Bottom Line : Either you are for war or you are for peace...

[kentuck]

We are not talking about Hitler or the Nazi threat here. We are talking about a war that they entered by choice - not out of necessity. No doubt, they have created a monster much larger than ever existed before they made the decision to invade Iraq. Notice I say "they", not "we"? Many of us were against it from the beginning. And now, it seems by all the polls, that the majority of Americans are against it also.

There are those that say we have to have "war" so we can have "peace". That is bullshit. Unadulterated. Either you are for peace or you are for war. Which is it? No more straddling the fence. That is the question we need to not only ask our politicians but all Americans.

[stray cat]

1. Do you really think if we left immediately Iraq would be peaceful?

If we destroy Iraq and leave it a disaster will we suddenly be at peace with the Arab world. I don't know the right answer but I don't believe it is as simple as flipping a coin. It sounds like Bush's ultimatum to the world: you are either for us or against us.

[kentuck]

6. I think there would be a better chance for peace..

The car bombs and roadside are meant for Americans and their sympathizers, not the average Iraqi. Yes, I think those would almost cease to exist if we withdrew from Iraq. Yes, we created a political vacuum with the overthrow of Saddam and nature abhors a vacuum. So, yes, there will be a struggle to fill that vacuum that we created. It will not happen overnight. But, over the long run, it will happen quicker and less violently, if we are not there. Yes, I believe that.

[ClayZ]

11. I agree... Remember when we sent packages of

rice to the Whitehouse before the war? We were right then, and we are still right. If we spent that military money on goods and help rather than bombs and destruction everywhere, what a


WONDERFUL WORLD IT COULD BE!



No one will ever convince me otherwise!







Beat the swords to plowshares!

EVOLVE

[acmejack]

15. Withdraw and pay reparation.

Don't rebuild it for them, give them what they need to rebuild their Country. Of course, it is one thing to pay for an utility to be rebuilt, another to atone for an illegitimately taken life.

[uppityperson]

10. Of course there won't be peace

Anti-americanismness will continue massively for at least another generation thanks to the Iraq occupation and current administrations tactics. However, staying and continuing the occupation will not help increase peace. Iraq is a mess, the world is a mess.

[ClayZ]

14. If the world saw bu$co frogmarched

Imagine!

I think the world would awaken!

[lvx35]

2. Well said.

Interestingly, I don't think that being willing to fight a war makes you "for war", you just have to do it as a last resort, which Bush didn't do. I think you hit it on the head when you said you either want war or peace. If Bush really wanted peace, he would have gone through the appropriate channels in dealing with Iraq, truly treating war as a last resort, which it should be. But he doesn't want peace at all.

[CubsFan1982]

3. Kinda like "You're either with us, or against us"?

Where have I heard that before? :shrug:

[marbuc]

4. I agree with most of what you said

But the thread title reflects the type of oversimplification characteristic of the other side. I'm not sure if this was your intent, but it reads that way. One can support peace whenever possible, and still recognize the need for military action as a last resort.

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

27. My take also

It is hard to look beyond the topic line.

At this time in history, the other side has made short slogans and absolute statements a staple in our diet of political discourse.

Very few things are ever so simple that they can be boiled down to 2 mutually exclusive alternatives.

[kentuck]

28. What about this war in Iraq?

Is there too much gray area to make a decision about this war?

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

30. Not about the mistake of going in when we did,

but now that we're in, there are shades of grey.

Senator Boxer said we need a deadline, to force the hands of the Iraqis to take control of security over there.

I hate what my nation did by going in for no good reason, based on lies. I hope that we can leave in a way that creates the least additional damage all around.

Our troops, Iraq, the world.

[kentuck]

31. Do you think our presence helps or hinders..?

the possibility of future peace in that country? As others have noted, there is not going to be any instant "peace" because we created a power vacuum. In my opinion, we don't to leave it to chance. We would prefer a puppet government. One that we could control and dictate.

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

33. That's the $64,000 question

Experts who I respect differ on where to go from here.

It is appealing to want to get out, but I recall the havoc of the withdrawal from S. Vietnam.

I personally don't have enough expertise.

You and the others also do have a point, in terms of whether we leave a puppet gov't behind when we go, which wouldn't be surprising.

Wesley Clark has a lot of experience with this, opposed the invasion, and has negotiated peace ie the Dayton Accords.

I believe he is a realist and knows that our public support is dwindling rapidly. Even if there were a different course of action that might be preferable, it may reach a point where support at home is just gone.

As we approach that, withdrawal becomes inevitable.

[peacetalksforall]

5. Yes to peace. If humans believe that there will always be war, there

will always be war.

How can anyone of any faith believe that we were born to kill and profit from killing?

Is this what fetuses are saved for?

Sorry for my bluntness. I've had it with the hypocrisy or christianity, islam, buddhism and all the other faiths who figure out a way to kill from what their religion tells 'them singly or in groups'. (Purposely typed with small caps.)

Why not "There could be peace"? "There will be peace".

[Bluzmann57]

7. Well there is such a thing as justified war

On September 11, 2001, someone attacked this country. Was it an act of war? Well, that may be debateable, but there is no doubt that WW2 was justified. In my opinion, the war in Afghanistan is justified too, because that is where the Taliban, and consequently, Alquieda(sp) is located. They need to be eradicated. The invasion of Iraq was unjustified, however. I guess what I am trying to say is that we have every right to defend ourselves, as does every other country on this planet. Yes, it certainly would be nice if we could all just get along, but that hasn't happened in the history of the world, and likely never will. I do not consider myself pro war, but as I stated, we must defend ourselves. But no Iraq invasion. No wmd, no imminent threat, no spreading democracy to those who don't want it, no reason at all.

[kentuck]

9. Yes, on September 11th, they attacked us for no reason whatsoever...

We were just sitting there minding our own business, meaning no harm to anybody, and then, BOOM!, they attack us out of the blue. Yep...

[Bluzmann57]

12. Um...where in my post did I say that?

After re-reading it, I'd say nowhere. I stand by my comments.

[Dylan Garcia]

8. Go to Crawford, Texas

Time has come today!

[kentuck]

13. There are no winners in war....only survivors...

People that have been to war understand.

[Catholic Sensation]

16. are you talking about the iraq war

or war in general. Becuase if it's only the iraq war, one can make the case it's pretty black and white. If you're talking about war in general, there are shades of gray.

[kentuck]

18. My comment:

"We are not talking about Hitler or the Nazi threat here. We are talking about a war that they entered by choice - not out of necessity."

[Catholic Sensation]

19. then say "THE war"

because there are plenty of instances outside of a Hitler-Nazi threat in which war is justified. If Iran is about to attack us, we have actually slam dunk intelligence saying they'll attack, then attacking them first is justified.

By the way, the war in Afghanistan is completely justified. Murdering 3000 civilians because we have army bases in Saudi Arabia and dared to help an ally against a monstrous Stalinist dictator's invasion in 1991 is not a justification for mass murder.

[welshTerrier2]

20. "slam dunk intelligence"

i assume this will not be the same "slam dunk intelligence" we had before we attacked Iraq ...

[Catholic Sensation]

21. i mean actual slam dunk intelligence

as in there is actual proof that they are about to attack us.

[kentuck]

22. ..and who do you believe to give you that proof?

the same people that gave us "proof" of WMDs in Iraq? They are in charge and they have the "intelligence". Are you ready to believe them again?

[Catholic Sensation]

23. i'd require a host of intelligence services to prove it to me

war should always be a last resort, but if it can be proven that an attack is imminent, i believe in attacking first. there's no point in allowing an attack to happen.

[kentuck]

24. Since the latest "intelligence" says Iran is 10 years away from nuclear ..

weapons, how do you think they would attack us imminently?

[Catholic Sensation]

25. i used them as an example, i never said they were an imminent threat

[welshTerrier2]

26. "actual" slam dunk intelligence cannot exist ...

when the US government has an imperialistic foreign policy, i.e. they seek to exploit weaker nations for commercial and political gain, any evidence presented is always more likely to be false than true ...

and i find it somewhat absurd (not saying this is your position) to believe any country would authorize an attack against the US ... Iraq certainly did not attack the US ... and before we go a little too far, a little to fast about the Taliban government in Afghanistan, allow me to at least offer the possibility that US oil interests had met with the Taliban in Texas while bush was Governor to try to get them to allow Unical to build a pipeline through Afghanistan ... the Taliban rejected their proposition ...

is it just possible the attack on Afghanistan was motivated by something a bit less honorable than a response to an attack against the US? ... and, if that truly was the motivation, why haven't we pursued bin Laden into Pakistan ... or are the Pakistani's suddenly our friends now?

the point of all this is that there remain very serious questions about what happened on 9/11 ... we have an administration that has placed many of its operatives into the MSM ... look at the passivity of the press at WH press conferences ... the MSM is a wholly-owned subsidiary of very wealthy, very powerful corporate interests ... this leads to very serious problems in the area of investigative journalism and the communication of "actual" information to the public ... it is rare that we can truly know more than we have been told ...

the standard you advocate about requiring "actual" proof to justify a war is fine ... but whether that standard can ever exist with imperialists in control of our government and our media remains to be seen ...

[Catholic Sensation]

35. if the standard can not be met

then war shouldn't happen, that's my stance. unless of course there's a holocaust going on, then american intervention is justified.

[Pystoff]

34. Ditto

Nail....Head....dead on man.

Iraq v2.0 is bullshit anyone with a brain can see that.

Personally I think we missed the second war by 2 countries to the left on my maps.

[TahitiNut]

17. It's like calling a mugging a 'fight' - it's NOT.

The occupation of Iraq isn't a 'war' in any sense. It's a mugging. It's a crime, not a conflict.

[seabeyond]

29. you arent going to get peace. lets not lie to ourselves

if we walk out of iraq we are not going to have peace. aint gonna happen. doesnt mean we stay in iraq/. cause we arent going ot get peace that way either. we fucked up. we are responible for thousands of death. and who knows what to coome. repercussion for action. . we dont skate free

[WCGreen]

32. Hell I was against Afganistan but at least you could understand

that one...

I remember almost getting into a fist fight over that....