The Great Debate (the topic for when we go OT)

[Zeke Zabertini]

No. I resent war.

[Captain Leah Manzer]

I agree. I would put one in my window, but no one would see it.
I resent war. I wish it haddent have come to that..

is it only in the states?

[Theresa]

^As far as I know right now, yes. But that doesn't mean you can't start something,

Resenting war..... war itself, the necessity of war, what exactly is it you resent?
I hope you realize that sometimes, not disregarding how horrific it is, war IS necessary. If one side absolutely refuses to listen, what do you do?
((NO OFFENSE, BRITS, ))
What if the Patriots of the US had just decided, oh, we'll let them tax us outrageously, etc...., and had not fought back? Today you would be singing "God save the Queen". I guess my point is that you cannot logically make such a broad statement and have it have any merit.


*EDIT* Leah, I know you do sing "God save the Queen", but give me a little latitude here, ok?

[Zeke Zabertini]

The necessity (did I spell that right?) of war is something that I don't believe exists. I think that there is always another option. War itself is what I resent. And I thought you weren't going to talk to me any more?

[Captain Leah Manzer]

Cool I think i will start something.

((I will respond to that in Debate...Maquis is talking to me about it ))

[Los]

I resent how fickle and shortsighted us Americans have become. But we can't always have our way, can we?

[Theresa]

Doesn't this "^" denote that I am talking to the person directly above me? huh

[Los]

^ yes.

[Theresa]

^Thank you,

BTW, I am not fickle, but I do want my way,

I think on a whole, though right now because of major media bias and UN stupidity it will seem to the contrary, the US does listen to her people more so than most other countries. Not to mention listening to others.

[Captain Leah Manzer]

But conflict, in any way is bad. I agree, that at some points it is nessassery, but that doesn mean going out and bombing all of iraq. I disagree with Bush's desistion. And I dont think that will totaly change. I feel that he is trying to impose the Democray on other countries. I read his speach again and that is the impression that i got. He said something like, So you can set an example for other Middle easten countries.
I dont think that. Sure Democracy works for us, but that doesnt mean that it will work in other countries. ... sorry if I'm rambling.
Well Conflict in nessessay, but i think Bush SHOULD think twice about his desistion if Most of the Un doesnt agree. That HAS to show something.

[Los]

[Theresa]

^Yes, w/ that, I totally agree.


Leah........ good thing I like you,

[Captain Leah Manzer]

[Theresa]

Like I said in the other topic, do you know who was in charge of the disarmament committee? Iraq. How much sense does that make? And I don't care how many civilians SH has killed, well, I do, but you know what I mean. The point is, we will be doing our utmost to avoid any and all civilian casualties.
And after 12 years, if there were another way out of this, don't you think it would have been found? We're talking hundreds of people dealing w/ this one situation. SH has been playing the UN security council for fools for years.


((I like the SH abbreviation, makes me think of 2 other words when I type it, fitting, too, ))

[Los]

Perhaps if the speech can be reposted and Bush's words can be analyzed further, maybe this confusion wouldn't be so bad.

[Theresa]

(AP) Below is the text of President Bush's prime-time address Monday on Iraq, as transcribed by eMediaMillWorks Inc.:

My fellow citizens, events in Iraq have now reached the final days of decision.

For more than a decade, the United States and other nations have pursued patient and honorable efforts to disarm the Iraqi regime without war. That regime pledged to reveal and destroy all of its weapons of mass destruction as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War in 1991.

Since then, the world has engaged in 12 years of diplomacy. We have passed more than a dozen resolutions in the United Nations Security Council. We have sent hundreds of weapons inspectors to oversee the disarmament of Iraq.

Our good faith has not been returned. The Iraqi regime has used diplomacy as a ploy to gain time and advantage. It has uniformly defied Security Council resolutions demanding full disarmament.

Over the years, U.N. weapons inspectors have been threatened by Iraqi officials, electronically bugged and systematically deceived. Peaceful efforts to disarm the Iraq regime have failed again and again because we are not dealing with peaceful men.

Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. This regime has already used weapons of mass destruction against Iraq's neighbors and against Iraq's people.

The regime has a history of reckless aggression in the Middle East. It has a deep hatred of America and our friends and it has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al-Qaida.

The danger is clear: Using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country or any other.

The United States and other nations did nothing to deserve or invite this threat, but we will do everything to defeat it. Instead of drifting along toward tragedy, we will set a course toward safety.

Before the day of horror can come, before it is too late to act, this danger will be removed.

The United States of America has the sovereign authority to use force in assuring its own national security. That duty falls to me as commander of chief by the oath I have sworn, by the oath I will keep.

Recognizing the threat to our country, the United States Congress voted overwhelmingly last year to support the use of force against Iraq.

America tried to work with the United Nations to address this threat because we wanted to resolve the issue peacefully. We believe in the mission of the United Nations.

One reason the U.N. was founded after the Second World War was to confront aggressive dictators actively and early, before they can attack the innocent and destroy the peace.

In the case of Iraq, the Security Council did act in the early 1990s. Under Resolutions 678 and 687, both still in effect, the United States and our allies are authorized to use force in ridding Iraq of weapons of mass destruction.

This is not a question of authority, it is a question of will.

Last September, I went to the U.N. General Assembly and urged the nations of the world to unite and bring an end to this danger. On November 8th, the Security Council unanimously passed Resolution 1441, finding Iraq in material breach of its obligations and vowing serious consequences if Iraq did not fully and immediately disarm.

Today, no nation can possibly claim that Iraq has disarmed. And it will not disarm so long as Saddam Hussein holds power.

For the last four and a half months, the United States and our allies have worked within the Security Council to enforce that council's long-standing demands. Yet some permanent members of the Security Council have publicly announced that they will veto any resolution that compels the disarmament of Iraq. These governments share our assessment of the danger, but not our resolve to meet it.

Many nations, however, do have the resolve and fortitude to act against this threat to peace, and a broad coalition is now gathering to enforce the just demands of the world.

The United Nations Security Council has not lived up to its responsibilities, so we will rise to ours.

In recent days, some governments in the Middle East have been doing their part. They have delivered public and private messages urging the dictator to leave Iraq so that disarmament can proceed peacefully.

He has thus far refused.

All the decades of deceit and cruelty have now reached an end. Saddam Hussein and his sons must leave Iraq within 48 hours. Their refusal to do so will result in military conflict commenced at a time of our choosing.

For their own safety, all foreign nationals, including journalists and inspectors, should leave Iraq immediately.

Many Iraqis can hear me tonight in a translated radio broadcast, and I have a message for them: If we must begin a military campaign, it will be directed against the lawless men who rule your country and not against you.

As our coalition takes away their power, we will deliver the food and medicine you need.

We will tear down the apparatus of terror and we will help you to build a new Iraq that is prosperous and free.

In free Iraq there will be no more wars of aggression against your neighbors, no more poison factories, no more executions of dissidents, no more torture chambers and rape rooms.

The tyrant will soon be gone. The day of your liberation is near.

It is too late for Saddam Hussein to remain in power. It is not too late for the Iraq military to act with honor and protect your country, by permitting the peaceful entry of coalition forces to eliminate weapons of mass destruction. Our forces will give Iraqi military units clear instructions on actions they can take to avoid being attacked and destroyed.

I urge every member of the Iraqi military and intelligence services: If war comes, do not fight for a dying regime that is not worth your own life.

And all Iraqi military and civilian personnel should listen carefully to this warning: In any conflict, your fate will depend on your actions. Do not destroy oil wells, a source of wealth that belongs to the Iraqi people. Do not obey any command to use weapons of mass destruction against anyone, including the Iraqi people. War crimes will be prosecuted, war criminals will be punished and it will be no defense to say, "I was just following orders."

Should Saddam Hussein choose confrontation, the American people can know that every measure has been taken to avoid war and every measure will be taken to win it.

Americans understand the costs of conflict because we have paid them in the past. War has no certainty except the certainty of sacrifice.

Yet the only way to reduce the harm and duration of war is to apply the full force and might of our military, and we are prepared to do so.

If Saddam Hussein attempts to cling to power, he will remain a deadly foe until the end.

In desperation, he and terrorist groups might try to conduct terrorist operations against the American people and our friends. These attacks are not inevitable. They are, however, possible.

And this very fact underscores the reason we cannot live under the threat of blackmail. The terrorist threat to America and the world will be diminished the moment that Saddam Hussein is disarmed.

Our government is on heightened watch against these dangers. Just as we are preparing to ensure victory in Iraq, we are taking further actions to protect our homeland.

In recent days, American authorities have expelled from the country certain individuals with ties to Iraqi intelligence services.

Among other measures, I have directed additional security at our airports and increased Coast Guard patrols of major seaports. The Department of Homeland Security is working closely with the nation's governors to increase armed security at critical facilities across America.

Should enemies strike our country, they would be attempting to shift our attention with panic and weaken our morale with fear. In this, they would fail.

No act of theirs can alter the course or shake the resolve of this country. We are a peaceful people, yet we are not a fragile people. And we will not be intimidated by thugs and killers.

If our enemies dare to strike us, they and all who have aided them will face fearful consequences.

We are now acting because the risks of inaction would be far greater. In one year, or five years, the power of Iraq to inflict harm on all free nations would be multiplied many times over.

With these capabilities, Saddam Hussein and his terrorist allies could choose the moment of deadly conflict when they are strongest. We choose to meet that threat now where it arises, before it can appear suddenly in our skies and cities.

The cause of peace requires all free nations to recognize new and undeniable realities. In the 20th century, some chose to appease murderous dictators whose threats were allowed to grow into genocide and global war.

In this century, when evil men plot chemical, biological and nuclear terror, a policy of appeasement could bring destruction of a kind never before seen on this earth. Terrorists and terrorist states do not reveal these threats with fair notice in formal declarations.

And responding to such enemies only after they have struck first is not self-defense. It is suicide. The security of the world requires disarming Saddam Hussein now.

As we enforce the just demands of the world, we will also honor the deepest commitments of our country.

Unlike Saddam Hussein, we believe the Iraqi people are deserving and capable of human liberty, and when the dictator has departed, they can set an example to all the Middle East of a vital and peaceful and self-governing nation.

The United States with other countries will work to advance liberty and peace in that region. Our goal will not be achieved overnight, but it can come over time. The power and appeal of human liberty is felt in every life and every land, and the greatest power of freedom is to overcome hatred and violence, and turn the creative gifts of men and women to the pursuits of peace. That is the future we choose.

Free nations have a duty to defend our people by uniting against the violent, and tonight, as we have done before, America and our allies accept that responsibility.

Good night, and may God continue to bless America.

[Theresa]

Oh, my opinion of the UN. They could be a good thing, if they made resolutions and stuck to them. You cannot respect someone or something you are unable to beleive in.

[Los]

UN < League Of Nations.

A lot of respect they deserve now.

[Captain Leah Manzer]

The utter most still includes civillian lives, and indangering lives of others. Couldnt we just take him out, with out war? I know his sons are just as bad but we could take them out. It is a much better solution then sending in armies and bombing the hell out of Iraq. (I know stategic placing )
Another thing. In iraq, The us is already concidered the "bad guy" trying to pust everyone around. Even though we all now that it is for the best of the country, the people ther are only getting half the story. They think that Bush is just trying to pick a fight. SH (I like it too) Is feeding off of this because of the way bush is handling this. He is making Sudam look like the innocent one. Which ISNT good.

[Los]

That's what the whole political debate was: To get Sadam to disarm without resorting to violence. When people are placed in power, its their God given duty to serve the people, not their own interests. When leaders start to do that, the political system becomes corrupt.

Do you think the Kurds of northern Iraq or those in the minority parties, those who live in fear because they envision a different Iraq, want Sadam Hussein in power at all? This is an internal struggle just as well as an external fight with a coalition of nations. Its about restoring justice and peace to a region that has gone sour with hatred, not just toward America, but to human life itself.

[Theresa]

Leah, do you know what a zealot is?

[Captain Dappet]

Hrm...I better not say anythin'...I'll jus' get pissed.

I think I'm gonna avoid this place.

[Los]

[Captain Leah Manzer]