Iraq Yes or No

You seem to have completely disregarded the text that followed where I pointed out exactly how the type of war that Bush proposes differs from terrorism. Until you can learn to read and respond to points without removing all of the context and reiterating what you have already said, there’s nothing to “debate”.

And most other member nations of the UN have done similar. Some of what you mentioned above was even UN (not US) initiated.

Only a simpleton would call a trade embargo terrorism. Are you suggesting that the rest of the world should force the US to trade with whoever?

Or is your point now that all rich nations of the world should share their wealth with poorer ones ands if they don’t it’s terrorism, which gives the poorer nations the right to use terrorism back??

A trade embargo is not terrorism.

Nice and emotive again. What point are you making here? I asked why a free press is bad, you tell me because it might show me atrocities? Am I to assume that you would like atrocities to go unreported? I can’t begin to work out why a free press makes America a bad nation, which was the viewpoint I was arguing against.

I must be watching a different BBC News 24 and CNN to you then. But at least you can be glad that should it be generally accepted that Iraq poses no threat to any other country, I’ll be 100% against military action there.

Are we forgetting that the reason they got it the first time was because they took military control of another country!? It certainly bears close inspection this time around.

You obviously think I’m pro-war, but I’m not at all. I’d rather there was no war there. If it turns out that Iraq is no threat then I absolutely oppose it. But I am sick to death of the continual attacks on the US govt. and the UK govt. (to a much lesser degree) simply for discussing it.

One country invades another taking complete control of it and seeking to own it totally, and starts using chemical and biological weapons on its own population and you sit by. A terrorist organisation flies two planes into the WTC and you sit by. Some people discuss military action with the rest of the UN and you’re equating the two?

grifferz

(1) I am glad you are not a warmonger. That would be sadistic and pathological.

(2) You write, “I must be watching a different BBC News 24 and CNN to you…”

Right now, 70% of the US population opposes attacking Iraq in the absence of UN approval. The figure is roughly the same for the UK.

Apart from Israel, everybody – everybody in the world – opposes war with Iraq.

(3) You write, “One country invades another taking complete control of it and seeking to own it totally…”

Does that include Europeans who invaded the Americas and slaughtered millions of their indigenous inhabitants?

(4) You continue, “…and starts using chemical and biological weapons on its own population and you sit by.”

During the 80s, the US and Europe sold Iraq chemical and biological weapons for use in its war against Iran. Indeed, in 1988, the US supplied Iraq with satellite intelligence for aiming a chemical attack.

Poisoning Iranians is praiseworthy, but poisoning Kurds is not because of geography.

My, my, how you split moral hairs.

(5) You write, “A terrorist organisation flies two planes into the WTC and you sit by.”

What does Iraq have to do with the WTC?

(6) You conclude, “Some people DISCUSS (your emphasis) military action with the rest of the UN and you’re equating the two?”

Are you saying that Bush and Blair talk war just to blow the air around?

Grifferz have you ever considered that this war may not go to plan? e.g. american imperialism may triumph like it did in:-
Korea (what a great job was done there)
Somailia (wow, even better)
Kosovo (how many dead refugees?)
Afghanistan (wedding party, what wedding party?)
Iraq (whoops, there goes yet another hospital)
Vietnam (do dead children count only when we mean to kill them?)

accept it, this war has nothing to do with “weapons of mass destruction”. money is the reason for it. and where is this wealth of evidence that is suspossed to have proved beyound doubt that Sadam has all these weapons? a few grainy photos of “missile pads” and “chemical factories”, thats as much evidence as was given attacking Afghanistan, and what has that achieved, not much. surely by far the best approach is too make sure that you don’t sell them arms in the first place?

as for terrorism, so coercing the Iraqi government into letting weapons inspectors back into Iraq by threatening to invade and kill their leader isn’t terrorism?

Ok, this is quite simple. Why does nobody want to fire nuclear weapons at, lets say, Ireland, or maybe Swizerland? I hope that this point speaks for itself.

We must look at the underlying problems. People dont hate Ameica for no reason. You should not be asking how to stop Iraq from attacking its enemies, but how to stop Iraq from wanting to attack its enemies. People overlook the reason behind actions. Why did Afghanistans fly into the WTC? Most peole did not know of the problems in Afghanistan previous to this occurance but now they do. The reasons that so many Middle eastern countries dislike America are high in number but one of the most important ones is that they see america as being the controlling country behind the World Bank, which, to a certain extent it is. The World bank gave massive loans to countries in need of assistance. This money was ill-used by the governments and the cost of it was pushed onto the average citizen in the form of taxes, thus pushing the country further into poverty.

A mistake. By the World Bank. So the problem should not be solved by an ongoing war full of revenge but by the opposite. Make the world like the rest of the world and nobody will want to kill anyone. An idealistic view perhaps, but this should be the undermining objective of foreign policy.

America has weapons of mass destruction and is not in the least bit willing to get rid of them. They are a threat to their enemies just as much as their enemies are a threat to them. Americas weapons are for their protection from terrorists and the iraqis weapons are for their protection against the Americans. Protection which is clearly justified folowing recent events.

In summary the UN representative from Iraq summed it up perfectly. It is a war motivated by revenge, personal ambitions, security for Isreal and oil.

Beside all this, economically speaking, the attack of Iraq is the most stupid idea in along time.

Damn me… I forgot all about this arguement and have fallen behind. Forgive me for the length of my post.

No I’m being sarcastic. I didn’t go saying everyone wants to bathe in a puddle of blood. Nor did I say that I wanted to. What I meant to imply was that Bush’s policy with dealing with iraq is stupid. All evidence points to him wanting to go to war. Now I don’t know the guy personally but he seems kind of obsessed about this whole war thing. If you are familiar with the onion you may enjoy that.

theonion.com/onion383…sking.html

By the way most americans don’t care. What polls fail to ask is why they have made whatever decision they have made. Most americans aren’t politicians for a reason. “They don’t want to go to war.” Well they aren’t… so what exactly do they care? They aren’t worried about the after math of their decision to go to war they are worried about getting hit by a nuke that isn’t built yet. Besides two weeks ago they thought bush didn’t have enough evidence to go after iraq. But now after a few speeches everything makes sense.

Well america did make al-qaida. I’m not exactly sure why they created saddam but I’m pretty confident that I can trace it back to money.

Yea well… maybe I will.

Ha… that was a joke. But honestly war is cool and hip. As well as death and violence. Well that is until someone gets shot in the head then war is not cool nor hip. And all of the sudden you can’t dance to the beats of war. Hmm :frowning: Low rider was a great song.

No my point is that your definition of terrorist and terrorism isn’t totally correct in this situation. It has nothing to do with following a mob. Well unless it inflicts terror on someone.

Yea but I think I’d be pretty scared if I knew someone was going to drop thousands of bombs around my country. Are you suggesting that there is no pschological factor to war? Do you think that it isn’t possible to start a rebellion in the country by scaring enough people into believing that if they don’t kill their dictator they could die?

No I’m not racist. I just don’t trust their decision making.

I’m not worried yet about iraq. I’m not yet worried about a nuke that won’t be able to hit me for 5 years. I’m more worried about going to war for a stupid reason. I’m saying we don’t need armed forces for this reason. Not yet anyway.

Even so last time we weren’t in it to kill the guy with the key to toxic weapons.

I was just saying you make it seem like no one else can make intelligent decisions besides yourself. But that’s a stretch and I’m going to sound like a dick for saying that. American’s are arrogant and I’d assume all other people are but I haven’t been out of america. American’s being terrorists is argueable but a different arguement. Americans don’t care what everyone else thinks. I figured you would get the impression from our decision to go to war without iraq no matter what other countries say. A lot of people are just giving in to repetition and just agreeing because the issue doesn’t matter enough to people (my opinion though). They do think they are better than the rest of the world though to an extent but who doesn’t?

How soon is soon?

You are aware that this war on iraq could potentionally increase the amount of terrorists. Loss of life is not going to stop by starting a controversial war.

I’m not sure if this is true or not but I heard cases where they send people to the states that do excercise the death penalty specifically so they would be executed.

Not everywhere is your area. With location opinions change as you have demonstrated by stating that kentucky doesn’t get all the information needed to make an educated decision on a political matter.

Not every american is you and your friends either. Or you and the people you’ve talked to. People always associate with people that are similar to themselves. I wonder how diverse your sources are. A slight majority have similar viewpoints to europeans. I think you are giving more credit to your opinion that should be. I’d suggest speaking for yourself but I’d eat those words in a second.

Again another arguement in itself but think about it. If you were poor and dying wouldn’t you hold a grudge against rich people that refused to help you out? I’m not expecting an answer for this one. Make another post if you want an arguement on it.

But the press isn’t really free. They have to compete with other companys for viewers. There should really only be one news company that should cover all views and opinions but that’s not possible. Instead you have to look for opposing statistics and facts.
[quote"anonomous and lovin it
"]
America has weapons of mass destruction and is not in the least bit willing to get rid of them. They are a threat to their enemies just as much as their enemies are a threat to them. Americas weapons are for their protection from terrorists and the iraqis weapons are for their protection against the Americans. Protection which is clearly justified folowing recent events.
[/quote]

America would probably use them if they didn’t have other forms of attack. Say the attack on iraq (rhymes) doesn’t go well. Would the president then be able to use more deadly means of killing saddam?

Thought this might bring some laughs…

Ouch!

The hammer should say, “Made in the USA.”

The rocket should say, “Made in the USSR.”

Cruelty to camels. Invade iraq!

Me again,
Is this meant as a comment, rhetorical question, normal question or what?

America would probably use them if they didn’t have other forms of attack. Say the attack on iraq (rhymes) doesn’t go well. Would the president then be able to use more deadly means of killing saddam?
[/quote]

Oh yeah, cool cartoon! Back to the original question. From your current standpoint, and I fully realise that people are still able to change their opinion as the debate continues, but what we really need to understand is whether you would or would not attack Iraq and why?

To give this discussion some context, here is a link to a condensation of an article written by Murray Waas and published in the Village Voice on January 22, 1991:

http://www.sfbg.com/gulfwar/013091.html

The thrust of this piece is that, publicly and privately, President Bush (the original), Secretary of State James Baker, Assistant Secretary of State John Kelly and US Ambassador to Iraq April Glaspie gave Saddam a green light to invade Kuwait in 1990.

Intentionally or otherwise, the Bush Administration gave a go-ahead to the attack.

Well I see no way for america to change and yet stay the same. We can not be ulitmately safe, and we can not be fully free. and any comprimise will be faulty since it comprimises on saftey.

Choosing to pre-emptive attack would have been the best solution. I dont see why this has been discussed so fuggin openly. This should have been discussed by only the representatives of all parties(except Iraq) involved and then done or not done. Pre-emptive would have destroyed iraq’s ability to return fire with deadly weapons.

Personally I think civility and war should not walk hand in hand. While i admire codes of honor and civility we should not follow them in war. they only make the pain and the death worse and drag it out. America could have the Iraqie boarder locked down in a set amount of time, this amount of time would be small enough that Iraq wouldnt know what was going on. Then proccede to walk in and kill every soldier and every weapon. Leave the civilians only rocks to use as weapons. the whole invasion should be complete by the time they have the chance to pass gas, let alone pass deadly gas. That is the only way you will have a safe victory.

But the problem is those in the know are still debating over if it is worth it or not. if there has been this much debate then the argument is not strong enough and we should coil back up and prepare to strike later. Anything america does now after such a long debate would result in higher death toll on both sides.

But It is my view on the debate that we should spend more time in stregnthing borders and watching the imports of stock, goods, people. after america is secure from the outside begin to worry about the inside.
But aslong as a mexican citizen can cross a river and enter the american country We will have a threat from the outside. The chinese are already making deals supposedly with mexico to send in goods that normally would have been shown as illegal.

But america worries more about ecenomics than defense/offense we leave that up to a group who’s budget is cut more than meat at a butcher.

I’m going to assume that I didn’t make myself clear enough and just try to explain again…

Say america didn’t have the power to launch a large scale invasion but still didn’t trust Iraq with nukes. I wonder if the president of america would then consider using nukes as their weapon of choice.

but i think this is a coool idea.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20021003/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_us_17

Thanks for the cool link.

The problem is, if Bush wins, Iraq gets Uday, Saddam’s eldest son. Reportedly, this kid is so crazy, he frightens his father. If Saddam wins, the US gets Cheney, who is as duplicitous as Bush but more dangerous because he is smarter.

As Paul Simon said:

“Laugh about it, shout about it,
But when it’s time to choose,
Any way you look at it, you lose.”

Fun to think about, though.

I may just be naive, but haven’t we learned anything from thousands of years of wisdom of mystics, philosophers, religious folk, etc? None of the purists in these aspects ever wanted to kill anyone. What happened to “thou shall not kill”? Not for the sake of a religion or because sanctions will be taken against you, but because you believe it to be right. There is always a better way than to go dropping bombs, shooting, stabbing, fighting, swearing, and demeaning. It only shows our ignorance when we can’t find another way of resolving a problem but instead punch each other out, shoot each other, or bomb each other.

Furthermore, America has a strong hold on the world and it’s economy, it hasn’t been exhibiting behaviours of helping countries to rise from the third world status, if anything it has been helping barry them in it. So if America gets a grip on Kuwait and Iraq (and all their oil), I’m not too sure what impact this will have on the rest of the world but I am willing to be it won’t be good. America would love to have the worlds countries all as democracies, for it would only speed up Americas economy. I am not advocating Communism, Tyranny, or any such principle of thoughts. But I am dismissing the kind of democracy America has been presenting for the last handful of decades.

I don’t believe there is a threat by Hussein based on articles I read about intelligence connection right to Husseins highest officials who themselves claim that after the Gulf War, Iraq doesn’t have the capability to create even a single bomb. But I have said all this in another thread.

My basic point is that very seldom is there a need for war. I would be inclined to say that World War II was a good examle of a need for war - but I can’t even be certain of that, for I have done much research into the topic, and evidence tends to sway from book to book, article to article, and sometimes it seems that even WWII could have been prevented as well as the atrocities Hitler committed to the Jews.

Lastly, many lives will be lost - no one wants that, atleast from a personal perspective (you know, if it was you).

What’s your take?

Why the sudden need for a war? Why now? Why not four years ago when inspectors were expelled? War is not inevitable. Iraq isn’t a threat to anyone at the moment. Presuming that they have weapons considered illegal by the Un, any movement of them would be spotted dtraight away and cause the Un to support an American war. For one Hussein doesn’t want to be bombed out of it as he would lose everything, and two, and probably even more significantly, it would prove that America was right all along. This is the last thing iraq wants. Remember that Iraq is trying to run a propaganda war against the Us, proving it to be trigger happy, and to fuel hatred for the US. Why can’t the World (more notably the US) wait, keep up discussion as the main means of trying to solve the dispute. Don’t forget that even getting inspectors in there is a miracle in itself. Iraq only let them in to avoid a war so they may go so far as to give up some weapons of mass destruction. As long as there’s a chance it’s worth trying.

This is another case of hear it enough times and you stop questioning. The inspectors were NOT kicked out by Iraq- they were withdrawn following an espionage scandal.

Don’t believe that asshole Tony Blair.

My law teacher posed a very interesting situation regarding the war on Iraq. Assuming Bush wants is to get rid of the weapons in Iraq (because no really knows what Bush wants), his main goal is to get rid of Sadaam Hussein. It is the fact that the weapons are in posession of such a irrational dictator that makes Bush target Iraq. Therfore, what he really wants, as he emphasized a couple of months ago is a regime change; he wants Sadaam Hussein out, and to install some sort of democratic system. Well, if he really just wanted to get rid of Sadaam Hussein, and him being out of the picture will avert a total war (probably killing the lives of many people, including innocent civilians, and children), why doesn’t he just put a ridiculous bounty on his head? For 500 million, or even 1 billion dollars? My law teacher joked saying, even his sons might kill him. The war itself is estimated to cost around 22 billion, so you save money, you save lives, and the only loss is the one guy Bush was targeting all along. Though it may be unethical, and will most likely cause the world to severly look down upon Bush, and the American government, I am sure they will be willing to turn a blind eye, knowing millions of innocent lives were saved, a war was averted, and the man assassinated was an internationally renowed terrorist, and a risk to the security of the whole world.

That’s my law teacher humble opinion, which I share, but what do you guys think?

roygabv :smiley:

Because you’d get some oter nutter step up and take his place. Think Caesar’s assination, tried to get the republic back on it’s feet, got Augustus instead. Not that he was insane, but the only candidates left to take over from Saddam are nutters too. Like his son. Cutting off the head of system won’t change the systemin this case, it needs to be a wholesale change of regime, take the power out of the cult of Saddam, not reinforce it.

The US has hardly addressed the issue of what is meant to happen when Saddam Hussein is deposed.

Everyone keeps on talking about the US’s desire to implement a “democracy” thus “liberating” the Iraqi people, but this is highly unlikely. Iraq has a 60% Shiite population (the Sunni population - of which Hussein is a member - accounts for just 20%) and the US are incredibly weary of allowing a Shiite party in for fears of a potential alliance with the Iranians (who have a Shiite government). Given that there are three main religious groups in Iraq (Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish) and the fact that the majority of Iraqis are Shiites, the possibility of an election resulting in a Shiite government is quite high - and a situation that the US are eager to avoid. What kind of government are they likely to implement then? According to Scott Burchill (lecturer in international relations at the School of Social & International Studies, Deakin University Melbourne):

“It’s more likely that a dissident former General, possibly involved in war crimes against Iraq’s Kurdish or Shi’ite communities, will be returned from exile and presented as the “democratic opposition” to Saddam Hussein. The US is interested in compliance and obedience rather than democracy. It has rarely, if ever, expressed an interest in democracy in the Middle East where all but one of its friends and interlocutors are authoritarian states. Ideally, a pro-Western, anti-Iranian, secular “iron fist” would do. The recently rehabilitated Iraqi opposition in exile (with whom until recently the US refused to deal) has no democratic credibility and is largely unknown inside Iraq (or in the US for that matter).”

I think it is fair to say that democratisation of the Iraqi state is fairly low on the list of reasons the US hold privately to go to war with Iraq (afterall, they stood by idly for decades while actively funding Hussein’s genocidal exploits, why would they suddenly decide to care about the Iraqi people now?). But nonetheless, the silence offered by the US and UK on what will happen to Iraq once the final bombs have been dropped is disconcerting to say the least and - for me at least - represents one of the main reasons to oppose the war. One thing is clear though: that it will be years before the Iraqi state returns to anything resembling normality.

Doug Feith and Marc Grossman - the two Americans responsible for the US’s post-war plan - say that US troops will be required to stay in Iraq for at least two years after the war, most likely even more. Tommy Franks - a US general - will lead the “occupation government” and this government will, conveniently, assume control over Iraqi oilfields, as well as all other remaining Iraqi infrastructure, for this time. The occupation will be funded almost entirely by revenue made from the sale of Iraqi oil. If, however, Saddam Hussein were to blow up these oil fields in the face of a likely defeat (some sources report that explosives are already in place) the cost of restoring them would be $US 20 billion (on top of the overall cost of rebuilding Iraq placed at $US 30-100 billion, towards which the US has committed an all-too-generous $18.3 million “with $40 million on the way”). But, for the time being, occupation of the Iraqi state depends on revenue from the Iraqi oilfields. But what’s going to happen to the oil - and the Iraqi people - once the US leave? Who’ll be in charge? What happens to the oil? To quote Mr Grossman is his address to the Senate:

“…at the end of the day, the United States will make its decisions based on what is in the national interest of the United States.”

It may also be worth noting that US companies are queueing up for a slice of the pie. 1,418 US contracts - totalling $3.97 Billion - went in front of the Sanctions Committee just days after George Bush’s pro-war speech to the UN in September.

I leave it to you to decide what the real motivations behind Iraqi occupation may be. :confused: