators lose contorl even if the US does not intervene b/c their people will realize the lies they are hearing

The reason the US doesn't really do it, is because the US doesn't really care.

By the way, the only reason the anti-war movement didn't catch on, and the ONLY reason we went to war at all is because of 9/11. Which we now all know was planned by Saddam. Hmmm...Not sure what Osama's role was anymore... Oh, I know, maybe he doesn't exist since we couldn't catch him.

There are enough logical holes to drive the titanic through, but that's ok, mindlessly listen to your government and the genius who is our un-elected president.

By the way, if all we find is 1-2 WMD war heads, that's not significant enough to count for anything, and will be pretty hillarious.

[Deflection]

Wake up. The US doesn't give a damn about Rwanda, Zimbabww, Congo, Uganda or anything else. The major reason to oppose this war is the rampant hypocrisy of the United States.

Hypocrisy is rampant among human beings.

By the way, if all we find is 1-2 WMD war heads, that's not significant enough to count for anything, and will be pretty hillarious.

Backpeddaling, see above.

[Nagorak]

Yeah, but what's better -- releasing nothing into the atmosphere, and depositing a few thousand tons of spent materials into 0.1% of the earth's surface, or emitting 22 billion tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere, and distributing low-intensity *radioactive* dust all over the earth's surface.

Sure, nuclear power plants produce more concentrated waste, but the radioactive waste from coal ash, while less dangerous per mass, is emitted and spread all over the place in much higher volumes.

I would argue that the denser the power source, and denser the waste, the better for the environment. Of course, concentraing waste leads to security problems because it becomes easier for people to move incredibly dangerous things around (who can turn radioative ash in the air into a concentrated terrorist weapon?) But security is a different concern thna environmentally optimal.

What if you could have a completely clean environment almost, but you had to turn 0.01% of the earth's surface into an uninhabitable hellhole by concentrating all your bad stuff in one place.


Is it really clear that laying down immense solar production facilities around the world to handle the future energy needs of a planet of 6 billion people living a western lifestyle will not negatively impact the planet?


As far as solar, it doesn't hurt to try, does it? Not to mention you're forgetting wind, geothermal and hydro power. Also, I don't remember a solar panel ever melting down and killing everyone nearby. Nuclear meltdowns are at least as big of a problem. Sure, maybe it's not likely, but when it happens (and it will, no matter how many safe guards you put up), it's always going to be a major disaster. Maybe it would work if all the nuclear plants were down in Antarctica or on the moon, but that's not too likely is it?

By the way, the toxic waste is a much bigger problem than you make it out to be. Yeah, it might seem like a good idea to put it in all one place but 1) no one wants it in their backyard. 2) transporting it there is hazardous and what happens when (not if) a major spill occurs. 3) the half life of radioactive waste is ridiculously long, and the idea that it won't eventually get loose is absurd. 4) If you think about the cost of maintaining a toxic waste dump for the next few eons, it no longer seems very cost effective, does it?

But that's typical western thinking, just put the problem off till tomorrow. That's why the US government is a few trillion dollars in debt. Everyone is concerned about the threat Saddam could have presented in the long term. Maybe a more realistic concern is the threat this sort of thinking is going to present in the long term. It doesn't matter if you're an individual, a corporation or a company: you can't keep going deeper into debt indefinitely. Unfortuantely the morons in congress just gung-ho to either spend the money or give outrageous tax counts-- neither of which are at all acceptable when we're already so far in debt.

Anyway, unless the western world wakes up and seriously adjusts its life style, the whole world is going to be trashed anyway. I'm afraid to think of how it will be if all the third world countries adopt the same attitude. Right now, gas guzzling cars are at least as big a problem (if not more) than power plants. In terms of pollution, power plants are actually a lot cleaner than cars, because the plants have been forced to install very effective scrubbers and such that just don't exist on the exhaust pipe of a car. Actually, make that an SUV, the type of vehicle we all know is best for hauling groceries around town. :roll: And while power plants have gotten cleaners in recent years, the average fuel economy of the US has dropped since the late 80s, so things on that front are just getting worse.

[Nagorak]

There's a small nuclear reactor about 8 blocks from where I live in the Mechanical Engineering building on campus. I don't think I've spent one second of my life worrying about whether or not it would explode, and it's being operated by 20 year old college students.

Do you worry about getting in a car accident on the way to work?

Does that mean it won't happen?

[Nagorak]

By the way, if all we find is 1-2 WMD war heads, that's not significant enough to count for anything, and will be pretty hillarious.

Backpeddaling, see above.

You can make ricin in your house, and you can probably learn exactly how by searching the internet. Finding ricin doesn't count as having WMD.

Finding a handful of warheads does not count as a threat. The WMD threat from Iraq was nonexistant.

In fact the whole idea is pretty ridiculous, because any dictator that uses WMD on the US would just get nuked into oblivion. Contrary to popular belief, dictators are not suicidal: they like being in power.

The only people who would use chemical weapons are terrorists, and then it's a moot point because they already can just make ricin themselves. The thing about terrorism is it requires only a few people to pull off. You can't stop terrorists by attacking countries, you can't fight a "war on terrorism". Law enforcement can deter it somewhat, which is how most terrorist plots are foiled. But, the truth is, the US is no safer today than it was 5-10 years ago.

Funny how we didn't start a war on terrorism after white boy Timothy McVeigh blew up the Oklahoma city building. Based on the past few years, maybe we should be equally concerned about white militia groups as middle eastern terrorists?

[fbg1]

I disagree with just about everything you say.

By the way, if all we find is 1-2 WMD war heads, that's not significant enough to count for anything, and will be pretty hillarious.

On the contrary. Finding one single <strong>nuclear warhead</strong> in Iraq would be complete justification for the war, as would finding any weapons-grade nuclear material in enough volume to create an actual weapon, be it a dirty-bomb or an actual warhead.

In fact the whole idea is pretty ridiculous, because any dictator that uses WMD on the US would just get nuked into oblivion.

That's a Cold-war era assumption that may be less valid now. During the Cold War, our massive nuclear arsenal served two purposes. Deterrent through the MAD policy, and providing us with the only possible way to neutralize the Soviets' nuclear arsenal. Small chance of that, if the Soviets could launch before our missiles hit their targeted silos, but when the alternative is the complete obliteration of your civilization, you play every odd.

However, any dictator that nukes America will not have the ability to destroy the country like the USSR could have, for the foreseeable future at least. America's convential forces are more than capable of disarming him of his wmd capability. Knowing that, I think a rational American leadership would consider a conventional response, and if they deemed it possible to effectively neutralize the threat conventially, they would actually choose that method to spare the civilian populace. A more measured response to such an attack is not out of the realm of possibility.

Contrary to popular belief, dictators are not suicidal: they like being in power.

Saddam could have stayed in power if he had simply completely co-operated with the weapons inspectors. And don't say that he did and the US lied about it. Even Hans Blix admits to a pattern of evasion. Here's a good brief on just what Saddam may have been evading:

http://www.thebulletin.org/issues/1998/mj98/mj98albright.html

In 1998, many believe that Iraq’s nuclear program has been dismantled and most if not all of the materials and equipment that were used in that program have been found and destroyed. But in a seven-year-plus effort, U.N. inspectors from the U.N. Special Commission (UNSCOM) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Action Team have had to work through so many layers of deception, and have received so many different “full, final, and complete declarations� from the Iraqis, that they have no doubt Iraq is still hiding important information. Inspectors believe they may never know the full story.

And theirs is not idle curiosity. The stakes are high. Inspectors believe that Iraq could reconstitute its nuclear weapons program quickly, once sanctions are lifted.

The thing about terrorism is it requires only a few people to pull off. You can't stop terrorists by attacking countries,

No, attacking Afghanistan had no effect on Al Quaeda. Your attitude seems to be that you can't stop terrorism, at all, ever. But it's that very attitude, and the accompanying decision to accept terrorist blackmail instead of fighting back, that allows terrorists to win.