3 reasons I cant fathom being against the war

These 3 things I can't get out of my head lately on the whole America/iraqi thing.

1. You would have to be a anti-semite to be against this war, as they've declared a jihad on jews and any of their allies (Americans).

2. Not care about human life. The militant arabs attack Israeli civilian targets, not military installations. Also applies to Americans (9/11). Women, children, wives and husbands had those building fall on top of them. Israelis and Americans do not purposely attack civilians to create fear and terror.

3. You'd have to not care about human rights in the slightest. Iraqi (and most other arab) men and women voices are quelled and freedom is not even a concept.Also, the human rights of Americans and Israelis matter as we should not have to live in fear.

I view saddam as the new hitler.. their were many antiwar protesters in those times also, time has proven we almost waited to long in that situation, saddam with nukes means the end of the world.
I think you'd have to have an antiamerican agenda to bring this nation down to be against the war at this point if you heard powell's speech and have a clue on whats going on. This is not vietnam. They are using the whole "its cool to protest a war" thing against the liberal leaning portion of the baby boomer generation who are fond of reliving their past.
Also political lines are being drawn, with hardcore (closet communists) liberals showing their true colors and little to their own knowledge at this point in history, commiting political suicide.

I'm sure this post will draw fire from many, considering this is a german website and some germans (if they frequent the boards) are against america with france on this issue.

But I wanted people to see the 3 things I can't get over about the conflict and I think that until someone proved each one wrong, my stance will never change.

Athlon 1700+, Epox 8RDA (NForce2), Maxtor Diamondmax Plus 9 80GB 8MB cache, 2x256mb Crucial PC2100, Geforce 3, Audigy, Z560s, MX500

Explain this with no anti-semetic arguments.

<font color=red>
<A HREF="http://kevan.org/brain.cgi?dhlucke" target="_new">If you were to have sex with your clone would that be considered incest or masturbation?</A></font color=red>

I will try.

The Jews was granted a country by the UN because of all that happened in WW2. The place of the country was in the sacred land as written in the Thora, ie Israel. The problem was that part of land was already inhabitted by the Palestins.
The UN said that the Palestins should have their own state and that a part of the land they owned before Israel was created would still be theirs, while the rest was for the Jewish. Now the Palestins where rather pissed of because of this... I don't think any nation would like to give away between 1/2-2/3 of your original land.
To make it even worse for them Israel didn't follow the rules stated by the UN, and started colonising the lands that should be given to the Palestins. This pissed of the Palestins even more and some of them started to commit terrorist attacks. Israel didn't like that so they occupied the Palestin grounds and did military counterattacks (seen as counter-terrorism by some) against the palestins... pissing them even more of... etc etc etc.
They not only pissed of the Palestins, but also the surrounding countries by the wars they had in the region (they attacked countries, and where attacked themself) and the attacks on 'terrorist targets' that helped the palestin terrorist in those countries.
This is just a small part of it, and I could probably say more if I could get a clear memory of what I learned in history class about the wars in that area (it is 2 years ago I've learned that).

But to say short... they really pissed of the Arabic countries in that region. And so did the Arabic countries piss of Israel.
It is difficult to say who started though...

Is this anti-semetic?

My dual-PSU PC is so powerfull that the neighbourhood dimms when I turn it on

Oh I tried to be serious in so many situations like this. But whats the point so I'll let the words loose. Its hard not to be derisive of someone totally missing the points, even the ones made by the own side.

What???!!! That is a stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid notion. That is just another one of those comments like "You're either with or against us." and dare I say very American.

The Planes in the Twin Tower thing was blamed on Saudis trained in Afghanistan. NOTHING to do with Iraq! One more time: <b><font color=red>NOTHING TO DO WITH IRAQ!</font color=red></b>.

Human rights of Palestinians also matter. Human rights of those guys in Guatanamo also matter. And sticking with your idea, do we attack every country that has a bad human rights record. Would we see America try to invade China. Hell forget China, hows 'bouts North Korea. No, hold on theres no OIL there... or may be Georgy boy still can't find them on the world map.


<b><font color=red>We put a ring of tanks around Heathrow,
and a guy brings a grenade through Gatwick...</font color=red></b>

Lets be simple about this. Israel, love 'em or hate 'em, are violating as many, or more UN resolutions than Iraq and N. Korea. They target "terror leaders" by creating a large crater where the target <i>and</i> civilians were standing. Yes, the Palestinians are shooting themselves in the foot by attacking civilian targets, but it's not for lack of morals. And remember, Israel has nukes, and lots of them. And they have the ability to strike almost the whole of Iraq, Iran, Saudi, Egypt, etc. Not exactly comforting to Arabs, especially when the Lukid party in Israel seems bent on destruction of Palestine, and they have said that attacks from Scud and other missles with chem or bio weapons, and maybe even conventional warheads, will be met with swift, decisive action, up to, and including the use of nuclear weapons. Stupid plan.

Innocent blood has been spilled by all, at various times, and often without remorse. Saddam is seen as the worst mainly because he used US-supplied chem weapons against Kurds and Iranians (US-sanctioned attacks, might I add). But Bush has said that nuclear weapons will not be ruled out for use in the war on terror, which are ultimately more destructive to both life and property than bio and chem weapons... and the death is agonizing to anyone not within 500 yards of ground zero. Radiation poisoning and 3rd degree burns are never simple or quick.

One could argue that the voices of Americans and British people have been quelled too, since it's obvious that Bush and Blair are not heeding the fact that at least half the population in America refuses to support military action without the blessing of the UN, and even moreso in Britian. The US Senate refues (ie, the Republican party leaders, in an effort to protray unity, refuse to take up the subject, even though all Democrats and many Republicans would prefer to have a debate) to debate the topic, even though legally, they have the right to declare war, not Bush.

Last, history has shown that preemptive strikes, such as any attack on Iraq without hostile action on their part, do little, if anything, to defuse the situation. Henry Kissenger (you might of heard of him... Sec of State for Nixion, celebrated international relationship mind, etc.) stated in an article titled "Exploding the Powder Keg Myth" that preemptive strikes are pointless, and usually counter productive. His findings were based on history, from the ancient world to modern day conflicts (it was written ~1985).

Personally, as an American, I really, really, <i>really</i> despise people who tell me that my exercising of my 1st amendment right is unpatriotic, un-American, and evil. I find people who label me anti-semetic and a Sadamm supporter to be stupid, idiotic, and unable to see anything but what they are spoon-fed by Bush and Co. Case in point: The website, www.gopteamleader.com, states that they scored a major "win" for Bush's reckless tax plan when Greenspan said to Congress in his yearly economic report that he supported the idea of eliminating the double taxation of dividens. But what they fail to state, is that then Greenspan went on to call the tax plan reckless and likely to retard the economy, instead of stimulate it. He also said that any more tax cuts, even those eliminating double taxation, which he hates, should be done <i>only</i> when there is a budget surplus, and those cuts only go so far to reduce the surplus. He sees running $300 billion in debt for 2003 to be a bad thing. Might I add that Greenspan is a staunch Republican, and very corporate friendly, yet he has the balls and the smarts to realize a dumb idea when he sees it. Sadly, Bush only seems dumb ideas, and his lackeys proclaim them to be the best things since sliced bread.

As an American, I respect your viewpoint, but I must disagree. I also think that your name calling, like my own, has no place in a civil debate, and that you should retract such statements. Since American's only make up a large minority of this board, you'll quickly see that such viewpoints are met with disgust, and quickly your reputation goes down the tubes.

You can say why you support the war efforts, but quite using the Bush tactic of labelling all those who disagree as un-America, anti-semetic, and against you. It's stupid, and it's bad enough to see our "elected" official sprout those kind of words on the world stage. To see it in other Americans only makes me worry about the future of this country.

-SammyBoy

<A HREF="http://www.kingsofchaos.com/page.php?id=197259" target="_new">Join Me</A>

Some day, THG-willing, I shall obtain the coveted "Old Hand" title.

Sadly, I think Bush's credibility has been comprimised for quite awhile... not long after the 2000 election. His continued comments to allies are on the level that a schoolyard bully throws at someone, and those thrown at "enemies" are even more childish. He's treating the office of President even worse than Clinton in some ways. It's so painful to watch.

At home, he makes boneheaded decisions and when they backfire, he blames the Democrats. The only positive thing he did was rally the voters in the 2002 elections, giving the Republicans a slim majority in the Senate. Yet many of those wins were with moderate Republicans, and ones such as Sen. Coleman, MN already outright said that Bush's tax plan is poorly thought out. He's one of those new Republicans in the Senate who actually was Bush's lapdog for a long time. And when a lapdog starts to bite the hand that feeds it, one has to wonder...

-SammyBoy

<A HREF="http://www.kingsofchaos.com/page.php?id=197259" target="_new">Join Me</A>

Some day, THG-willing, I shall obtain the coveted "Old Hand" title.

Actually, the day after the UN declared Israel a state, the Arabs attacked them. When it was still a British mandate, both Palestinians and Israelis were committing terrorist acts. The Palestians have yet to this day cease with terrorism. How soon people forget the days of the PLO blowing up commercial airliners. The day that land became Israel, the Arabs had no right to attack them and had to face up to the consequences of losing a war that they started. From the sea to jordan river just doesn't work for me.

The Israelis won every war, so I can't help but side with them about any land that they colonize, since it is theirs. The Arab world made a huge mistake by attacking Israel rather than settling the issue diplomatically. Unfortunately, they didn't believe in their right to exist.

Only one of the wars was started by Israel, and since then it has been set straight that their decision was valid. They were about to be attacked, just like they said they were.

The Israelis and Palestinians pissed each other off. I happen to side with the Israelis since most of the Arab world doesn't recognize their sovereignty. Nonetheless they're both wrong in so many ways. As long as the Palestinians take the low road and attack civilians though I won't wish them any luck. There's one thing to have collateral damage, there's another to purposely blow yourself up amongst children. War is dirty. Terrorism is downright filthy and inexcusable. If the Palestinians wish to fight the Israelis without making civilians their targets, that's one thing. They have a long history of failure though and have grown desperate. They need to start thinking about their future though. They've virtually had their entire way of life destroyed due to the intifada.

I see a debate going here that I would normally join, but I'm in a thinking mood. Everyone around me is pretty much against an Iraqi war and I'm trying to absorb their arguments. Most are oil arguments, neglecting any facts with respect to unaccounted WMD, but it's still something that I need to spend time with.

<font color=red>
<A HREF="http://kevan.org/brain.cgi?dhlucke" target="_new">If you were to have sex with your clone would that be considered incest or masturbation?</A></font color=red>

I am against the war because I do not think the motive of our government is just. Our government planned to go to war a long time ago, no matter what the UN inspectors found, and no matter what the world consensus was on the matter. Before the UN inspectors were even sent, our troops were being mobilized and shipped overseas.

I don't neccessarily think that oil is the motive, but I do feel the motive is political. Our country isn't in the greatests shape right now, and this war sure would get the minds of Americans on something besides our economy, stock market, etc.

The problem I have with the Bush administration is that I truly do not feel George Bush is our president. Not because of the whole election scandal thing, but literally. I truly do not feel Bush is making the decisions that he supposedly makes. Bush is too stupid to make these decisions, and I truly doubt he is president because he wanted to be. Hell, he was only governer of Texas so he could become the Major League Baseball commissioner (by his own statements). Call it a conspiracy or whatever, but his actions, statements, and the actions of the administration point to something fishy going on.

I am against the war for this reason. If we were truly worried about threats against the US, human rights issues, and getting those responsible for 9/11, we would attack China, North Korea, Saudi Arabia (after all 11 out of 15 of the hijackers were Saudi), and others.

Going to war with Iraq should be a last resort to securing the safety of the US. Right now, I do not think Iraw poses a credible threat to US, atleast not nearly as great as North Korea, therefore we shouldn't stick our nose in that mess.

-------------------------------------------
<font color=blue> "Trying is the first step towards failure." </font color=blue>

Although I have not met many Iraqis, I have yet to meet one that supports him. Have you actually met one that supports him? Iraqis are some of the nicest people and they aren't stupid. From what I've seen, they don't support Saddam. From what they've told me, almost none do.

I should note that I have never met an Iraqi in the USA. All my experience with them is living, studying, and travelling overseas.

Iraqis are pretty well rounded people. Give them freedom and a right to voice their opinion and I don't think you'll see many longing for the dictator.

My 2 cents.

<font color=red>
<A HREF="http://kevan.org/brain.cgi?dhlucke" target="_new">If you were to have sex with your clone would that be considered incest or masturbation?</A></font color=red>

ACtually, I was refering to the parts where you called those against the war to be anti-semetic, and other such things. That is all. Your political beliefs are not the issue, it's the use of such terms as anti-semetic and closet communists.

All I'm saying is that way Bush is treating things is just not working, and his damn-the-world-go-it-alone approach doesn't hold water with the majority of Americans. Only a third of Americans support that kind of action in the latest polls by NY Times and CBS. It jumps to ~60% when Americans are asked if they support war with UN mandate. And Bush's approval ratings have fallen to about 55%, and only about 38% think he is handling the economy well, and about 47% think his international relationship policy is good. Only 37% of Americans think that we should take action soon, while 59% want to give inspectors more time, and moreso, 62% of American's think we should get the backing of our allies before we stike, as opposed to going it alone. And last, it's still split evenly between people who think Bush and Co has presented a strong case to going to war with Iraq (45% yes, 51% no). <A HREF="http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/14/politics/14POLL.html" target="_new">Source</A>

Not exactly steller numbers, and indicative of him not having a "mandate" from the people, as he seems to believe. In Britian, the numbers are even "worse" for war. I watched Powell's speech, and I also watched Blix flat out tell Powell that some of his allegations have no real evidence to back them up. He also said that things can be done quickly with cooperation from Iraq, so that is something that US should have latched onto to force the UN into action within a month or so... but alas, the administration decided on taking the name-calling route instead. It's childish, and suited for the schoolyard more than the internation stage.

Oh, and "taking out" the liberal leaning coasts of America has to be the saddest idea I've heard. C'mon now, it's America, where there is equal representation. Just because some places lean left and some right is no reason to strike them out of public opinion polls... I mean, that implies that that those who are on the coasts are less American that those in the interior. I'm in the Midwest myself.... but I still see that as a rather pointless comment.

-SammyBoy

<A HREF="http://www.kingsofchaos.com/page.php?id=197259" target="_new">Join Me</A>

Some day, THG-willing, I shall obtain the coveted "Old Hand" title.

Terrorist cells in place are going to strike no matter what. The goal is to stop more from being developed. The arab world has tried to distract their public from their growing economic and political problems by blaming everything on the USA and Israel. Doing nothing is definitely not healthy. That part of the world is not just going to say, "ok, we love you now". They'll continue to blame us for everthing. Their media is state run and their gov'ts thrive off of passing the buck.

It's not a matter of one of us being right and the other wrong. It's a matter of which one is better. I think taking the gun away or killing the enemy is better than doing nothing. Their way of life is based on passing the buck and I don't see how doing nothing is going to change that.

<font color=red>
<A HREF="http://kevan.org/brain.cgi?dhlucke" target="_new">If you were to have sex with your clone would that be considered incest or masturbation?</A></font color=red>

I didn't advocate doing nothing...I'm just not advocating war. The world community is not in support of Bush's actions; the call is for the US to stop being so gung-ho about war, and to let the UN Inspectors have a chance to finish what they're doing.

Bush is walking a fine line, and endangering the lives of many of us for many years to come. Attacking Iraq without clear cause at this point will mean severe resentment and hatred towards America in the Muslim community for a long time. The ramifications of this war could be more horrific than any threat Saddam poses right now.



<font color=purple>"If you can put fear aside, you're unstoppable."<i>
~J Hagberg</i></font color=purple>

But why do we assume that <i>we</i> get to draw it? Just because we feel we CAN? And why do we get to draw it without unilateral support? Why is it our right to plunge part of this world into mayhem, more than what already exists?

Your previous argument that everyone is motivated by self-interest has lost its charm (if ever it had any). If the <i>world</i> is to move forward, we can no longer think only of ourselves. It's time to move away from self-interest toward global interest, and in so doing, we can no longer afford to be a rogue state.

Our "15 minutes" as a nation is being threatened by our own arrogance.


<font color=purple>"If you can put fear aside, you're unstoppable."<i>
~J Hagberg</i></font color=purple>

You might want to settle down a bit. Yes, I insulted Bush's intelligence, and since he did graduate towards the bottom of the Yale class, and possibly got in there due to things other than intelligence (anyone who tells you that not having connections to a college means nothing is lying. Who you know is as important as what you know) lends credibility to his lack of intelligence. Clinton was a Rhodes Scholar, not something that can be bought as far as I know. Also, Bush's idea of international relations is "my way or the highway." That might have worked in Texas, though we see now that Texas is one of the worst states in terms of budget deficits for the few years. Strangely enough, on can "credit" Bush with the mess, as he was the one who was in control of the office during the boom times, and apparently refused to save for a rainy day. The situation is repeating itself at the federal level. The only difference is that the federal government is allowed to run a deficit, unlike the states.

Could you please inform me, O Great Sage, why we have to protect Israel from the bitter harvest they are reaping at this time? Violence begets more violence, and Israel, in its great wisdom, is accelerating that by sinking to the level of the terrorists. Tit for tat is not a viable means of diplomacy. I understand why the Israelis are upset, I understand why the Palestinians are upset. If you think this is a religious conflict, you are wrong. It is about land. Plain and simple. The religion is only a point of contention, much like the N. Ireland issue. It just so happened that the lines matched up with the religions in both cases. I can guarentee you that if both groups were Christian, Muslim, Hindu, etc., they would still be fighting for the land.

Israel, if people keep forgetting, is in violation of UN Resolutions from 1967, when they were told to withdraw from the occupied lands and to cease building settlements. As recently as 6 months ago, the Security Council damanded that Israel cease settlement and pull out of the occupied lands. Has Israel done so? No. They target "terrorists" and conveniently wipe out 5-10 civilians in the process. How is that any better than suicide bombers?

Jihad has not been declared by any Muslim clerics or religious bodies. All the declarations have been made by Iraq and Bin Laden... not exactly representative of the Muslim world. People who characterize the Islam as a religion of hate and violence know nothing at all. They are probably the most religiously tolerant religion of all the major world religions, they accept people without regard to nationality. The problem, as has been pointed out, is not the religion, but the people in control. That's like saying that Lutherans are all for eugenics just because a guy named Hitler was Lutheran. Or that Catholics are blood-thirsty savages because Napolean was Catholic. Seriously... who the hell cares about religion. Can we look at it for what it is? It's the US, going apeshit over some piddly ass piece of desert in the middle of nowhere because Dubya's daddy didn't get rid of Saddam when he had the chance, and tried to kill Sr. It's revenge, and a weak enough opponent with little worldwide support that no matter what, victory is ensured.

Also, I'll mention that from day one, the Chiefs of Staff (top brass in the Navy, Army, Air Force, and Marines) have not been looking forward to this. They consuled Dubya against it, told him it would cost a lot of time, money, and lives, yet Bush listened instead to the civilian factor of the Defense Dept., who promise swift and decicive victory with minimal problems. Lets not mention that many of the civilian people in the DoD are former contractors who want to see their toys in action, and see Iraq as the ideal battle ground. They will benefit mightily from this, finacially and otherwise.

It's madman vs. madman. Who will blink first? God, I hope its the US, cause Lord only knows what the backlash will be. The last thing I need to deal with is some pissy terrorists and pissy politicians squabbling for years about this and that, all the while my liberties, freedoms (such as critizing the government, apparently) are ripped away because it's a "time of war."

Last, you tell me to move away from being an isolationist, yet you are the one arguing for unilateral movement by the US and reluctant allies Britian and Austraila, regardless of the rest of the world. While that may not be isolationism per se, it is a "the world be damned" idea that Roosevelt railed against in the 30s. You need to get your head out of the clouds and come back down to earth and realize that there are more people than just you, your family, and friends. There are 6.1 billion other people out there, and only 300 million of them reside in the US. You have that same schoolyard mentality that Bush and Co. have, one that does not fit in the world of grownups. A show of force means nothing, because you're not the only one who can dish it out.

"Power corrupts, absolute powers corrupts absolutely"

-SammyBoy

<A HREF="http://www.kingsofchaos.com/page.php?id=197259" target="_new">Join Me</A>

Some day, THG-willing, I shall obtain the coveted "Old Hand" title.

The Israelis have an agressive expansionist policy, with new settlements springing up all over the place. The land is heavily contested. Where once were Arabs now live settlements of Israelis. Israel has laid claim to many sacred religious sites. The Palestinians are largely unemployed, impoverished, and many live in refugee camps. This is largely thanks to the Israelis.

That is not an anti-Semitic argument, and it shows why there is lots of hatred toward the Israelis.

<font color=blue>
--------------------------------------------------
Guns kill people just like spoons make Rosie O'Donnell fat.
<font color=blue>

I dont have to settle down. I know I said i wouldnt post again but couldnt help it.. yes I've read much about the situation in Northern Ireland, my family came to America from county Tyrone in Northern Ireland in the 1700s.

And so what, these 300million americans are all i care about in this world, they are my friends and family unified in a nation. an enemy of the state is an enemy of mine. the french hate us? then i hate the french, simple. barbaric? maybe, do we care no.
im for my people (referring to americans who believe in an america based on capitalism, the way it was meant to be, regardless of religon or race), then if that fails i worry about my family, then at the very end, myself.
in this conflict im not only concerned for my nation but im thinking about my own safety in years to come.. i dont want saddam around just as i wouldnt have wanted hitler around.
I think this nation (even bush) is way to easy. If it was up to me anyone who said the things that al qaeda have even spoken, like burying us.. that alone deserves our nation investigating these people and possibly taking them out, thats trying to conspire against the US gov't and its people it represents.
Peoples mouths speak their minds, if someone says they want to friggin kill you, take it seriously.. here in america we take it seriously if you call a woman a degrading harassing name or someone makes a slight racial remark against the wrong color.. but we are blind to death threats to our nation?
The prioritys are very messed up.

I love this nation and there is not a greater nation on earth as far as acceptance and freedom is concerned, but one thing we've never accepted is letting innocents get slaughtered (9/11 anyone?) or any type of hateful notions (KKK?).. yet these people are KKK with turbins, magic carpets and nuclear missles.
And forget their feelings and their lives, they want to threaten us and try to get nuclear missles to kill us then i say killem all and let satan sortem out. Cuz Bush and I are sure as hell not waiting for them to get nuclear capability.

America- The Home of the Brave

Athlon 1700+, Epox 8RDA (NForce2), Maxtor Diamondmax Plus 9 80GB 8MB cache, 2x256mb Crucial PC2100 in Dual DDR, Geforce 3, Audigy, Z560s, MX500

Just to balance views a bit:

<A HREF="http://www.mediatransparency.org/people/david_horowitz.htm" target="_new">http://www.mediatransparency.org/people/david_horowitz.htm</A>

I'm stunned that anybody can post messages accusing people of being liberal/lefty/etc, and then quote people like Horowitz and Limbaugh as being unbiased! WAKE UP, they have agendas of their own as well!

If the 300 million people within US territory is all you care about then fine, that's not something you can really be faulted for. However, the US is playing on a world stage here, so the other 5.8 billion do come into play. And forgive me for mentioning it, but before 9/11 who was responsible for the largest terrorist act on US territory?

I'm no supporter of Saddam Hussein. The problem is that the way the current situation is being handled he's in danger of becoming a martyr for the cause, which is far more dangerous than any immediate threat he poses.

- -
I owe my success to having listened respectfully to the very best advice, and then going away and doing the exact opposite.

The following is a long speech by Sen. Robert Byrd in the US Senate on February 13th, 2003. It is long... skim it if you must, but this speech represents what has been absent from political discussion on this matter. It is directly taken from the web text of the speech, with no editing.

<A HREF="http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?position=all&page=S2270&dbname=2003_record" target="_new">Source is the Congressional Record at http://www.senate.gov</A> [PDF Format]

-SammyBoy

ON THE BRINK OF WAR

Sen Robert Byrd, WV: Madam President, to contemplate war is to think about the most horrible of human experience. On this February day, as this Nation stands at the brink of battle, every American on some level must be contemplating the horrors of war.

My wife says to me at night: Do you think we ought to get some of those large bottles, the large jugs, and fill them with water? She says: Go up to the attic and see if we don't have two or three there. I believe we have two or three there.

And so I went up to the attic last evening and came back to report to her that, no, we didn't have any large jugs of water, but we had some small ones, perhaps some gallon jugs filled with water. And she talked about buying up a few things, groceries and canned goods to put away.

I would suspect that kind of conversation is going on in many towns across this great, broad land of ours. And yet this Chamber is for the most part ominously, dreadfully silent. You can hear a pin drop. Listen. You can hear a pin drop. There is no debate. There is no discussion. There is no attempt to lay out for the Nation the pros and cons of this particular war. There is nothing.

What would Gunning Bedford of Delaware think about it? What would John Dickinson of Delaware think about it? What would George Read think about it? What would they say?

We stand passively mute in the Senate today, paralyzed by our own uncertainty, seemingly stunned by the sheer turmoil of events. Only on the editorial pages of some of our newspapers is there much substantive discussion concerning the prudence or the imprudence of engaging in this particular war. I can imagine hearing the walls of this Chamber ring just before the great war between the States, a war that tore this Nation asunder and out of which the great State of West Virginia was born.

But today we hear nothing, almost nothing, by way of debate. This is no small conflagration that we contemplate. It is not going to be a video game. It may last a day or 6 days. God created Earth, and man, the stars, the planets, and the Moon in 6 days. This war may last 6 days. It may last 6 weeks. It could last longer. This is no small conflagration that we contemplate. This is no simple attempt to defang a villain. No, this coming battle, if it materializes, represents a turning point in U.S. foreign policy and possibly a turning point in the recent history of the world.

This Nation is about to embark upon the first test of a revolutionary doctrine applied in an extraordinary way, at an unfortunate time--the doctrine of preemption, no small matter--the idea that the United States or any other nation can legitimately attack a nation that is not imminently threatening but which may be threatening in the future.

The idea that the United States may attack a sovereign government because of a dislike for a particular regime is a radical, new twist on the traditional idea of self-defense. It appears to be in contravention of international law and the U.N. Charter. And it is being tested at a time of worldwide terrorism, making many countries around the globe wonder if they will soon be on our hit list, or some other nation's hit list.

High-level administration figures recently refused to take nuclear weapons off the table when discussing a possible attack on Iraq. What could be more destabilizing? What could be more world shattering? What could be more future shattering? What could be more unwise than this kind of uncertainty, particularly in a world where globalism has tied the vital economic and security interests of so many nations so closely together?

There are huge cracks emerging in our time-honored alliances. One wonders what is going to happen, and about what is happening to the United Nations. One should pause to reflect on what is happening there at the United Nations, formed 54 years ago. And we say: If you are not with us, you are against us. That is a pretty hard rule to lay down to the United Nations. If you are not with us, you are against us. If you don't see it our way, take the highway. We say to Germany and we say to France--both of whom have been around longer than we--if you don't see it our way, we will just brush you to the side.

Do we fail to think about a possible moment down the road, a bit further on, when we may wish to have Germany and France working with us and thinking with us, standing with us, because there is a larger specter, at least in my mind, looming behind the specter of Saddam Hussein and Iraq. There looms a larger specter, that of North Korea, which has one or two nuclear weapons now, and others within reach within a few weeks. So there are huge cracks, I say, emerging in our time-honored alliances, and U.S. intentions are suddenly subject to damaging worldwide speculation.

Anti-Americanism based on mistrust, misinformation, suspicion, and alarming rhetoric from U.S. leaders is fracturing the once solid alliance against global terrorism which existed after September 11, 2001.

Here at home, people are warned of imminent terrorist attacks, with little guidance as to when or where such attacks might occur. Family members are being called to active duty, with no idea of the duration of their stay away from their hearthside, away from their homes, away from their loved ones, with no idea of the duration of their stay or what horrors they may have to face, perhaps in the near future. Communities are being left with less than adequate police and fire protection, while we are being told that a terrorist attack may be imminent. What about those communities like little Sophia, WV?

Sen. DURBIN: Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. BYRD. Yes, I am happy to yield.

Mr. DURBIN. I am happy the Senator has taken the floor today. We have spent most of our time discussing other matters. But this is a critically important matter in West Virginia and Illinois.

I ask the Senator, as a matter of record, if he would kindly recount, since September 11, the efforts he has personally made, as well as speaking on behalf of this side of the aisle in the caucus, to try to bring together the necessary resources and funds so that we can be prepared to deal with acts of terrorism against the United States. We were just alerted this weekend that we were on something called the orange alert. The Senator noted that his wife asked what does this mean in terms of water and protecting our families and our houses.

Would the Senator be kind enough to tell us for the record, as we reflect on whether we are prepared to deal with terrorism, what we have tried to do--unsuccessfully--since September 11 to respond to this challenge?

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I thank the very able and distinguished Senator from Illinois who is a graduate of the other body where I believe he served on the Appropriations Committee.

He serves on the Senate Appropriations Committee. I need only respond

[Page: S2269] GPO's PDF
in a brief way at this point to the incisive question which the distinguished Senator has asked. I refer him to the Congressional Record upon several occasions last year when I said to the Senate that I was bringing to the floor, or said to the Appropriations Committee, that I was bringing an amendment up dealing with homeland security, and I shall do that again, hopefully before this week is over.
Let me say briefly in response to the able Senator, time and time again the Senator has worked with me and with every other Senator on the Senate Appropriations Committee, Republicans and Democrats alike, to report measures from the Senate Appropriations Committee unanimously that provided moneys for homeland security.

I remember our providing $2.5 billion--$2.5 billion--for homeland security. We designated it in the committee as an emergency item, and all that remained to be done--all that remained to be done--in order to have that $2.5 billion immediately flow to the policemen, the law enforcement officers, the firefighters, the health emergency personnel all over this country, all that needed to be done was for the President of the United States to attach his signature and likewise designate that $2.5 billion as an emergency.

How little to ask. But how much it would have meant to the first responders in the many towns and cities and rural communities in Illinois, in North Carolina, in West Virginia, and cities and hamlets all over this country if the President had but condescended in that moment to sign his name on that item, making it an emergency item.

The law requires that for an item to be declared an emergency item, both the Congress and the President have to designate the item as an emergency. Congress did its part, and, in that case, that involved $2.5 billion. The President literally gave the back of his hand to that effort on the part of the elected representatives of the American people in this Chamber and on that committee. He gave the back of his hand to that effort on the part of Congress to provide $2.5 billion for the local responders and people in the health laboratories all over this country, for border security, airport security, port security, and all of the many facets that are involved in homeland security. He turned his back on that effort.

Then last year, I believe in November of this past year when we had the omnibus appropriations bill before the Senate, I offered an amendment, a $5 billion amendment, an amendment making $5 billion available for homeland security. Did the administration support that amendment? No, the administration fought it, and the amendment went down in flames, as it were, on the floor of the Senate on virtually a party-line vote.

That $5 billion would have gone a long way, would have been out there today when we have this orange alert scaring the American people--I am not saying it is not appropriate to have an orange alert, but we have seen alert after alert after alert, and in spite of the alerts that have been so often set forth in this country by the administration's own people, the administration, the President, have turned their backs on these efforts of the Senate Appropriations Committee by unanimous votes, including the Republicans on the committee, to provide

ample moneys for homeland defense.

Again, having lost the $5 billion, I came back with an amendment providing for $3 billion. We slimmed down--you can go to the store and get the Slim Fast at the Giant. I go to the store and do the shopping for my wife. She does not need Slim Fast, but I sometimes get Slim Fast. Well, we slimmed fast that $5 billion and brought it down to $3 billion, thinking we would pick up some votes with the administration's support.

Did we get any more votes? No, the administration was against the $3 billion, and today they are telling us all, we better be on watch day and night.

Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield for another question?

Mr. BYRD. Yes.

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, the Senator is probably preeminent in this Chamber in his knowledge of history, and he certainly knows the history leading up to World War II when a Member of the House of Commons by the name of Winston Churchill took to the floor week after week, month after month, year after year, warning the people of England that the looming crisis, the rise of Nazism and fascism and their failure to prepare. William Manchester's famous biography of that period of Winston Churchill's life is entitled ``Alone'' because he stood alone warning the people of England of the crisis that was to come.

I say to my colleague from the State of West Virginia, his role in this crisis facing America has been Churchillian in that he has taken the leadership in the Senate time and again to warn us of a looming crisis. I ask him if he agrees with most people that to have an orange alert and to tell mothers and fathers across America to put aside some bottles of water, buy some duct tape and plastic sheeting, and prepare for the crisis of terrorism is not enough; that we as a nation should have taken this looming crisis seriously long ago?

I believe I know the answer to this question, but, Madam President, I thank my colleague from West Virginia for his leadership. I thank him for standing on this floor and reminding us that there is still an unfulfilled agenda, and that if we face terrorism, we have to be honest with the American people. We have tried in the Senate, but we have failed. We are not as prepared as we should be to face this threat.

I ask the Senator from West Virginia--I am not going to take any more time from his great comments--if he would comment on the Churchill analogy.

Mr. BYRD. The Senator is preeminently correct. His mention of William Manchester reminds me of that great book, ``The Glory and the Dream'' by William Manchester who wrote about the Great Depression. In fact, Herbert Hoover was the first President to have a telephone on his desk in the White House. ``The Glory and the Dream.''

Yes, we have had time to prepare. In many respects, we have failed. Our committee on which the distinguished Senator from Illinois sits conducted hearings and requested that the Homeland Security Director, former Gov. Tom Ridge, appear before the Appropriations Committee to testify concerning the needs of homeland security in this country.

Did he come? He probably would have come but his boss, the President, said, no, he shall not come. So we conducted 5 days of hearings on homeland security in those early months of 2002. As a result, we brought to the floor legislation based on the testimony that had been adduced from witnesses from all over this country--mayors, Governors, and first responders.

This legislation, to a large extent, was pretty much sneered at--it is hard to respond in any other way--by the administration. Based on the testimony of those witnesses, we tried time and again to bring to the Senate and pass legislation that would provide for the needs of those local responders, the people at the local level, in the effort to prevent terrorist attacks and in the effort to deal with terrorist attacks once they occurred. We got no help from this administration.

Did the people out there know it? Some of us attempted to tell the American people about these efforts, but the press has not picked up on it very well. Communities are being left with less than adequate police and fire protection. Other essential services are also shortstaffed. The mood of the Nation is grim, is the only way I know how to put it. The economy is stumbling. Economic growth is worse than it has been in 50 years. Fuel prices are rising and may soon spike higher.

This administration, now in power for a little over 2 years, must be judged on its record. I believe that record is dismal. In that scant 2 years, this administration has squandered a large projected surplus of some $5.6 trillion. How much is that? That is $5,600 for every minute since Jesus Christ was born.

Let me say that again. In that scant 2 years--I am talking about the last 2 years--of this administration's record, this administration has squandered a large projected surplus of some $5.6 trillion over the next decade and taken us to projected deficits as far as the human eye can see. This administration's domestic policy has put many of our States, including my own, in a dire

[Page: S2270] GPO's PDF
financial condition, underfunding scores of essential programs for the people, the people out there who are watching through those electronic lenses.
This administration has fostered policies that have slowed economic growth. This administration has ignored urgent matters such as the crisis in health care for our elderly. This administration has been slow to provide adequate funding for homeland security. The distinguished Senator from Illinois, Mr. Durbin, and I have been talking about that.

This administration has been reluctant to better protect our long and porous borders to the north and to the south, and to the east and to the west, where the great oceans form the borders.

In foreign policy, this administration has failed to find Osama bin Laden. In fact, yesterday we heard from him again marshaling his forces and urging them to kill, kill, kill.

This administration has split traditional alliances, possibly crippling for all time international order, crippling entities such as the United Nations and NATO. This administration has called into question the traditional worldwide perception of the United States as being a well-intentioned peacemaking, peace loving, peacekeeping nation.

This administration has turned the patient art of diplomacy on its head. It has turned the patient art of diplomacy into threats, labeling, and name calling of the sort that reflects quite poorly on the intelligence and sensitivity of our leaders

and which will have consequences for years to come, calling heads of state pygmies, labeling whole countries as evil--as though we are not evil, as though there is no country that is not evil--denigrating powerful European allies as irrelevant. These types of crude insensitivities can do our great Nation no good.

We may have massive military might, and we have, but remember we have had massive military might before. How many millions of men marched to the drums of war only 60 years ago? Thirteen million American men under arms, was it? Millions.

While we may have massive military might today, we cannot fight a global war on terrorism alone. We need the cooperation and the friendship of our time-honored allies, as well as the newer found friends whom we can attract with our wealth. Our awesome military machine will do us little good if we suffer another devastating attack on our homeland which severely damages this economy.

Our military manpower is already stretched thin, and they are taking them from our States every day. Yesterday, I talked to the Senate about the vacancies, about the empty seats at the dinner tables in the homes of many West Virginians, because of the National Guard and Reserve departures every day from the State of West Virginia. Yes, there they come. They are law enforcement officers. They are State troopers. They are road builders. They are doctors. They are teachers. They are Sunday school teachers. These are the men and women who keep the lights burning when the snows fall and darkness comes. But on whom will we depend when these men and women are gone to foreign lands to fight a war if a war faces us here at home,

a different kind of war.

Our awesome military machine will do us little good if we suffer another devastating attack on our homeland which severely damages our economy.

As I say, our military forces are already being stretched thin and we will need the augmenting support of those nations that can supply troop strength, not just sign letters cheering us on.

The war in Afghanistan has cost us $37 billion so far. Yes, we bombed those caves. We ran them into the holes, but they could not hide. We ran them out of the holes, and we ran behind them to get them. But there is evidence that terrorism may already be starting to regain its hold in that region. We have not found Bin Laden, and unless we secure the peace in Afghanistan, the dark dens of terrorism may yet again flourish in that remote and devastated land.

Pakistan, as well, is at risk of destabilizing forces. This administration has not finished the first war against terrorism, and yet it is eager to embark on another conflict with perils much greater than those in Afghanistan. Is our attention span that short? Have we not learned that after winning the war, one must also secure the peace?

Yet we hear little, precious little, about the aftermath of war in Iraq. In the absence of plans, speculation abroad is rife. Will we seize Iraq's oil fields, becoming an occupying power which controls the price and supply of that nation's oil for the foreseeable future? There are some who think so.

To whom do we propose to hand the reins of power in Iraq after Saddam Hussein? Will our war inflame the Muslim world, resulting in devastating attacks on Israel? Will Israel retaliate with its own very potent nuclear arsenal? What are we about to unleash here? The genie is getting out of the bottle. Can it ever be put back? Will the Jordanian and Saudi Arabian Governments be toppled by radicals, bolstered by Iran, which has much closer ties to terrorism than Iraq? Could a disruption of the world's oil supply lead to a worldwide recession? Has our senselessly bellicose language and our callous disregard for the interests and opinions of other nations increased the global race to join the nuclear club and make proliferation an even more lucrative practice for nations which need the income?

In only the space of 2 short years, this reckless and arrogant administration has initiated policies which may reap disastrous consequences for years.

We have heard it asked, Are you better off today than you were 4 years ago? The question can be shortened: Are we better off than we were 2 years ago?

One can understand the anger and the shock of any President after the savage attacks of September 11. One can appreciate the frustration of having only a shadow to chase and an amorphous, fleeting enemy on which it is nearly impossible to exact retribution. But to turn one's frustration and anger into the kind of extremely destabilizing and dangerous foreign policy debacle that the world is currently witnessing is inexcusable from any administration charged with the awesome power and responsibility of guiding the destiny of the greatest superpower on the planet.

Frankly, many of the pronouncements made by this administration are outrageous. There is no other word. Yet this Chamber is hauntingly silent--silent. What would John Langdon of New Hampshire say about that? What would Nicholas Gilman of New Hampshire say about that? What would Rufus King and Nathaniel Gorham of Massachusetts say? What would Alexander Hamilton, who signed the Constitution, from the State of New York, say about the silence in this Chamber? What would Dr. Samuel Johnson of Connecticut say about the silence in this Chamber? What would William Paterson or William Livingston or David Brearley or Jonathan Dayton of New Jersey, the signers of the Constitution, have to say about the silence in this Senate which they created? What would Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Mifflin, James Wilson, Robert Morris, of Pennsylvania, have to say? What would Thomas FitzSimons or Gouverneur Morris, who signed the Constitution on behalf of the State of Pennsylvania, have to say about the silence that rings and reverberates from these walls today, the silence with respect to the war on which we are about to enter? What would they have to say? What would their comments be? Gunning Bedford, George Read of Delaware, Daniel Carroll, Dan of St. Thomas Jenifer of Maryland. These and more.

What would these signers of the Constitution have to say about this Senate which they created when they note the silence, that is deafening, that emanates from that Chamber on the great subject, the great issue of war and peace? Nothing. Nothing is being said except by a few souls.

Yet this Chamber is hauntingly silent--hauntingly silent on what is possibly the eve of horrific infliction of death and destruction on the population of the nation of Iraq. Think about that.

Oh, I know Saddam Hussein is the person who is primarily responsible. But how about us? How about ourselves?

Yes, there are going to be old men dying. There will be women dying. There will be children, little boys and girls dying if this war goes forward in Iraq. And American men and women will die, too.

Iraq has a population, I might add, of which over 50 percent is under age 15.

[Page: S2271] GPO's PDF
Over 50 percent of the population in Iraq is under age 15. What is said about that? This Chamber is silent--silent. When it is possibly only days before we send thousands of our own citizens to face unimagined horrors of chemical and biological warfare, this Chamber is silent. The rafters should ring. The press galleries should be filled. Senators should be at their seats listening to questions being asked about this war, questions to which the American people out there have a right to expect answers. The American people are longing for information and they are not getting it. This Chamber is silent. On the eve of what could possibly be a vicious terrorist attack in retaliation for our attack on Iraq, it is business as usual here in the Senate, and business as usual means it is pretty quiet. There is not much going on in the Senate. Business as usual.
Oh, I know it may be scare talk to talk about what may happen in the event of a terrorist attack. But when the Twin Towers fell, it wasn't scare talk. When hundreds of local firefighters and police officers, law enforcement officers died as the walls of the Twin Towers came tumbling down, it wasn't scare talk. It wasn't scare talk.

We are truly sleepwalking through history. In my heart of hearts I pray that this great Nation and its good and trusting citizens are not in for a rudest of awakenings. To engage in war is always to pick a wild card. And war must always be a last resort, not a first choice.

But I truly must question the judgment of any President who can say that a massive unprovoked military attack on a nation which is over 50 percent children is in the highest moral traditions of our country. This war is not necessary at this time. Pressure appears to be having a good result in Iraq. Our mistake was to put ourselves in a corner so quickly. Our challenge is now to find a graceful way out of a box of our own making. Perhaps--just perhaps--there is still a way, if we allow more time.



<A HREF="http://www.kingsofchaos.com/page.php?id=197259" target="_new">Join Me</A>

Some day, THG-willing, I shall obtain the coveted "Old Hand" title.

I guess it boils down to Saddam's open threats of nuking Israel the first chance he gets. We all know that a nuclear attack on Israel will result in a nuclear attack on Iraq, and that's not in anyone's best interest.

Add to that the supply of WMD to Palestinians or other organizations that would use them against our allies and us, and you're doing the world a lot of good by removing that capability from the Iraqi regime.

Note: That speech above, allthough partisan, was awesome.

<font color=red>
<A HREF="http://kevan.org/brain.cgi?dhlucke" target="_new">If you were to have sex with your clone would that be considered incest or masturbation?</A></font color=red>

I would bet that the reason is due to pork barrel legislation.

If they could get the bill down for $5B to $3B, they probably cut some of it, but not all of it.

It would be interesting to find out.

<font color=red>
<A HREF="http://kevan.org/brain.cgi?dhlucke" target="_new">If you were to have sex with your clone would that be considered incest or masturbation?</A></font color=red>

Sammy how did you post that speach? Did you bring the window over while you had the posting window open and copy and paste it in? Or how did you do it?



Details, Details, Its all in the Details, If you need help, Don't leave out the Details.

There is a non-PDF version of it, but the link to it is only good for a small amount of time, since it's used in a search. The PDF was the only permanent link that existed. If you want to see the version I copy and pasted from, you need go <A HREF="http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/legislative/g_three_sections_with_teasers/floor_actions_2back.htm" target="_new">here</A>, go to Congressional Records, scroll down to New CR Search, then search for On the Brink of War. What comes up, you'll want the Executive Session from Feb. 12th, and use find Brink, and select the link that is above it. That should do it. Otherwise, just use the PDF file I linked. This is a tedious way to look at CR, but it is the only way to do so, and the only verbatim account of what goes on on the Senate floor.

-SammyBoy

<A HREF="http://www.kingsofchaos.com/page.php?id=197259" target="_new">Join Me</A>

Some day, THG-willing, I shall obtain the coveted "Old Hand" title.

Iran - Yes
Attacking Saudia Arabia, Israel, and Kuwait - No

Like I've said, sometimes you need to team up with the lesser of two evils in order to beat the greater threat. I think it sucks.

In Turkey I was approached by Kurds who were very anti-american. They were taliban though so I don't feel they represent all the people. Besides that, and in hindsight I realize that it's been several years since, all the Iraqis I have met would disagree with you. If you have more recent hands on experience than me, fine, maybe things have changed. I'm open to that possibility.

The Turks don't want a war to result in an independent Kurdistan. They're brutal on the Kurds. It was amazing to see how the Kurds would watch what tongue they would speak in. I'd try to learn a couple words but they were freaked out that I would say something in Kurdish too loud.

The forced into a corner situation is interesting since he supposedly doesn't have any WMD to use according to him.

<font color=red>
<A HREF="http://kevan.org/brain.cgi?dhlucke" target="_new">If you were to have sex with your clone would that be considered incest or masturbation?</A></font color=red>

bravo! Damn liberals *shakes fist angrily* I like your comparison: Bush- the Abe Lincoln of the 21st century!

Fighting for peace is like screwing for abstinance!

rofl, satan may get the popular vote but the electorial college would make the right choice. as our fore fathers knew it you cant trust liberals with government, they just [-peep-] it up.

Fighting for peace is like screwing for abstinance!