Unfortunately, we most likely will have a war...and the saddest part for me, is that someone will probably flame this thread with a 'too bad, we(meaning Republicans) run the show, so nyah nyah, in your face' comment. Turning the loss of human life into nothing more significant than a football rivalry.

My estimate...
War on Saddam causes
5000 deaths + 10000 casualtys <= War <= 50000 deaths + 50000 casualtys per year for 1 to 5 years

Saddam's regime causes....
50000 deaths + 100000 casualtys <= No War <= 100000 deaths + 200000 casualtys per year for 10 years+

Never mind the terrorism and misery caused by saddam, war wins on my pseudo statistics of deaths and casualtys alone.

It's just a shame that half the Iraqi's are brain-washed into thinking Saddam's a cool guy.

Any counter arguments?

quote:

---

there are many reasons to question what kind of war America intends to wage.

---

Yes. Like I say, I think george is doing the right thing for the wrong reason. And I say that the whole contraversy revolves around this. Anti war peeps say " George wants to go around mindlessly attacking countrys who he is deluding himself into believing were responsible for 11\9\2001 ". This is certainly the wrong attitude. But at the end of the day who cares about the misguided reason? It's a rare thing that our politians ever somehow muddle their way through their twisted deranged internal buracracy to see themselves clear to doing a good thing for humanity. If the Saddam regime can be ended it would be a shame to pass the chance by just because this certain minority of people in the free world have cocked up a propaganda scheme.

As to what will happen after Iraq, George will lose the presidency to some other candidate preaching peace and that George was a deranged warmonger.

As to the safty of West against terrorism, I think a war on Iraq will give another reason to be terrorists for people who are looking for reason to be terrorists. So in this sense, George is " swating bees around a beehive ", I think terrorism sentiment will increase if a war on Iraq happens.
I don`t think that this increased terrorism will have too much impact though. Not with all the increased internal security. And there's been plenty of anti west sentiment in the East for decades, with relatively little effect on public safty compared to other domestic safty issues.

If we take a step back though, and really put the effect of terrorism in perspective with the threat it poses to human life, and ask what's the best thing George could do to reduce risk of 'avoidable' deaths in the US, and if a 'war against terrorism' is the best way to reduce risk of avoidable death, then I think you'd find that George would save more resources and lives by concentrating into on domestic issues like a ban on guns campaign, anti-drugs campaigns, motor vehicle safty campaigns. That's where most 'avoidable' deaths occur.
Why doesn`t he? Because it human nature to react and deal with a dramatic event such as 11\9\2001, as apposed to a bunch of statistics that mudanely appear in the form of writing on a few sheets of paper. If only the far more numerous domestic-caused deaths could present themselves in such spectacular fashion as terrorism-caused deaths, then perhaps politicians and the public will find them the more attractive of the two issues to concentrate on.

Conclusion:
1. George is on the loony war-path because it's more fun and intuitive than dealing with more important domestic problems.
2. It's a mad mad world where your expecting too much if you want the right thing to get done for the right reason. Just get the right thing done, forget about the reason, and be satisfied with that.

_______________________________________________

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bubonic Plague:
What matters is not whether or not we wage war, but how we wage the war.

_______________________________________________

"Death - an outmoded concept. We sleep, and we change."

---

My thoughts exactly. Saddam isn't anyone's first choice to lead a country, but launching hundrens of cruise missiles into residential areas isn't the best way to deal with the problem either.

I would vote No too. Not because Saddam is a Saint. He most definitely isn't. But the world is full of such anti-Saints
And the US needs to have at least some rationale re: their target priority.
Their selfish " We want to finish all the world's oil first and hoard up our huge resources for a rainy day (oh what a day that will be !!) "
and
" Hey look dad! My popularity soars everytime I declare war ! Yippeeee ! Now here's one more. " .............
disguised in the many cosmetic selfless " Saddam is Satan incarnate. He has so many baa...ad weapons (never mind what the UN says, they dont know anything!). He's such a baa..ad man! The world should be indebted to us forever for wanting to eliminate him in war " etc .... just wont wash any more.

- Sivakami.

I'm with you, Dan, those are ideas and questions that the administration seems unable or unwilling to entertain.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Turtle:
War is not the answer.

---

If war is not the answer than what is? No, I am not a republican. I mean really think about it , how are we going to bring a hard headed tyrant down without war? I just don't see any other way. As George Washington said " To have peace we must prepare for war."

However, I am some what still in the middle ground with this topic , because ,like some of you , I am worried about what the U.S. is going to do in this war. What I am really worried about the most is that the U.S. is going to encourage people to stand up to Saddam , and then abbandon them , again.

If Saddam is not put out now he's most likely going to still be a trouble maker in the future. I mean why not get it over with now? While he is weak.

It is not a question of giving inspections time. If Hussein wants them to work, they work. If he doesn't they don't. No time is needed.

Looking at the situation from two extreme viewpoints, altruistic, and self-serving, I see war in our future.

Arltruistic - The people of Iraq will be better off without Saddam Hussein. Most likely, fewer will die in war than in peace - the peace that will be after the US and UK stop enforcing the no-fly zones. If those zones are taken away, genocide will be waged against the Kurds, and severe repression will be enforced against the Shiites.

Self-serving - We will be more secure. While I still don't buy the Al Quaeda connection, I do believe Saddam Hussein has worked with terrorist organisations like Hamas. He has also plotted to assassinate former president Bush. It is certainly no small leap to believe he would sponsor a biological terrorist attack on the US. Also, with Hussein out of Iraq, we could decrease our milatary presence in Saudi Arabia. This presence was the nominal "justification" for the 9/11 attack. With no Americans in Saudi Arabia, much of the impetus for terrorism would disappear. IN the short run, the war would generate more, but in the long run, it would be less.

People have pointed out that there are awful despots all over the world. We do nothing about most of them, because we have no interests at stake in those countries. But when our self interest also lies in the more moral path, surely we should follow it.

Njorl

The big winner of the war will be the U.K. Basically because the U.S needed international support and theyre P.M supported Bush. The U.S might come out ahead but there is a good chance it could lose untold billions. If Russia shapes up they always will come out ahead fairly nicely, as will Turkey.

The big loser will be France by FAR. basically 99.99999% of their countries oil is in Iraq, and I have a feeling after the comotion they caused the U.S wont be handing it back over to them. Italy will also lose a good deal of oil as will some south eastern nations. Saudi Arabia will also be a loser due to the fact the U.S wont be relying on them and supporting them as much, and because they will face the prospect of a wealthy democratic nation right on their border. Which cant be good for the oppresive royals in Saudi with their already dis-content people.

and after US finish its war on iraq there still :
1. "hezb allah" in lebanon.
2. palestinians.
3. saudia arabia : they want to make it 3 countries.
4. egypt : as it is a very strong strategy place so they want to make it weak ..

america is atacking ISLAM not terror. .. and if it was attacking terror then ISRAEL is the first country it must attack ..