The Iraq Thread

[foxer 0]

Here's a question for all the people thinking it's wrong for the Us to try and take saddam outta power.

Why are you against this war.Keep it short.please

[Longinius 1]

"Here's a question for all the people thinking it's wrong for the Us to try and take saddam outta power.

Why are you against this war.Keep it short.please"

I am not against war. I am not against removing Saddam.

I am against doing it without the permition of the UN.

I am against it being done with the US at the helm, since I fear there are ulterior interests.

I am against what the American foreign policy has turned in to.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (foxer @ Mar. 28 2003,20:59)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Here's a question for all the people thinking it's wrong for the Us to try and take saddam outta power.

Why are you against this war.Keep it short.please<span id='postcolor'>

[*] Civilian casualties

[*] Destruction of Iraq

[*] Post-war exploitation of Iraq

[*] Destabilization of the Mid East

[*] Increased world-wide terrorism

[*] It's illegal

[*] Sets a bad example for future conflicts

[bn880 5]

same+

[*] not necessary at this time

[foxer 0]

I am against doing it without the permition of the UN.

I am against it being done with the US at the helm, since I fear there are ulterior interests.

I agree we should have got UN permission.But i believe some countries would have never support a war on iraq no matter what.The US(some europe countries also) has always step up to the plate for the UN.I mean we never seen russia/china step up to the plate.That's not a knock on them or anything.

I am against what the American foreign policy has turned in to.

Can you tell me ?

Civilian casualties

It's too late,it's been happening for 12 years,or 20 something years.Up to you to pick.

Destruction of Iraq

I believe the US/UN would rebuild it for the heart and minds of the muslim culture.So there won't be terrorist.

Increased world-wide terrorism

I agree there will be alot of new terrorist because of this war.But what about what bin laden said about 2 million iraqi children died of sanctions.Wouldn't that also create terrorist ?So it's already happening before the war started.

It's illegal

we can argue all day about is it illegal are not.I agree we should have try harder to do something in the UN though.

Sets a bad example for future conflicts

I agree.

[foxer 0]

When i mean china and russia never steps up to the plate for the UN.I mean they never do nothing for the international community as in telling NK to back down and other crap like that.

[bn880 5]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (foxer @ Mar. 28 2003,15:23)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Destruction of Iraq

I believe the US/UN would rebuild it for the heart and minds of the muslim culture.So there won't be terrorist.<span id='postcolor'>

Oh I don't know, do you realize the immense cost of building structures of the quality that Baghdad has??? They cost much more than western ones, trust me, some buildings there are works of art and this can't be replaced by our technology so easily.

[Longinius 1]

"I agree we should have got UN permission.But i believe some countries would have never support a war on iraq no matter what."

That is the way the game works. The US would never allow serious UN sanctions against Israel. Does that mean other countries have the right to attack Israel to force them to comply with the attackers agenda?

"Can you tell me ?"

Attacking nations without UN's permission for one. And the fact that Bush has managed to make the US one of the most dispised and disrespected western nations in the world community. People used to look favorably on America. But there are not many people around any more with that opinion.

"I believe the US/UN would rebuild it for the heart and minds of the muslim culture.So there won't be terrorist."

Bull. It will be rebuilt the American way, which is far from muslim culture.

"we can argue all day about is it illegal are not.I agree we should have try harder to do something in the UN though."

Not really. It is not sanctioned by the UN. The UN itself is not supporting the war. Doesnt that tell you something? If it was sanctioned, the UN would be leading the charge.

[foxer 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ Mar. 28 2003,21:31)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (foxer @ Mar. 28 2003,15:23)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Destruction of Iraq

I believe the US/UN would rebuild it for the heart and minds of the muslim culture.So there won't be terrorist.<span id='postcolor'>

Oh I don't know, do you realize the immense cost of building structures of the quality that Baghdad has???  They cost much more than western ones, trust me, some buildings there are works of art and this can't be replaced by our technology so easily.<span id='postcolor'>

That's when oil comes in to help rebuild iraq.Unless someone else thinks there's something in iraq to sell for the world ?

[Tovarish 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (foxer @ Mar. 28 2003,20:59)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Why are you against this war.Keep it short.please<span id='postcolor'>

I think it's pretty hard to "keep it short" considering the complexities of the issue, don't you think? . I'll try though.

Firstly, I'm generally suspicious of US foreign policy because of the fucked up situations that it has caused in Latin America. Pinochet, Somoza, Batista, Noriega..all of them came to power thanks to that bastion of international democracy, the United States (hey, come to think of it, once uppon a time Saddam also belonged to the exclusive US Puppet Dictator's Club)

Secondly, I think this is convenient way to vent misguided anger towards a muslim country after 9/11. I saw an article in a local newspaper after the war started, about people cheering in sports bars as it began. One guy in New York was quoted as saying of the anti war movement - not a direct quote but along the lines of - "They don't understand how it was, they were'nt here on 9/11" - yet any attempt, and oh, there have been many attempts - to link Iraq to 9/11 have failed. Face it, Osama and Saddam do not see eye to eye either. I doubt Saddam would ever make the same mistake the US made in allying himself to Osama. "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" is a very dangerous way of thinking as we have seen.

Third, North Korea is coming out and saying "yeah we have e'm", and hardly a peep from the US! Why? because the US knows they have do have WMD's, and they also know that North Korea's is just about the only regime nutty enough to use them if given the opportunity. If the US was really concerned about the Iraqi's using nukes or some other really nasty little weapon, they would destroy them covertly instead of this invasion...I mean really, the Ba'ath party and Republican Guard know they are thoughroughly screwed if they loose this war, what reason do they have NOT to use WMD's if they had them? Yet they haven't.

Lastly, bn880 is right on the ball about the reason Iraqi's are defending their country even if they dislike Sadam. I lived in Cuba for a decade, I'm no Castro supporter, but you all know how I feel about the Bay of Pigs. Interestingly enough, during the Bay of Pigs the US government had a similar wet-dream as they seemed to at the beginning of this campaign - that the Cuban people would welcome the liberators and rise up against the opressor Castro. They got the complete opposite. Why? Probably because they remembered the former opressor Batista, who had been kept in power by the US, was much, much worse. And then the US wanted to set up another government for them? Ha! "liberation" indeed!

You have to remember Saddam was much like Batista...so maybe the Iraqi's like him better now than when he was just a "yes man" to the states, and they see no reason that they should be bombed and invaded in order to have him replaced by another US friendly government that won't give a shit about them?

Anyways, I probably won't see the replies for this tonight, it's Friday and I'm using up valuable drinking time. Later.

[foxer 0]

Attacking nations without UN's permission for one. And the fact that Bush has managed to make the US one of the most dispised and disrespected western nations in the world community. People used to look favorably on America. But there are not many people around any more with that opinion.

I agree with that.Maybe we should have waited a year for the UN to decide what to do.If the us waited a year,and there was some countries that didn't support a war with iraq.Plus there was proof iraq was still hiding stuff.Would you then say the US tried ? Or would you just be saying they should have got the UN permission?

But some of it is envy.Also because we bomb alot of people.Face it though,america is the world police man.Who made us that way ? I don't know.But if there's an war issue,they always come to us first.No one like cops until it helps them.They don't like speeding tickets because it hurts them.But when they need help their be calling 911(america) .

[Longinius 1]

"But if there's an war issue,they always come to us first.No one like cops until it helps them.They don't like speeding tickets because it hurts them.But when they need help their be calling 911(america) ."

In my experience, America often takes the initiative. Rarely has anyone asked America to go to war with another country.

[foxer 0]

Tovarish ,

I agree US did setup some puppet goverments.However those were in the communist years.When everyone was scared of a communist.Atlleast give me something recent.Like 1990 until now.

I agree on NK.However though,where is russia and china ? That is their puppet gov't they added in the world.Atleast america is taking care of saddam,If like you said is american made puppet guy.

[foxer 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @ Mar. 28 2003,21:48)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"But if there's an war issue,they always come to us first.No one like cops until it helps them.They don't like speeding tickets because it hurts them.But when they need help their be calling 911(america) ."

In my experience, America often takes the initiative. Rarely has anyone asked America to go to war with another country.<span id='postcolor'>

Your probably right.

[Winters 1]

I love how GWB says NK is a problem for that area of the world to deal with. If thats so then what the hell is Iraq?

and will you PLEASE stop trying to tie Saddam to 9/11 in order to drum up support for the war.

Is it 2004 yet?

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

Now we cant have all this agreeing going on! `

Longinius-"if you are going to support your troops you might actually want to go out and DO something. Not just talk about it. You, as a person, might all ready be doing something. I wouldnt know. But the fact still remains that a majority will CLAIM to support the troops but not actually do anything. Then what use are their support?"

You dont understand Longinius, supporting something without actually doing something about it is the modern european way of doing things. Just look at Spain! They supported the war without contributing a single thing to the effort. Now THATS progress.

Anyway i think all this 'supporting the troops' business has partly to do with not being seen to betray the people who are fighting in the name of the government we took a part in electing.

Its just not true that some people dont 'take it out on the troops'. Some people do. It usually doesnt have much impact but in a war where things could stretch out for who knows how long ,the troops professionalism might be tested to the limit and the morale of men at the front will have an impact , its just possible that this time all this 'supporting the troops' (or lack of) might have some effect on the war( however small).

Should one support people implementing a policy one doesnt necessarily agree with in its conception? Ordinarily no. But if its war and the end result of victory for those people might at the time be better overall than that of defeat then it becomes more complicated.

Then there is the question of patriotism (so frowned upon in certain parts)....but thats maybe for another day.

[HellToupee 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @ Mar. 29 2003,09:48)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"But if there's an war issue,they always come to us first.No one like cops until it helps them.They don't like speeding tickets because it hurts them.But when they need help their be calling 911(america) ."

In my experience, America often takes the initiative. Rarely has anyone asked America to go to war with another country.<span id='postcolor'>

they didnt take the initiative back i nthe last 2 world wars.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (IsthatyouJohnWayne @ Mar. 28 2003,18:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">interstat- you mentioned this in the other thread as well.

I really think it unlikely (to say the least) that America will pre-emptivly invade Iran or another country in the middle of the ongoing conflict unless there is a MAAJJOORR and very urgent reason to do so. It just would make no sense militarily if nothing else. Now AFTER this war is over is another matter.

But if you think Bush will just in the blink of an eye invade Iran whilst at war with Iraq without massive provocation then ill have to assume you have even less idea than Donald Rumsfeld seems to have.

ps. If he does ill agree with you that hes a lunatic

...at the moment i think hes a lost little boy who somehow ended up as president of the USA<span id='postcolor'>

Well, here is a first good step

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld issued a stern warning to Syria on Friday, saying military supplies, including night-vision goggles, were passing from that country into Iraq, posing a "direct threat" to coalition forces.

"We consider such trafficking as hostile acts and will hold the Syrian government accountable for such shipments," Rumsfeld said at a Pentagon briefing.

Rumsfeld also warned Iran -- a longtime enemy of Iraq -- about proxy forces moving into Iraq, where the United States and coalition forces are waging a war to topple the regime of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.

........

<span id='postcolor'>

[skibei_neko 0]

The citizens of the USA equate 9/11 to Iraq out of ignorance and fear.  There are no other reasons for this.  It is, in many ways understandable...but being understandable does not make it right.  Do know that there are many people in the USA that understands this linkage is bogus.

The ruling administration/junta that controls the United States deliberately fosters this delusional linkage.  That is disgusting and inexcusable.  It is equivalent to Ariel Sharon using the sanctity of the Holocaust as justifications for the immoral acts of Israel’s military in the occupied territories.  By doing this, Sharon squanders Israel's righteousness and gravely insults all Jews by cynically exploiting our pain and fear to secure political objectives.  

BTW, I say this is the pain and fear of all Jews because we Jews are commanded to “view ourselves as if we personally was delivered by the hand of God from Pharaoh.†(from my Passover prayer book).  Hence, I was also delivered from Auschwitz.    Hence (although maybe not all Jews see it this way), I was also delivered from Stalin’s purges, Mao’s “Great Leap Forwardâ€, Pot’s “Killing Fieldsâ€, the rape camps in Bosnia, etc.

In the same way that Bush is squandering USA’s righteousness around the world by spreading the linkage delusion, thereby using the suffering and trauma from 9/11 for his own political objectives.  Most people outside of the USA see the transparency in the delusion.

I think the irony is that Americans probably do not need to feel that 9/11 and Iraq are linked in order to support war on Iraq.  Most Americans want the USA to be in reality what it is in our ideals; defender of righteousness, liberty, and justice throughout the world.  Most Americans, including myself, believe that it is our duty as moral citizens of the Earth to help deliver the Iraqi people from Saddam Hussein.

<side point>

You pro-Israel guys – including Avon- please don’t flame me about what I said concerning Sharon and Israel...I do not see everything Israel military does as immoral.  Like the USA, it is a democratic country at war, which needs to defend itself.  The end goal of the war - survival, peace, freedom, prosperity, security - are truly the same goals of the USA in Iraq.  However, proper amounts of paranoia are needed to evaluate the decisions of leaders like Bush and Sharon to understand what OTHER goals they have.  Certainly Sharon’s goals, IMHO, seem more about securing power than about securing lasting peace.

</side point>

[Longinius 1]

"they didnt take the initiative back i nthe last 2 world wars."

No, but they were forced into those conflicts. They never had a choice. At one point or another they would have to get involved.

[brgnorway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (IsthatyouJohnWayne @ Mar. 28 2003,22:52)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Should one support people implementing a policy one doesnt necessarily agree with in its conception? Ordinarily no. But if its war and the end result of victory for those people might at the time be better overall than that of defeat then it becomes more complicated.

<span id='postcolor'>

I suppose you would - but I certainly wouldn't! What if there is no victory in sight. What if the people which your forces conquered/saved (pick the alternative you are most comfortable with) are in fact worse off as a result of your governments campaign? What if the protesters during the vietnam war had succeeded in their effort and the government had decided to bring the war to a halt and make sure the soldiers were sent home early in the war instead of causing pain on themselves and the others affected?

I'm perfectly aware of the point you are making in being a devil's advocate - but I'm more comfortable by following what I believe in - or what I'm comfortable with. Having said that - I do hope the war will be over soon now that the war is a reality. That does not mean I should restrain myself from joining a peace rally. I'm not in favour of hypocracy!

[HellToupee 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @ Mar. 29 2003,11:38)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"they didnt take the initiative back i nthe last 2 world wars."

No, but they were forced into those conflicts. They never had a choice. At one point or another they would have to get involved.<span id='postcolor'>

im willing to bet if japan didnt get involved the US would have don nothing as britian fell, and ither germany takes over russia or russia takes over germany and rest of europe.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (IsthatyouJohnWayne @ Mar. 28 2003,22:52)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Anyway i think all this 'supporting the troops' business has partly to do with not being seen to betray the people who are fighting in the name of the government we took a part in electing.

Its just not true that some people dont 'take it out on the troops'. Some people do. It usually doesnt have much impact but in a war where things could stretch out for who knows how long ,the troops professionalism might be tested to the limit and the morale of men at the front will have an impact , its just possible that this time all this 'supporting the troops' (or lack of) might have some effect on the war( however small).<span id='postcolor'>

From what I can see from the responses so far, "supporting the troops" actually means not blaming them for what happens. Well, call it by its right name then!

Pro-war:

"I support this war but I don't credit the troops for it. It was all Bush's idea."

Anti-war:

"I don't support this war but I don't blame the troops for it. It was all Bush's idea. "

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Should one support people implementing a policy one doesnt necessarily agree with in its conception? Ordinarily no. But if its war and the end result of victory for those people might at the time be better overall than that of defeat then it becomes more complicated.<span id='postcolor'>

Only if your name is Machiavelli. The problem with consequence ethics is that you seldom can predict the results of your actions. You don't know that the end result is going to be better.

[Major Fubar 0]

I was in a record store today, and I saw a sign on the wall "This store is against war with Iraq".

Thought it was interesting, hadn't seen anything like that in shops here before.

[madmedic 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 29 2003,07:56)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Pro-war:

"I support this war but I don't credit the troops for it. It was all Bush's idea."<span id='postcolor'>

LOL...who are you refering to with this statement?

Those of us who support the war, support the troops as well.

Ther is a very large sentiment of support for the troops here in the U.S.

(or are you refering to responses on this particular website?...just curious)