10-10-2002 00:48									#1
	Thread for pro-War Arguments Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

In response to Boris's "suggestion" that Fez not post in his thread, I have created this one as an alternative.

I would like to hear Fez (and other pro-war people, but mainly Fez) post their arguments for war in a single, cohesive post.

Yes, maybe you've done it before, but for the sake of argument, do it again, all in one place. That way we can see what your arguments really are, and respond to them.

That's the challenge I'm throwing down - either take it up or stop whining about how we are "anti-war communists who don't use logic and are anti-America".

	10-10-2002 00:59									#2
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Going to War would be good because it will lead to even more of those oh-so-wonderful anti-government rants from you Davey.

	10-10-2002 01:01									#3
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Floyd is against it, the best argument possible that it's the right thing to do.

	10-10-2002 01:02									#4
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Come on, though, seriously - I'm just sick of hearing certain people ***** and moan about "anti-Americanism" and such, so I really want these people to post their reasoning.

	10-10-2002 01:05									#5
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: the best argument possible that it's the right thing to do.

Why do you say it's the right thing to do?

	10-10-2002 01:19									#6
	Remove this text

Why do you say it isn't?

The anti-war argument is identical to the pro-war argument, it boils down to whom you believe.

If your Pro-war you believe Bush.

If your anti-war you believe Saddam.

	10-10-2002 01:22									#7
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

War for Peace!

	10-10-2002 01:22									#8
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: If your Pro-war you believe Bush. If your anti-war you believe Saddam.

Incorrect. I don't have to believe anyone to state that it is wrong to attack a nation which poses no threat to me.

I'm sure Saddam lied his ass off to weapons investigators. Of course, I don't really care. They had no moral right to be there, and were only there to begin with on the dictum that might makes right.

	10-10-2002 01:26									#9
	Remove this text

COOL SPECIAL EFFECTS!

	10-10-2002 01:26									#10
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Sorry Davey, but it's spot on, if you believe Saddam, you have nothing to fear.

The one who says he's no threat is Saddam, your stating it as a fact.

	10-10-2002 01:29									#11
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: I would like to hear Fez (and other pro-war people, but mainly Fez) post their arguments for war in a single, cohesive post.

me too. go giancarlo go! tell us about the evil lefties

	10-10-2002 01:29									#12
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Sorry Davey, but it's spot on, if you believe Saddam, you have nothing to fear. The one who says he's no threat is Saddam, your stating it as a fact.

No, I can say Saddam is no threat by looking at facts. Saddam has no missiles that can reach the United States. I can also use logic. It makes no logical, rational sense for Saddam to attack the US in the absence of US provocation.

I suppose on that level I DO believe Saddam, in that he is implying that in the absence of US provocation he is no threat. But that's pretty much a self-evident statement in this case.

	10-10-2002 01:30									#13
	Remove this text

Going to war will be good because we are running out of good movie plots, especially in the war genre.

Seriously though, I cannot argue for war since I am totally ignorant of the terms surrounding this specific engagement (not entirly true, but I am sure I know a lot less then those who are to make such a decision).

IMO Iraq has violated the terms of the cease fire, technically we are still at war, and Clinton was to busy getting BJs to do anything about it. I don't really care what Sadam has done since the cease fire was declared the fact that he violated those terms is enough for me to support an A$$ whoopin'. Add to that the threat that a madman (Sadam, so you don't get confused) has amassed weapons of mass destruction, is assisting know terrorists in their efforts to defile America, and is guilty of giving every Arab a bad reputation (not to mention his bad taste in fashion) I'd say that he deserves everything he gets. I feel sorry for all the innocents that will be placed in harms way, but blame him not us.

I am done with my rant.

	10-10-2002 01:30									#14
	Inflate your Upload Space

Not invading Iraq is the only morally correct thing to do.

"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God."

	10-10-2002 01:32									#15
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: IMO Iraq has violated the terms of the cease fire, technically we are still at war,

Wrong-o.

We were never even AT war, as Congress never declared war. Bush basically usurped the exclusive powers of Congress in order to go kill people.

But there was never any war.

	10-10-2002 01:32									#16
	Increase Your PM Length

Invading Iraq is the only responsible thing to do.

	10-10-2002 01:34									#17
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd No, I can say Saddam is no threat by looking at facts. Saddam has no missiles that can reach the United States. I can also use logic. It makes no logical, rational sense for Saddam to attack the US in the absence of US provocation.

I wasn't aware that the lack of balistic missles makes you harmless.
Suppose you put say, a 80 foot boat in NY harbor and let off a Dirty bomb, would that be a threat?
Under the definition you gave, no it wouldn't.
Your not safe Floyd, sticking your head in the sand won't work.

quote: I suppose on that level I DO believe Saddam, in that he is implying that in the absence of US provocation he is no threat. But that's pretty much a self-evident statement in this case.

Like I said, it's whom you believe, and now you see it.

	10-10-2002 01:34									#18
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Saddam does have missiles that can reach our allies.

	10-10-2002 01:35									#19
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Sorry about the confussion David, as I said I am ignorant.

Yet, I find when you start to bomb the crap out of another country, then, it is technically a war. Either way the old issues still remain, and he has violated terms that he agreed upon. I don't know about you but I didn't see him crossing his fingers, not take backs.

	10-10-2002 01:36									#20
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Suppose you put say, a 80 foot boat in NY harbor and let off a Dirty bomb, would that be a threat? Under the definition you gave, no it wouldn't.

Why should Iraq set off a dirty bomb in NY harbor, if the US was not already provoking them, through the enforcement of no fly zones, embargos, etc.?

quote: Like I said, it's whom you believe, and now you see it.

Fine, I believe Saddam because his position is backed up by logic and reason. But that has nothing to do with Saddam, it has to do with logic and reason.

DaShi,

quote: Saddam does have missiles that can reach our allies.

So does Russia.

	10-10-2002 01:37									#21
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by DaShi Saddam does have missiles that can reach our allies.

So does China, and they are far more significant a threat to U.S. interests, particularly concering Taiwan (although why Taiwan is of interest to us, I don't know).

Iraq poses less of a threat to us today than N. Korea does, IMO. Saddam's capacity to wage war was decimated ten years ago and has not recovered by any significant measure.

	10-10-2002 01:38									#22
	Support Apolyton

quote: Yet, I find when you start to bomb the crap out of another country, then, it is technically a war. Either way the old issues still remain, and he has violated terms that he agreed upon.

But the point is, the US was not fighting a legal war according to our own Constitution. We were fighting an illegal, undeclared war, and I fail to see how any agreements stemming from that illegal action can be valid.

Further, even if a war were fought, I fail to see how any peace treaty or cease fire based upon anything other than peace amongst equals is moral.

	10-10-2002 01:38									#23
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd So does Russia.

I'll take Strawmen for $100 Alex.

	10-10-2002 01:39									#24
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd Wrong-o. We were never even AT war, as Congress never declared war. Bush basically usurped the exclusive powers of Congress in order to go kill people. But there was never any war.

Lot of people died for there not being a war. Of course it was a war. It simply wasn't a declared war.

Neither did Bush usurp the powers of Congress. That isn't even close to true, David. Bush was required to and did get funding for military actions up to an including invading Iraq. That Congress did not have the cajones to call it a declaration of war does not change the fact that it was a war and Congress chose to fund it.

	10-10-2002 01:39									#25
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: I'll take Strawmen for $100 Alex.

OK, fine.

Iraq has missiles that can reach our allies. But who are these allies?
Turkey, who killed more Kurds than Iraq?
Saudi Arabia, an authoritarian dictatorship?
Israel, a "democracy" with racist immigration laws that goes around killing civilians in response to terrorism?

Pardon me if I don't give a ****.

	10-10-2002 01:40									#26
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

We have to invade because the Kurds haven't been ****ed over enough these past decades, so we ought to **** 'em over some more.

	10-10-2002 01:41									#27
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Lot of people died for there not being a war. Of course it was a war. It simply wasn't a declared war.

Fine. But an undeclared war is not a legal war.

quote: Neither did Bush usurp the powers of Congress. That isn't even close to true, David. Bush was required to and did get funding for military actions up to an including invading Iraq. That Congress did not have the cajones to call it a declaration of war does not change the fact that it was a war and Congress chose to fund it.

Wrong. Only Congress can declare war. They can't pass this power off to any other branch of the government - it is an exclusive power of Congress. They can pass a Constitutional amendment to change this, but that was not done.
If they choose to fund a military action without declaring war, then it seems to me that they are simply funding what boils down to murder, based on the argument that killing an enemy combatant in war is not murder, killing a foreign soldier without a declared war is murder.

	10-10-2002 01:48									#28
	Put an end to popups!

You have some valid points there Floyd.

"Good, bad, what does it matter? I'm the one with the gun."

Funny, huh?

That is exactly what Saddam did to Kuwait, and what sucks is that there is always a bigger fish (should that be in quotes too?).

Do we need to wait for Saddam to repeat his actions, only this time with bigger missles then scuds?

Do you honestly think that he is just going to sit idle? He is a calous, greedy, man... (In some sense he should just defect to America, he would have better luck)

When evil rears it's ugly head one must leash it. And if it breaks leash what do you do? Nothing? Laugh? What? I would releash it, and I would shorten the chain.

	10-10-2002 01:49									#29
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd Fine. But an undeclared war is not a legal war.

There is nothing in the Constitution that makes an undeclared war illegal. The requirement is that Congress do authorize it. If they don't want to call it a war that didn't make it illegal.

quote: Wrong. Only Congress can declare war. They can't pass this power off to any other branch of the government - it is an exclusive power of Congress. They can pass a Constitutional amendment to change this, but that was not done.

They did declare war. They just chose not to call it one.

quote: If they choose to fund a military action without declaring war, then it seems to me that they are simply funding what boils down to murder, based on the argument that killing an enemy combatant in war is not murder, killing a foreign soldier without a declared war is murder.

A rose by any other name would still smell as sweet and a war that is not officialy called one is still a war. There is no special requirement in the Constitution for declaring war. All that is needed is a simple majority and Congess gave Bush much more than a simple majority.

Now IF the Constitution required a two thirds majority to declare war you would have a point.

	10-10-2002 01:50									#30
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: That is exactly what Saddam did to Kuwait, and what sucks is that there is always a bigger fish (should that be in quotes too?).

Yes, but two points:
1)Kuwait very possibly WAS actually stealing Iraqi oil.
2)We did the same thing to Iraq

quote: Do you honestly think that he is just going to sit idle? He is a calous, greedy, man... (In some sense he should just defect to America, he would have better luck)

I think he's gonna die pretty soon, if you want my opinion.

quote: When evil rears it's ugly head one must leash it. And if it breaks leash what do you do? Nothing? Laugh? What? I would releash it, and I would shorten the chain.

The US has done some very evil things in the past couple of hundred years. Shall I list them for you?