NEW! Google Custom Search

Loading
MadMom's picture

War on Iraq (post #40304)

I just sent the following message to each of the United States Senators:


We are respectfully begging you to resist the temptation to give President Bush blanket authority to wage war against Iraq.  We listened to the President's speech tonight, and at no time did President Bush present satellite photographs, verified intelligence, or any other credible information that would support his rush to war.  We have heard no reason why we must go to war at this time, and there are many reasons that we should not. 


This administration has given us no clear idea of the cost of such an invasion, either in financial terms, or in terms of lives lost on both sides.  Furthermore, how can we, as a sovereign nation, stand up and say that we have the right to invade another sovereign nation, simply because they might one day do something that threatens us, or because their leader is not to our liking.  If we have a right to invade Iraq because Saddam Hussein might one day have nuclear weapons, what about those nations who already have nuclear weapons?  What would we say to India if they were to invade Pakistan, or to Pakistan if they were to invade India?  Would we support such an invasion?  If not, how can we justify our complete hypocrisy?


Iraq has offered to allow weapons inspectors to re-enter the country, but this is not enough for our President, who seems determined to invade that country, no matter what other nations think, no matter what the United Nations thinks, and no matter whether there is any proven danger there.  Of course, Saddam Hussein is a dictator.  There are many dictators in nations throughout the world; are we to invade every country which is governed by a dictator? 


If we in the United States ignore the United Nations and plunge into this poorly thought-out campaign virtually alone (with our support limited only to Britain and to countries we might be able to bully into abstaining from a vote), what right have we to go back to that body at some future time to ask for support when we are threatened?  Our President has ignored the world community from his inauguration; our gluttonous greed for energy has driven his environmental and political policies with little or no regard for public opinion, either here or abroad.  Still, when we were attacked on 9/11, other nations ignored our actions and came to our side and supported us.  Do we seriously believe they will do this again, and again? 


When our young men start coming home in body bags, when our economy is even more decimated than it is now, when world opinion is united against us, we will have no one to blame but ourselves.


Again, we are asking you to consider carefully the impact of what the President has requested.  If war is necessary, the American people have always rallied to the cause, and they will again.  If war is merely a political expediency, the American people will react with justifiable disgust.


Ray and Sharon Richardson


What a terrible thing to have lost one's mind. Or not to have a mind
at all. How true that is.
-- Vice President Dan Quayle winning friends while
speaking to the United Negro College Fund

doyenne's picture

(post #40304, reply #1 of 77)

Totally agree. May I have your permission to send this to my state's congressional reps?


As an aside, Bush keeps on saying  Hussein tried to kill his Daddy. How and when did that occur? I have no recollection of reading about it.


I can't remember today what it was I  couldn't remember yesterday

Where is Monica Lewinski when you need her?

MadMom's picture

(post #40304, reply #2 of 77)

Certainly!  Nothing would make me happier than for others to send similar messages to their representatives.  I'm tired of reading that "polls show" that the Americans want to go to war.  We have never been a nation that "wanted" to go to war, and I would think we have sunk to that level. 


And, I'm with you...don't know exactly when Saddam tried to kill "daddy."


What a terrible thing to have lost one's mind. Or not to have a mind
at all. How true that is.
-- Vice President Dan Quayle winning friends while
speaking to the United Negro College Fund

gjander's picture

(post #40304, reply #8 of 77)

Actually, that is true.  Hussein tried to orchestrate the assassination of George H.W. Bush in 1993 while he was visiting Kuwait.  It received plenty of press coverage at the time and President Clinton launched a cruise missile strike against targets in Iraq in retaliation.


Edited 10/8/2002 8:32:35 AM ET by GJANDER

doyenne's picture

(post #40304, reply #15 of 77)

Thank you. I guess I just didn't remember.

I can't remember today what it was I  couldn't remember yesterday

Where is Monica Lewinski when you need her?

splintee's picture

(post #40304, reply #16 of 77)

There was a march in London on Sept. 28 to protest the war on Iraq that comprised around quarter million people, and last Saturday in Italy a million and a half protested in major cities (200,000 in Rome). None of this seems to have made the American media.


www.moveon.org is a well-organized and active organization if anyone wants to associate with a group in this matter. I get regular updates on the machinations in Washington and they make it easy, providing all the contact info on one's congresional reps.  I heard from them that Byrd was threatening a filibuster if things didn't slow down.

Leafy's picture

(post #40304, reply #17 of 77)

I will use that letter too. It is a classic. None of the stations here carried the speech either. They said it was a network decision in New York.

Public opinion in New Mexico, as measured by an unscientific lot of polls by the local TV stations, is running about 70/30 against war. Some of the polls run higher than that, that is just an average. The congressional delegation from New Mexico say their mail is roughly 90 percent against war.

Yeah, dig the bomb shelters, and put in air filtration systems that can filter out the biological weapons ... Mr. Bush doesn't care about the people, he is obsessed with getting Saddam Hussein at any cost.

KarenP's picture

(post #40304, reply #18 of 77)

Personally, I think it was a network decision made in

Washington DC

assibams's picture

(post #40304, reply #19 of 77)

I listen to AFN on the radio - in the car. They, of course, did broadcast some of the speech on their news. I almost swerved off the road, because Dumbya kept saying "NUCULAR"! If he wasn't so dangerous because of the men who control him behind the scene, this guy would be a hoot. Just imagine what a great team he would have made with Dan Quail, not on the political scene, though.


As someone mentioned earlier in the discussion, Saddam Hussein does not have any missiles to shoot anything farther than a couple of thousand miles - if I remember correctly the farthest he could reach westwards was Israel. And that was during the gulf war. A friend of ours works for the German equivalent of the FBI and he said no secret service had any proof that Iraq had any weapons that the US Government is talking about.


The only threat I see to world peace right now is the only country with abundant weapons of mass destruction and the logistics to use them everywhere and against whoever they want in a preemptive attack.


Please do anything you can from keeping your regime from being able to start these kind of attacks. At the rate Bushie is going at finding new enemies who knows what country will be next......

"A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort."
Herm Albright

MadMom's picture

(post #40304, reply #20 of 77)

There was a cartoon in the paper today...two people talking.  First one says. "Fine, I give up.  I accept this administration's thinking.  Let's establish a policy where we use military force whenever we want to oust leaders who aren't popularly elected."  Second guy replies, "You're serious?  You want to go after Hussein?"  First guy replies, "Bush." 


Yes, that might be a cheap shot, but my deep concern is that if we go down this path of using military force to oust leaders of other countries just because we disagree with them or dislike them or are worried about what they might do someday, when will it stop?   Bush says he doesn't want to risk one drop of American blood on the possibility that Hussein might one day use weapons of mass destruction against us, yet he seems willing to risk thousands of Americans (and our allies, if we can bully anyone into supporting us) and untold thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians to pursue a policy that seems designed only to get the Republicans through the next election without discussing the economic disaster in our country.


It was sad to read a high ranking member of the administration saying that if we go into Iraq, the people will be marching in the streets, waving American flags.  What a fantasy world they are living in!  If the Iraqi people were that concerned about their government, we could support them, rather than bomb them.  I'm sure that after we kill a few thousand Iraqi civilians with our bombs, they will be waving American flags...or burning them. 


What a terrible thing to have lost one's mind. Or not to have a mind
at all. How true that is.
-- Vice President Dan Quayle winning friends while
speaking to the United Negro College Fund

assibams's picture

(post #40304, reply #21 of 77)

I reread the letter you wrote, and will print it out to give to friends (yes, even the one working for the Feds). I agree wholeheartedly with what you say and do hope the people you addressed it to will listen.


Saddam Hussein was a very welcome "ally" of the US when the Iran-Iraq crisis was still an issue. A lot of his arsenal was indeed financed by the US-government.


It is sad to see that the whole conflict seems to boil down to only one major point: the control over crude oil. With the Bush-family's ties to this industry it is no surprise that GW now, instead of hunting down Bin Laden as he said he would (at least that would keep him busy for quite some time), jumps one step ahead. Under the cover of "war on terrorism" he tries to pursue his family's interests. This is so outrageous!


I hope that the democrats in the senat/congress do remember Bush's statement that they were not interested in "homeland security" and vote against this whole war issue. Even if there were evidence that Iraq possessed any weapons of mass destruction I still am not conviced a military strike is a wise choice. The only way to convince any population about the threats of their own government is education and the building of a political opposition. This is not possible through military intervention, but only through intelligence work.

"A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort."
Herm Albright

gjander's picture

(post #40304, reply #22 of 77)

You know, during the 90's the Republican party spent 8 years trashing an elected president and his administration because they didn't agree that he should have been elected.  It was disgraceful.  Unfortunately, the Democrats are now following suit by using the same tactics to try to discredit a Republican president.


I don't agree with many of the policies of Bush, and I'm certainly not happy with how the election went, but there you have it--he is the president.  At least until 2004 when we'll have another opportunity to elect somebody different.


I don't believe we need to remain silent during the four years between elections, but I think the kind of debate I'm hearing is cynical and counter-productive.  There are many well-reasoned arguments one could make against attacking Iraq, but assertions that Bush is a propped-up, dim-witted, immoral scoundrel who just wants to enrich his friends and distract the voters so he can retain power just aren't among them.  I find it pretty offensive to suggest that any American president would purposely kill innocent people to make a few dollars or get a few votes.  It was offensive when the Republicans said it about Clinton, and it's offensive now.


I also think it needs pointing out that there are reasonable people who feel that some sort of military action against Iraq is necessary.  That doesn't make them immoral or criminal.  Take them up on the issues instead of resorting to name calling.


 


Edited 10/9/2002 1:16:30 PM ET by GJANDER

MadMom's picture

(post #40304, reply #23 of 77)

I am sorry that you feel that reasonable opposition to the president is name calling.  One of the things that has worried me about this administration is that any opposition is tagged as unpatriotic, unAmerican, etc.  While the Republicans spent eight years hating Clinton, they could hardly say, given his overwhelming electoral victory of GHWB, that he was not elected. 


It saddens me to think that any president, or any elected official anywhere, would use innocent people to maintain their power, but it is happening all over the world.  To close our eyes to that fact, or to pretend it does not exist, is to live in a fantasy world.  I do believe that Bush is "a propped-up, dim-witted, immoral scoundrel who just wants to enrich his friends and distract the voters so he can retain power" but that is not why I oppose the war in Iraq.  I oppose it because I believe it is morally wrong and totally in conflict with the principals on which this country was founded.


 


What a terrible thing to have lost one's mind. Or not to have a mind
at all. How true that is.
-- Vice President Dan Quayle winning friends while
speaking to the United Negro College Fund

gjander's picture

(post #40304, reply #24 of 77)

Nope--I don't feel that reasonable opposition is name calling.  The opposition I was referring to was specifically that which is based on the cynical allegations that he was waging war to distract voters, make money, etc.  If you believe the war is immoral that's a valid opinion--go ahead and make your case why you believe it is.  As I said, I believe there are many good arguments you could make.  I also believe there are arguments that could be made in favor.  That's the argument I'd like to hear, not one where both sides are questioning each other's motives.  I believe that the vast majority of people in this country want to do the right thing, so let's figure out what that is instead of accusing each other of being villains.

gjander's picture

(post #40304, reply #27 of 77)

BTW, Clinton's victory over GHWB was only with 43% of the popular vote.  And if Ross Perot had not been a factor in that election it's likely he wouldn't have been elected at all.  That was part of the argument Republicans made about why he wasn't a legitimately elected president.


And I certainly do believe that people in positions of power all over the world use innocent people to maintain that power.  Hussein comes to mind immediately as do a number of others.  But I believe that in our system, at the president's level it is a rarity.  I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt until presented with solid evidence to the contrary.


 


Edited 10/9/2002 1:52:41 PM ET by GJANDER


Edited 10/9/2002 1:56:07 PM ET by GJANDER

KyleW's picture

(post #40304, reply #28 of 77)

I think everyone is right. We should not do anything preemptive in Iraq. We should wait until he uses some of his chemical and biological weapons in France, Israel, Italy...you pick. Then we can all point the finger at GWB and ask why  he didn't do anything.

 

At weddings, my Aunts would poke me in the ribs and cackle "You're next!". They stopped when I started doing the same to them at funerals.

assibams's picture

(post #40304, reply #29 of 77)

I do happen to live in Germany, which you forgot to include in your list. I would be relieved if your government would wait. The USA are not at risk at all for an attack of any sorts by Iraq. What happened on 9/11 has still not been linked to Iraq, and that was a terrorist attack carried out with almost no weapons at all. The threat of bio-chemical warfare by any nation is farfetched to this date and by no means a realistic threat. I am not implying that terrorists could not strike with biochemical measures, but that would be confined to a small area.


For now, I would be happy and content if GWB would not do anything!

"A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort."
Herm Albright

StevenHB's picture

(post #40304, reply #30 of 77)

What good are all of the weapons that we have if we don't get to fire them at someone once in a while?


I really do suspect, deep down, that the administration's motives for attacking Iraq are less about the threat that it poses to us than about the president getting re-elected, establishing a legacy for himself, and avenging his father's defeat.  The tendency for the administration to start out with the "we'll go it alone if we have to" approach rather than trying to build consensus domestically and with international allies has bolstered this cynical view.


The administration's pathetic job of making its case on the merits has caused many to be suspicious of its motives.



Without coffee, chocolate, and beer, in that order, life as we know it would not be possible

Without coffee, chocolate, and beer, in that order, life as we know it would not be possible
assibams's picture

(post #40304, reply #34 of 77)

Couldn't have said it better! I totally agree with you.

"A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort."
Herm Albright

KyleW's picture

(post #40304, reply #31 of 77)

"The threat of bio-chemical warfare by any nation is farfetched to this date and by no means a realistic threat."


 


Tell that to the Kurds :-)

 

At weddings, my Aunts would poke me in the ribs and cackle "You're next!". They stopped when I started doing the same to them at funerals.

assibams's picture

(post #40304, reply #35 of 77)

You aren't seriously trying to convince me that your government is thinking about starting a war against Iraq to help the Kurdish population, are you?


In Europe no one fears an attack by Iraq. However the consequences that might happen (WW III?) if the US launch a preemptive attack against Iraq is what worries us here. Bush's propaganda seems to work now.

"A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort."
Herm Albright

KyleW's picture

(post #40304, reply #37 of 77)

"You aren't seriously trying to convince me that your government is thinking about starting a war against Iraq to help the Kurdish population, are you?"


No :-) I was trying to convince you that Hussein is more than willing to use WMD.


"the consequences that might happen (WW III?) if the US launch a preemptive attack against Iraq is what worries us here"


Now how is jumping to conclusions? :-)


 


I am not in favor of a unilateral attack on Iraq per se. I would be very happy if the UN inspectors were allowed to return and do their job with absolutely no strings (Read including 73 Presidential Residences) attached. They would find and destroy the weapons and we could all go back to the kitchen. Sadly, this will never happen.

 

At weddings, my Aunts would poke me in the ribs and cackle "You're next!". They stopped when I started doing the same to them at funerals.

assibams's picture

(post #40304, reply #39 of 77)

No :-) I was trying to convince you that Hussein is more than willing to use WMD.


OK, so was the US during almost every war they fought the last century. Just ask the almost 200.000 US-veterans still suffering from being exposed to various biochemical weapons.


I am convinced that an attack against Iraq poses a risk not worth taking. It is truly a Pandora's box. The Arabic nations will certainly stand together if one of their brother nations is attacked. Iraq's invasion in Kuweit was a different matter and not welcome in the Arabic league. But a preemptive, until now unfounded, attack on Iraq will jeopardize world peace.


The weapons inspectors are negotiating the conditions of their return. These inspections have to be organized, you cannot send them without logistic and other preparation. This will take time, but it will happen.

"A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort."
Herm Albright

MadMom's picture

(post #40304, reply #40 of 77)

The weapons inspectors are negotiating the conditions of their return. These inspections have to be organized, you cannot send them without logistic and other preparation. This will take time, but it will happen.


No, Astrid, it probably will not happen, because Dubya cannot take the risk that anything would happen which would deter this mad rush to war.  I keep hoping that, with elections just three weeks away, he will be content, once they are over, to drop the whole idea.  Of course, he will never want to discuss the economy (which is in the toilet!) or other issues that are meaningful to the American people.  Still, perhaps if he manages to focus on something other than the disaster he has made of this country until after the elections, that will satisfy him, and we can go back to muddling along without bombing anybody.


I thought Jay Leno's comments about Bush stating he would rebuild the Iraqi economy after a war were great...Bush has never had an economic policy for America, but now he has one for Iraq?


What a terrible thing to have lost one's mind. Or not to have a mind
at all. How true that is.
-- Vice President Dan Quayle winning friends while
speaking to the United Negro College Fund

KyleW's picture

(post #40304, reply #41 of 77)

"Of course, he will never want to discuss the economy (which is in the toilet!) or other issues that are meaningful to the American people"


 


If I'm not mistaken, GWB just invoked the Taft-Hartley Act to address the labor dispute effecting West Coast ports. The dispute was costing the U.S. economy as much as 2 billion dollars a day. This is the first invocation of the act since 1978. Seems as though he may be paying some attention to domestic issues.

 

At weddings, my Aunts would poke me in the ribs and cackle "You're next!". They stopped when I started doing the same to them at funerals.

Wolvie's picture

(post #40304, reply #42 of 77)

oh brother! Har de har har, and all that.


 


Woe to the cook whose sauce has no sting
- Chaucer

 

KyleW's picture

(post #40304, reply #43 of 77)

''oh brother! Har de har har, and all that."


I'm not quite sure how to respond to this?

 

At weddings, my Aunts would poke me in the ribs and cackle "You're next!". They stopped when I started doing the same to them at funerals.

KyleW's picture

(post #40304, reply #44 of 77)

For those of you keeping score @Home:


House Passes Iraq Resolution With 297 to 132 Vote


Video: Daschle Backs Bush on Iraq


House gives Bush authority for war with Iraq


Edited 10/10/2002 4:12:20 PM ET by Kyle

 

At weddings, my Aunts would poke me in the ribs and cackle "You're next!". They stopped when I started doing the same to them at funerals.

kai230's picture

(post #40304, reply #54 of 77)

Which just goes to show that those in power will always bow to special interests, public be damned.

assibams's picture

(post #40304, reply #56 of 77)

The guys over in Breaktime have a pretty interesting discussion on the same topic:


http://forums.taunton.com/n/mb/message.asp?webtag=tp-breaktime&msg=23773.1


 

"A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort."
Herm Albright

MadMom's picture

(post #40304, reply #59 of 77)

Remarkably lucid discussion for our friends in the 'shed!

What a terrible thing to have lost one's mind. Or not to have a mind
at all. How true that is.
-- Vice President Dan Quayle winning friends while
speaking to the United Negro College Fund