Note: All participants in the vote should identify themselves, their vote, and the degree of certainty with which they casted their vote for either side. Therefore, when the truth is known, those who were wrong can be humiliated, bullied and harassed.

Cheers!

I voted yes because I believe it 100%.

scale of 1-5, I go with 5

Rhetorical

Vote:
"Yes"

Degree of Certainty (1-5):
4

P.S. Please rate your degree of certainty on a scale of 1-5 (five being most certain, one basically being a guess).

Thnks!

YES

*5*

I say Yes, and give it a #4.

When you corner a wounded animal, you can't expect it to be nice.

quote: Originally posted by EMHdoc:
I say Yes, and give it a #4.

---

WHAT?! So let me get this straight...You NOW believe that Iraq DOES have banned weapons of mass destruction? Because if so, does that not imply some degree of legitimacy in the upcoming invasion of Iraq?

Given that Iraq's 8th December dossier is incomplete, I would say YES and give it a big ol' 5.

The Inspectors have roamed the country, Past inspectors have destroyed 95% of WMDs.. and in the last 4 years there is no evidence of the Iraqis obtaining new WMD, no evidence of their development.. not even the US with all their control and observations have given us subsatncial proof of this.

But we are some how still adamnt the Saddam has them and that he will use them... no doupt that he will use them in this time of need, but he doesnt have them and I am 99% sure of that.

Mind you I can just see the US and UK planting WMDs and documents to use as their propoganda for this war... so there is more support... I mean how foolish will the invasion look if they find nothing... they will give us something, like oh look we found the anthrax, it was in a secret cabinate in Saddams palace all along.

What evidence do we have that Iraq still has WMDs let alone ones that can be used.. the answer is simply NIL.

SO I VOTE NO with 5 degree of certainty and I have used the info I have to decide this, not just random biased superstition influenced by pro-war Media.

Yes, and 4. Nothing is certain in this world.

Now if you expanded it to US troops or Launched at Israel, I would probably go with 5.

quote: Originally posted by Syrianoz
SO I VOTE NO with 5 degree of certainty and I have used the info I have to decide this, not just random biased superstition influenced by pro-war Media.

---

Yeah, yeah, yeah, yada, yada, yada. Now listen Oz. I don't mean to give you a hard time, but (oh wait! That was a lie. I DO mean to give him a hard time. I'm sorry. Never mind) but when I saw you say that you voted "NO" I went and checked the poll results just to see how it was going. And what did it show?

YES - 8 - 100%

NO - 0 - 0%

Son, where did you learn about voting and marking election ballots? In Florida? You're the UK version of an elderly Broward County Democrat, aren't you? Now get up there, click your cursor in the little "No" circle and press "Submit Vote."

(Jeez! I gotta hold these people by the hand. My work is NEVER done!)



Ray
And I don't want to hear any crap about any hanging chads, either
Town Meeting Page
Town Meeting Forums
Meet the Townies

yes

Have to give a 4 to WMD--however, failure to comply with order to destroy means of delivery (i.e., outlawed missiles and drones) ought to rate a 5.

quote: Originally posted by Ray:
Mind you I can just see the US and UK planting WMDs and documents to use as their propoganda for this war...

---

Ah, yes...Preparing for all the possibilities...I can just picture it right now:

"What? The Americans found a chemical weapons arsenal in a bunker in one of Saddam's palaces...NONSENSE!! It is fake! planted by the Americans...everyone knows iraq has no weapons The inspectors said in 1998 iraq was 90 - 95% disarmed. these are just excuses for the US and UK to launch aggression and steal the oil! It's the pro-war media playing tricks! Be careful of hypocrisy!!"

Or perhaps it's just deja vu...

. o O (quote: Originally posted by Ray?)

Rhetorical! You TWIT!! That was SYRIANOZ who said that!

. o O (Jeez! I gotta hold their hands around here. My work is never done!)



Ray
Your equal opportunity annoyer
Town Meeting Page
Town Meeting Forums
Meet the Townies

Quote:

---

Son, where did you learn about voting and marking election ballots? In Florida? You're the UK version of an elderly Broward County Democrat, aren't you? Now get up there, click your cursor in the little "No" circle and press "Submit Vote."

---

We arabs are used to voting YES in elections.. YES YES YES We got shot if we ruin 100%

(btw I clicked on the NO like RAY told me too)

That was humorous OZ, Good one there. beat us to it. One could almost say pre-emptively.

Nice pic by the way.

Now dont get any silly ideas just because i said nice pic. Besides i doubt you could afford me.

I believe that Saddam has weapons which he might use.BUT that makes no excuse for the forthcoming war.America has no right of invading Iraq without the approval of the UN or NATO or the Security Council.

It is wholly a pleasure to welcome you to the Town Meeting, Trinity. We're honored you've chosen our humble forum for your first official Fool Moon posting.

UN approval? Oh my dear, we have had plenty of UN approval over the past year. Resolutions and security council votes out the wahzoo! BUT, if the United Nations (I use the term lightly) are not willing to live up to their obligations, then I fear WE must live up to those obligations. Don't worry. After the dust settles and Iraq is returned to the fold of the civilized world, I'm sure the UN will have the chance to pretend is was all THEIR idea to start with.


Once again, Trinity, good to have you here, and we hope you become a regular.

Ray
Your equal opportunity annoyer
Town Meeting Page
Town Meeting Forums
Meet the Townies

The dust settles? How can you talk like that about a war. The dust will settle but there will be things that will never settle. There will be lives lost, children without parents, there will be cancer and other diseases caused by the bombs, there will be people suffering in Iraq. The war won t just cause some dust...
Because of all these I don t think that anyone,not even the UN, will applaud the war in Iraq after it is over.War under no conditions is good but sometimes is necessary.This time isn t.America should have wait more for more weapons to be found if the true goal of this war was global peace and security.
I don t like Saddam but I also don t like the way America "handles" the matter.Nobody wants war, nobody.America should have considered that before starting a war but America didn t.No power gives that right to anybody.
Even if UN,NATO and the Security Council approve the war people won t and that cannot change.

quote: Originally posted by Trinity
The dust settles? How can you talk like that about a war.

---

It's easy. I frequently use American idioms and idiomatic expressions when I write stuff. Saves time.

You are right about death and destruction and orphan making in Iraq, we should probably leave THAT to Saddam. He's had so many years of experience.

Ray
Your equal opportunity annoyer
Town Meeting Page
Town Meeting Forums
Meet the Townies

Sure Saddam kills his own people.. but he did most of it when the US and UK was arming him and supporting him... they only condone it years later..

Ray this war will just kill more Iraqis, kurds, and Shiites... Saddam killed them, but you will kill them in huge numbers.. thats the hypocracy of all this.

quote: Originally posted by Syrianoz:
Sure Saddam kills his own people.. but he did most of it when the US and UK was arming him and supporting him... they only condone it years later..

---

What did Ray once call this...? Oh yes - intellectual constipation.

Trinity,

Welcome to the town meeting.

While I underestand your concern over the loss of life, one must realize that we do indeed live in the real world and not a dream world. War has been with the human race for a long time, and unfortunately will be with us for a long time to come.

"War under no conditions is good but sometimes is necessary."

K - I agree with you completely.

"America should have wait more for more weapons to be found if the true goal of this war was global peace and security."

K - You are entitled to your opinion. HOwever please realize the only reason inspectors were even on the gound in iraq is becuase of the troop buildups and war rhetoric that were comming from washington. DO you really think that saddam would comply with anything without US and British troops poised to attack?

What would have happened if We didn't attack because the UN didn't agree to it, but instead pulled our troops out? Do you think saddam would continue to comply? I dont. We are not going to leave that many forces sitting their forever. Saddam is not complying. He was never going to. Its a cat and mouse game that must come to an end. The risks to my free and very open nation are too great.

If the international community really wanted to let the inspection process continue they should rally their troops to suround saddam and demand that he comply. The US would gladely leave the area and let Greece, france, russia, and china military and countries take responsibility to disarm saddam. The real question becomes will Greece, france, and company do it? The answer is no they wont. Inspections only work if the native government want them to work, please see south africa.

"No power gives that right to anybody."

I am afraid you are greatly mistaken there my lady. The US has maintained that right throughout the entire UN process. I will never want my country to give up that right to the UN or any other global governing body. If you do, then you dont value your liberty very much. It another topic altogether but realize that the furture a ruling body is from the individual citizen the less control that citizen has on the ruling body. That is a bad thing for freedom.

So I ask you, What alternatives do we have. Saddam is not going to comply. That is pretty obvious. France has said they would veto any resolution which could trigger a response of force. What exactly would you like us to do. Sit and wait for saddam to become even more of a threat. Take the chance of him arming those who will directly attack us. Thanks but no thanks. I am glad to see you are willing to risk american lives but i am not. Now if 9-11 happened in greece and terrorist groups wanted to kill those in greece, then i might be convinced otherwise.

I wont tell the greece government what to do, and i surely dont expect foreign citizens to tell my government what to do. We will "Handle" it in the best interest of OUR citizens.

PS,

When the dust settles is another way of saying when its all over in the US. Maybe you didn't know that and thus seriously thought that i beieved a whole crapload of missles, tank rounds, and small arms fire was only going to stir up some dust.

First of all thank you all for welcoming me.

I know what the expression meens but it seemed liked Ray confronts war without concerning about what the bombs will cause to these people.And that s the main point.Do these people disserve to suffer because of Saddam?I don t think so.Saddam is a terrible dictator who is killing Iraqis.So does America.That behavior is quite dictatorial.Don t you think so?

I certainly agree with you that Saddam wouldn t comply otherwise.
Theoretically the point was to dissarm Saddam because he was a threat to America.He has/had (I don t know) the means to make an act of terrorism like the one of 9/11.That goal is respactable and understandable.But I don t think that it s going to be completed by this war.In this war Saddam will probably escape capture,like Bin Laden did,and only the Iraqis are going to die and suffer.Certainly you don t think that all these people who starv and live under terrible conditions are posing a serious threat to America.If America(and England) wanted to save the Americans and the Iraqis from Saddam and his people,they would have to capture him not bombard Iraq.
So I reach the conclusion that this war isn t only made for dissarmament.And that makes me even more anti-war.
I ve been taught from history that every single war in man's history was made for an economic reason and I think that this war isn t the exception.
Of course I don t pretend to know what for this war really is !
But I don t want war and I m not the onlyone.Plenty of people in Europe and America and all over the world have my opinion.

You say you won t expect foreign citisens to tell your goverment what to do.But you should.That s a global matter and America isn t the whole world.America interfeers to other countries matters.So it s quite logical that there are reactions.Have you read Aristotel?(He is a greek philosopher)He has told that a man who lives alone and acts in his best interest isn t a real man.People are ment to live together in order to be happy,in order to survive.He told that the same happens to societies.I agree with that, that s why I think America should concern a little bit more about other countries opinions.That s the reason I think that the just of the powerful mustn t apply.

Of course you might say that this could only happen in a dream world.Unfortunately you will probably be right.

You say that I m willing to risk american lives.Of course I m not.I m not willing to risk anybody lives!If I thought this war would really protect the world from terrorism I would applaud America.And more governments would probably agree and help America and more people would risk their lives together with Americans.

Finally,I would like to pose you an other aspect of the matter.
Quite recently Bosnia was bombarded.The war was over.Greece helped NATO and America to the war.But after the bombarding was over other thinks came up.There was the threat of toxic rain,of poluted water and food and the rates of cancer through the Balcans raised.Even soldiers of NATO and America got sick after the war was over.The same will happen to Iraq.
So many lives are threatened from this war and as I ve told the war won t even complete his goal.
Nobody will be more safe,not even the Americans.This act will cause even more hate in terrorists hearts and will make them more willing to do another terrrorist attack.

Trinity, (have something to do with the Matrix?)

"Saddam is a terrible dictator who is killing Iraqis.So does America.That behavior is quite dictatorial.Don t you think so?"

K - Not necessarily, i think i need more information as to why the US attacking iraq is dictatorial. Simply killing iraqies in a military attack doesn't exactly qualify the US as a dictatorship. A case can easily be made but i want to see what you have to say on it.

"But I don t think that it s going to be completed by this war"

K - Nobody thinks this will be completed by this action. Simply one step in the process. The debate arizes when you weigh the cost of lives to the lessening of the threat obtained by removing Saddam and truely disarming iraq.

"In this war Saddam will probably escape capture,like Bin Laden did,and only the Iraqis are going to die and suffer"

K - True but he will not be in charge of a government with the resources of an entire country at his disposal. We dont need to capture saddam to free the people from his regime, note this is not our primary goal in the military action, we nearly need to remove him from power in Iraq.

"So I reach the conclusion that this war isn t only made for dissarmament.And that makes me even more anti-war."

K - There are many reasons for this war. Some noble and some for defense/lessening the chance of catastophe on american cities. NOte this will not eliminate the chance, merely lessen it. THis war is not mainly about oil. Oil does come into play, no doubt about that but to say it is all about oil is not very rational.

"I ve been taught from history that every single war in man's history was made for an economic reason and I think that this war isn t the exception."

K - I agree that many/most have economics as the primary motivation but i wouldn't say that every war had economics as the main motivation. I could be wrong, as i am not a military historian but vietnam comes immediately to mind. THere may be an economic factor but i dont think its the main motivation. Korea? Military actions, i know they are not wars but they are military conflicts, bosnia, kosovo. If you look I'm sure you can find other/better examples. There is always an economic component. There is an economic component to everything, but that doesn't mean its the main motivation.

"But I don t want war and I m not the onlyone.Plenty of people in Europe and America and all over the world have my opinion."

K - Nobody WANTS war. Some just realize that sometimes its needed. Sometimes there is no other realistic choice in the matter, you have already conceded that without the threat of military force nothing would have been acomplished at all. Not a whole lot has been accomplished anyway. I believe this is one of those times where there is no viable alternative. You do not. That does not mean that i want people to be killed. I just accept the fact that its going to happen and sometimes a greater amount of good can come out of it. Its doesn't help those who die, but that doesn't mean it isn't true. I dont like to see people suffer, but i know that in my lifetime at least, there will always be people who suffer. That just the way the world is. ITs not nice but it is realistic.

"You say you won t expect foreign citizens to tell your goverment what to do.But you should."

k - Sorry, but you will never, ever get me to accept that. Foreign people are free to voice their opinions but my government better damn well not listen to them over looking out for the interest of their own citizens. We may disagree with what is best for US citizens but the US should never make a decision based on what foreign citizens THINK are best. Sorry, i never want to see my governemnt move further from the the individual citizens than it already has. If i could, i would take more power away from my federal government and give it to my state government and more power from the state government and give it to my local governemnt, exc.

The threat of terrorism is a global matter. The threat of terrorism against the us is more of a US matter than a global one, though we will need help to attack it. Somehow i dont think the government of greece is more concerned with an attack against NY than my government is.

"America interfeers to other countries matters.So it s quite logical that there are reactions."

K- I agree with you that america interfers in matters when they shouldn't. I would not have acted in bosnia or kosovo. I wouldn't be giving the amount of foreign aid we do, there are always strings attached with that. Reactions are fine, voicing opinions are fine, but dont expect the US to listen to foreign powers unless it in our own best interest to do so.

"Of course you might say that this could only happen in a dream world.Unfortunately you will probably be right."

K - I'm glad you realize that. This is the real world. When people want to talk about a problem they go to philosophers. When people want to get something done they go to engineers, scientist and most importantly everyday workers. The time of talking is over. The UN is very good at talking but not very good at doing ANYTHING. The UN does not do a darn thing without the US doing a great deal of it. Its time to get something done, not just talk about doing it.

"I thought this war would really protect the world from terrorism I would applaud America. And more governments would probably agree and help America and more people would risk their lives together with Americans."

K - If you really believe that then you are living in a fantasy world. I doubt china, russia, france, germany, and many others would do any different. Its in many of their national interests not too. SOrry, but that is the way the world works. Some would, but many would not. Its called foreign policy and its all about looking out for the best interests of the country who is conducting the foreign policy. Its been that way since two tribes in the same area started talking to eachother. Otherwise they wouldn't reach and agreement.

"Nobody will be more safe,not even the Americans.This act will cause even more hate in terrorists hearts and will make them more willing to do another terrrorist attack."

K - It depends on your definition of more safe. The probability of a WMD attack on american soil will drop. The number of terrorist wanting to kill us will increase. however, there are already a boat load of people who want to kill us and they are not going to change their minds very easily. Remember terrorists dont need large numbers to accomplish their aims, just dedicated ones and they already have those. INcreasing the number of dedicated enemies to decreasing their access to really nasty stuff is a tradeoff that i think we must make. To truely win this battle agaist those who wish to blow up americans many different approaches will need to be employed. Military power is not the only one but it must be a component. Now we can discuss what else should be done and probably find quite a few things we agree on, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't also use military force. ITs not always the prettiest or nicest way, but it is sometimes the best way.

Look I do understand you concerns. Nobody likes the idea of war, but war has already started. It started quite awhile ago. America has been the target of terrorist attacks for some time. They just kept escalating and nobody did much about it. The time has come to draw a line in the sand. NO MORE. Oh, the attacks will continue and might even escalate in number. We have to do what we can to minimize their affect. Our enemies dont need any more motivation, they seem to have all the motivation they need already. I think that is fairly obvious.

You have very noble ideals and thoughts. Utopia abounds in your reasoning. You seem to have a very good heart and are obviously a caring and kind person. I wish the world really fit your thoughts (I REALLY DO), but it doesn't and wont in our lifetimes. We as humans like to think we are so advanced but on a whole we are not. In time we will continue to evolve but evolution occurs very slowly. Our technology is rapidly outpacing other aspects of our evolution and that is not really a good thing.

The real world is tough and dangerous. Greed, power, lust, insanity, fundamentalism (Not just muslim fundamentatlism), cruelty, and envy abound. These are the facts of the world in which you and i both live. The US has it as much as anyone else. Some aspects more than others, some less than others. I would love to look forward to the time when humans elimanate these aspects from our societies. Unfortunatly you and I, and our children, and grandchildren, and great grandchildren, and great, great grandchildren, and great, great, great grandchildren, exc.. Will all be long dead. We are very young in terms of evolution and i dont know that we will ever reach what we can fully become. The best we can do is what we think is best and deal with the cards that we are dealt.

Part of me hopes that you wake up to the world in which we live for your own good and part of me hopes that you keep the idealism that is obviously in your heart.

Wish you the Best, May you be shielded from the many aspects life that are out there.
K

(Of course from the matrix )

In order to define why I used the term dictatorial for America's behavior the conversation would go to a whole diferent matter which isn t the subject of this forum.(I ll be glad to explain to you privately why I did that if you care to learn.)

I m not living in a fantasy world and I know how the world works.I don t expect that the world will become as noble as I would like.It s just that things become worst and people learn to comprise with that and accept it passively.I can t do that.

Isn't it ironic how Oz was correct on this one. Guess we should start humiliating, bullying and harassing those who voted yes.