Time to see the Watch's majority . . .

[Worm of Despite]

Well, if the war merits oh-so-much discussion here at the Watch, then I am SURE us folk would also LOVE to take a stand with one of our favorite pastimes: the vote! I don’t think we need to say “why” we voted why we did, just vote--the discussion thread is already set, anyway. So have at it!

NOTE: third option is for sourpusses . . .

[duchess of malfi]

Unfortunately sometimes war is something that is absolutely necessary (WW2 is a perfect example of that). However, I am not convinced that this war is.

Saddam is a monster and should not be in power, but why wasn't this taken care of as part of the Persian Gulf War? Why this war? Why now?

Nontheless, I fully support the American, British, Austrailian and other Allied troops in their endeavor. I pray for them and for the innocent Iraqui civilians, who have already had to suffer so much under such a repressive government. I hope that this will all be resolved as quickly as possible, with a mimimal loss of life. And I hope that the Iraqui people will learn to be free and responsible world citizens as a result.

[Lord Mhoram]

I am in support of this war. I don't think this comes as a surprise to most posters here who know myopinions of this war.

[Reisheiruhime]

I don't support this war. I'm currently sleeping outside in my bomb-shelter people. This war business is making me need nerve pills. And I've already got prescription nerve pills! They(doctors) think I need to be sedated 24/7! I don't like the affect this war is having on me.
<me. all me.

*Ends little rant*

[Brinn]

Firmly against it.

[danlo]

HUH!? (I just hugged a tree and oil squirted out.. Please don't tell Dick Cheney! )

[Worm of Despite]

[Brinn]

I was just kiddin'! I say WAR, WAR, WAR! I just can't get enough! Why can't I vote more than once! I just took out my Star Wars action figures and conducted a CENTCOM briefing lead by Emperor Palpatine!

P.S. That was pretty funny Danlo!

P.P.S. Ever since that "guest" called me a "Warhawk" I've become nothing but a caricature of myself !!!

[The Leper Fairy]

I voted against it, though I think that with the UN's support it wouldn't be as bad as it is.

[Lord Mhoram]

Brinn! Who else voted war besides the two of us?

[duchess of malfi]

Well, it looks like two other people share your position, as of this post. Looks like they wish to remain anonymous, though??

[Damelon]

I did. I voted this morning, but didn't have time to post.

[Brinn]

I figured Damelon was one of the four. Other than Sylvanus, who is currently moving and not available, I don't know any others who share our views on the war but there's at least one other person out there. I'm actually somewhat surprised...I thought the numbers would be skewed much more toward the anti-war stance.

P.S.
Love your title Lord Mhoram!

[danlo]

What r ur reasons Damelon? And why is it that "liberal city": Massecusetts is producing all these warhawks?

[Damelon]

What sets the current Iraqi regime apart as a threat is it's use of chemical weapons both in war and against its own population. There are plenty of brutal regimes in the world, but none of the others, that I know of, have used chemical weapons against it's own people. I see little difference in the cases of Saddam Hussein and Slobodan Milosevic. Milosevic never used chemical weapons, but Serbia is in Europe and the refugee problem became too great for Western Europe not to act. As a result Milosevic is, rightly,in the dock, based on his actions in places like Bosnia and Kosovo.

Is this the best time to go to war to remove Saddam and his regime? No. A better time would have been in 1998 when Saddam expelled the U.N. inspectors. However at that time there was no willpower at the U.N. for forcing the issue. There is little now at the U.N., but the reasons for that aren't related to Saddam's actions. The Iraq regime has had four years to hide evidence of a renewed program, but Russia and China wouldn't approve of intervention even if the recent round of inspections found large storage tanks marked SARIN in front of one of Hussein's Presidential Palaces.

This is a very dangerous time in world affairs. The ability to make chemical weapons is within reach of many governments as well as wealthy private organisations (Aum Shinrikyo in Japan for instance). Saddam Hussein can't be seen to get away with indescriminate use of chemical weapons either for use in war or for use as a method of civilian control, even if these events occured 15 years ago. Such figures as Saddam Hussein and "Chemical Ali" must face the same fate as Milosovic.

Has U.S. policy been screwed up in the region? Yes. The coalition after the First Gulf War should have humiliated Saddam Hussein by forceing him to sign the cease fire agreement personally. Further, the encouragement of the U.S. to the Shiites and Kurds to rebel in 1991, and then not to provide them support was cowardly. If Saddam Hussein, and the Baath party, had been toppled then much in the way of civilian loss might have been avoided.

Does this war hurt the U.S. image in the Arab "street"? Yes, but 50% among the "street" believes that 9/11 was either staged by the U.S. government or Israel. In the long run no one will shed tears for Saddam Hussein, and almost any successor regime would be a relief to the Iraqis themselves. Resolving the Israeli-Palestinian problem is the keystone to the Middle-East, and quieting the "street".

[Worm of Despite]

However at that time there was no willpower at the U.N.

Maybe I’m wrong because I was 13 in 1998, but I don’t think the U.S. cared about a few U.N. inspectors being expelled. We have to remember that this was pre-9/11, and it took more than a slip-up on Saddam’s part to put our war machine into motion back then--it took something like what started the Gulf War. Anyway, I don’t think the U.N. was as much a problem as Bill Clinton. But Billy’s another thread of discussion in and of itself. Told ya I was Republican!

[Damelon]

You are correct LF. The willpower was lacking among the Clinton administration to force Saddam Hussein to continue to allow the inspections, but, oddly for a Republican, I was going to give Clinton a break and not expand upon that point.

[Lord Mhoram]

Thanks, Brinn! Knew you'd love that one!

I bet one could find my war views in the doctrine of pre-emption thread...don't feel like going over it again ....but I will.

Basically, I feel the job should have been done in '91. I think everyone can safely say that. He's got those chemicaly weapons, and has been using them on his own people, though we knew about those back in the Iraq-Iran war but I wont go into that...I think taking out Saddam and helping to rebuild Iraq will help stablize the region. No question: we will win the military aspect of the war. But as for the political aspect? Well, that depends on how the battle for Baghdad goes, really. If we destroy the city and we have a humanitarian crisis, then we're in trouble. But I don't think that will happen. US forces are making progress in Baghdad was I type this post...

Hopefully, a democratic government in Iraq can help the region. That is, assuming that we can bring all the warring factions of Iraq together... Time will tell..

[Dromond]

Ok, Ok, I'm the fourth "warhawk"! I won't post the many reasons why- others (you know who you are) have done so quite eloquently.
I'll simply say that I truly believe Saddam is of the ilk that the World produces from time to time who will inflict an astounding amount of harm on Humanity given the time and circumstance,and that removing him is a lesser evil than the man himself.

[Brinn]

Aaahhhh! The fourth speaks out! Welcome to the fold Dromond (Albeit a small and unpopular fold it is ). Although I must say that aside from Skywier and ocassionally Danlo, the majority has been rather quiet. I can't wait till Sky is done with her essay!

P.S.
Foul,

The Clinton administration was infuriated when the inspectors were booted back in 98 (As an aside: It's a little known fact but Gore was always one of the most "Hawkish" members of Clinton's cabinet) but even then the UN's will and desire to enforce the resolutions and sanctions that were enacted after the Gulf War had severely eroded. IMHO, The administration did not "overlook" the threat but was instead daunted by the UN's diplomatic position.