War In Iraq

Political Discussion: You've been warned! Please remember we are all friends here. Insults will not be tolerated!
User avatar
K-man
Liberty High Graduate
Posts: 597
Joined: Jun 29th 2001, 12:44 am
Location: Missouri, U.S. of A.

Post by K-man » Feb 15th 2003, 11:25 pm

[quote="fnordboy"][/quote]See I don't necessarily agree that this has anything to do with 'revenge' or 'finishing the job'. I think that gives Bush too much credit. This is purely based on the need for oil, control, and world domination. Before 9/11 happened the US had planned to go in and take control of the oil fields in the area. A war was already planned in Afghanistan, Iraq is just the next logical step.

If this is the case, why didn't the U.S. just take over the oil in 1991?
And does anyone really believe that millions/billions of oil dollars is not going to fund terrorism?
Daddy sold the farm and they've killed my trees. K-man

andrewgd
Liberty High Graduate
Posts: 676
Joined: Sep 11th 2002, 9:49 pm
Location: Seattle
Contact:

Post by andrewgd » Feb 16th 2003, 12:44 am

K-man wrote: If this is the case, why didn't the U.S. just take over the oil in 1991?
And does anyone really believe that millions/billions of oil dollars is not going to fund terrorism?
I think it is that there are a lot of little reasons why our government wants to invade Iraq. Bad man, terrorism, unfinished business, oil, our own economy, etc. I think most of the reasons existed before 9/11, and 9/11 gave the government an excuse to invade that it thought most people would buy. "Hey, they're funding terrorism! We gotta get'em!"

We didn't take the oil in '91 because of the same reason we didn't go into Bagdad. (That war was to free the oil in Kuwait, and we didn't want to conquer another nation, just contain it.) But I guess things have changed.

The biggest question I have is why does it have to be now? Why can't we wait for the UN to sign on? Is it because we were hoping that Saddam would not comply as much as he has and have overcommited our troops to the area? If we wait for the UN and the inspectors to run their course, it could be 6 months before we get to invade. That's a long time for such a buildup of troops to just sit there.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for getting Saddam out of there. But it would be very very bad for us to invade a country without the worlds support. Has anyone watched the news, or seen the polls? 60% of the US supports waiting. 90% of Britain doesn't want to go to war at all. All but about 4 UN countries support waiting. Why does our president want to go to war SOOO badly, when it is very clear that he is in the very definite minority. Oh, wait, that's how he was elected as well.... (Note to Bush: This is not golf, in votes and polls, when you have the lower number you're losing!)

We have to wait for more support. Either that, or an overtly aggressive act from Iraq. Look, North Korea is already arming itself with nuclear weapons with the excuse that it needs to defend itself against the US. We don't need to prove it to them that we are an aggessive country invading nations that we deem "evil".

This is so out of control. You would think that a president who wasn't elected by the majority of the US's citizens would try and not rock the boat. WTF is he doing? I'm not going out and buying up duct tape, but I'm genuinely scared what will happen. And the really scary part is I'm more afraid of what our own government will do than what Saddam or terrorists will do.

People forget, one of the biggest reasons 9/11 happened is because Al Qaeda got pissy that we had our soldiers on their holy land. When was this? Gulf War.
"Your imagination, like a child, will explode with unrestrained possibilities for adventure."

User avatar
lance
Ed Zwick Wannabe
Posts: 1983
Joined: Jul 6th 2002, 4:47 pm
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Contact:

Iraq

Post by lance » Feb 16th 2003, 11:09 am

Hey,

I will say that this is definately a scary time that we live in. The one thing that does drive me insane is the constant references by various members of the U.S. Administration referring to this situation as a game. "The game is almost over...."

This is not a game to the American, Austrailian, British, and Iraqi troops. This is not a game to their families. This is not a game to those civilians who will be referred to as "collateral damage". This is not a game to those Kuwait or Israelis who may get killed by Scuds carrying biological or chemical weapons. War is not a game. This Administration should no better but aparently does not.

Stepping down from the soapbox,

Lance Man

User avatar
mglenn
MSCL.com Team
MSCL.com Team
Posts: 552
Joined: May 25th 1999, 4:46 pm
Location: Butler, PA ( AKA: Three Rivers, PA )
Contact:

Post by mglenn » Feb 18th 2003, 12:07 pm

First let me state that if I offend you, you’re not listening. I mean no offense I just state what I believe, and just because it doesn't agree with you doesn't mean I don't like you or understand you position. :)
This is not a game to those Kuwait or Israelis who may get killed by Scuds carrying biological or chemical weapons.
But is the answer to this to leave this mad man with these weapons. The inspectors have stated that Iraq does treat this like a game, using delaying tactics and monitoring to determine where the inspectors are going. The inspectors are not there to find the weapons they are there to see that they are destroyed.
We didn't take the oil in '91 because of the same reason we didn't go into Baghdad.
We didn't go to Baghdad because of international pressure over the mass destruction of the Iraq army on the road out of Kuwait. Our planes destroyed over 70% of the Iraq army in under 24 hours on that road. It was felt by the international community that Saddam had learned his lesson.
(That war was to free the oil in Kuwait, and we didn't want to conquer another nation, just contain it.) But I guess things have changed.
It should be obvious that it did not work. Saddam still rapes and tortures people. He has used chemical weapons on people in his own country. This is not the type of person I want with a nuke!
The biggest question I have is why does it have to be now? Why can't we wait for the UN to sign on?
The UN already did sign on. 1441 stated that Iraq must declare all weapons of mass destruction. It has not done this@ It must allow the inspectors to monitor their destruction. Instead they have been playing hide and seek! 1441 stated that they were not allowed to produce missiles that could strike other countries. They have!

Hitler was allowed to get way with such things before World War 2. So should we attack now when we can win with minimal losses or wait till he has perfected a nuke, chem or bio weapon?
Is it because we were hoping that Saddam would not comply as much as he has and have overcommited our troops to the area?
How is it that the Iraqis minders with the inspectors physically trying to force the pilot of a helicopter away from an inspection site becomes compliance? How is it that 1441 demanded that Iraq declare and destroy its illegal weapons and instead forces the inspectors to play hide and seek compliance? How is producing weapons that can strike Israel which it agreed that it would not do compliance? How is importing nuclear refining equipment from France which they agreed they would not do compliance?
Why does our president want to go to war SOOO badly, when it is very clear that he is in the very definite minority.
Seems that most of the congress is behind him. Even a good number of the Dems. Is it possible that they have info that can't be released now without endangering more Americans?
Oh, wait, that's how he was elected as well.... (Note to Bush: This is not golf, in votes and polls, when you have the lower number you're losing!)
Come on now. The recounts are done. Gore didn't win Florida! And as a side note we do not live in a democracy, it’s a representative republic! Please take a look at the Federalist Papers for a well versed explanation of why the government was set up so that mob rule did not happen.

As a second side not more people voted against Clinton than for him too!
We have to wait for more support.
Why what happens if we don't?
WTF is he doing?
Protecting the lives of Americans by demonstrating that we won't bend over anymore. We were attacked on our own home soil and now you are saying oh well. These people don't like us and they are plotting our demise, and you just want to wait until they do blow up a weapon of mass destruction before you believe we have justification to put them outta business? To quote Edmund Burke: "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."
but I'm genuinely scared what will happen.
And my response to that has always been the same: "This is the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave! You can't have one with out the other!"
People forget, one of the biggest reasons 9/11 happened is because Al Qaeda got pissy that we had our soldiers on their holy land.
Ya because we don't stone our women when they cheat on their husbands. We don't cut off your hand when you steal. We don't force the mutilation of female genitalia so that they can't have pleasure from sex. We allow the women in our country to be educated and treated equal. We are infidels to them because of these things and should not be allowed to step foot on their holy ground! Yep we're the bad guys all right!

Sorry to pick on you Andrew, once again it’s not personal. You post allowed me to present my counter points.
"When I disagree with a rational man, I let reality be our final arbiter; if I am right, he will learn; if I am wrong, I will; one of us will win, but both will profit." - Ayn Rand

User avatar
starbug
Lifehead
Posts: 1082
Joined: Jun 25th 2002, 4:51 am
Location: UK

Post by starbug » Feb 18th 2003, 1:24 pm

mglenn wrote: 1441 stated that they were not allowed to produce missiles that could strike other countries. They have!

Hitler was allowed to get way with such things before World War 2. So should we attack now when we can win with minimal losses or wait till he has perfected a nuke, chem or bio weapon?
I think that the issue here is that there has to be some pretty solid proof that Sadaam is doing something that will (or could, or may - however low you draw that line) damage his neighbours, or the world at large.

I for one have seen very very little that could be described as in any sense conclusive proof. I would accept some fairly hefty circumstancial evidence in Sadaam's case, considering his past record.

The point is that you can't just wade in and attack a country because you believe they might be preparing to attack you. You should be in a position to demonstrate the danger first.
mglenn wrote: We were attacked on our own home soil and now you are saying oh well. These people don't like us and they are plotting our demise, and you just want to wait until they do blow up a weapon of mass destruction before you believe we have justification to put them outta business?
I think that alot of the debate about attacking Iraq has become confused by the September 11th issue. I don't see any proof that Sadaam is plotting your demise (the fact that he doesn't like Americans can't be extended to saying he's actively plotting your downfall) and I don't see any evidence that he had a hand in September 11th. What I could maybe be persuaded to believe is that he could sell these weapons to Osama, and that would be a very very real and worrying danger. But again, you'd have to prove beyond fair reasonable doubt he had weapons to sell before an attack would be justified.
Quote:
We have to wait for more support.


Why what happens if we don't?
If you don't, your nation risks being held responsible for mass civilian casualties and for wading in imperialistically when there was insufficient proof for the rest of the world to follow. You would risk destabilising the entire middle east, potentially the world economy, and killing many many innocent civilians.

Worst of all, you would be defeating your own object and playing exactly into Osama's hands. He wanted this to happen - he wants to destabilise the western world by creating a war that goes along east/west lines. He can then recruit his minions with propaganda detailing America as the unilateral aggressor and shouldn't muslims fight back? Young impressionables will look at the news, see their area of the world under attack. their response will be the same as yours: they just won't use the same tactics as you. They'll be underhand and plant bombs on planes.

Osama is succeeding. Look at North Korea. I'm assuming they'll be next in line when Iraq goes down.
It is only going to get worse.

I think all that anyone is asking is that the US be a little more diplomatic before marching in with the firepower. Stop president bush referring to it as a game. Stop our president Blair blindly following his lead. Stop treating it like people aren't going to die over this. People have already died.

It might be that Sadaam does have all these weapons, and I hope to god he doesn't. I hope that we don't have a war. I hope that we can solve this diplomatically. I hope the world gives the inspectors a little more time and I hope that all countries use the UN as their medium for deciding what to do.

And, if necessary, I hope that we follow through with military force. But it should be the absolute last resort. If it can be satisfactorily shown that it is the last resort, I will be reluctantly in agreement with unleashing the entire military capability of the West against Sadaam, and you can bet that British soldiers will be dying too.

---------------------------------------------
http://www.urban-hills.blogspot.com
---------------------------------------------

User avatar
fnordboy
Ed Zwick Wannabe
Posts: 1954
Joined: Sep 25th 2002, 10:29 am
Location: Exit 16E, NJ
Contact:

Post by fnordboy » Feb 18th 2003, 1:50 pm

Great post Starbug :)

I definitely agree, people have got to stop using 9/11 as a reason to go after Iraq. There is NO evidence that there is any cooperation between Saddam and Osama, and judging by Osama's last tape aired he doesn't give a rat's ass about Saddam, he himself called him an infidel (besides other things).

Anyone who doesn't believe this "war" is about oil really needs to stop accepting the media blindly. Look at other countries news, and our own, and then make a decision. Long before 9/11 happened there was already an agreement to go to war with Afghanistan/Taliban in October so that we could claim ownership of some important pipelines. When did we go to war with the Taliban and Osama? Mid-October...coincidence? We want the oil over there. If we really had concerns over leader who go into other countries forcibly and try to take control and also have WMDs, than we would be bombing the s**t out of Isreal, for some reason we let them get away with murder...literally, and they have been doing it for a lot longer than Saddam.

Everything about this "war" and 9/11 leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I also can't stand watching the majority of my country being led like cattle into believing false things. And lately if you question the motives of the president or voice your anti-war opinion in the media you have every high profile right winger calling you a communist. You would think they would be over that bullshit by now. Welcome back to the 1950s, when are they going to clone McCarthy?

Ask yourself, who gains the most in all of this?


Links of Interest:

"Blair told the House of Commons that the document demonstrated
'a huge infrastructure of deception and concealment' in Iraq.
Powell even cited it at the UN. Yet a dossier presented as
containing prime-cuts of fresh intelligence material turns out
to be nothing of the sort - but rather an internet cut-and-paste
exercise largely lifted from a Californian post-graduate thesis
focused on evidence from the invasion of Kuwait 13 years ago.
Even worse, while typographical errors were maintained, a sprinkling
of unfounded exaggerations were inserted to strengthen the claims made in the thesis."

http://sf.indymedia.org/uploads/copiedp ... ter__s_.rm

Oil company adviser named US representative to Afghanistan
http://www.prouty.org/unocal.html

User avatar
K-man
Liberty High Graduate
Posts: 597
Joined: Jun 29th 2001, 12:44 am
Location: Missouri, U.S. of A.

Post by K-man » Feb 18th 2003, 3:01 pm

Whew!, the forum is heating up. First of all, I'm not a big advocate of war. (Whoever it is against.) I do agree with most/all of MGlenn's statements. And whoever thinks BinLaden is waiting for a U.S attack on Iraq to 'unite Muslims in a holy war against the West' hasn't been keeping up with the news. It is way past that point already. And why exactly should we be "bombing the s**t out of Israel"?? To quote a NYC fireman as he approached ground zero on Sep 12, "I grudgingly had to finally admit something I never wanted to admit. And that's just how evil...evil can be.". Any person/country/religion who cheers as they watch 3000+ civilians incinerated alive is not someone I want with nuclear capability. When is the time to disarm Sadaam? After the first nuke slams into North America. Is that the proof we are looking for? Hey look....NYCity is a nuclear wasteland. I guess it's time to go after Iraq.?.
Daddy sold the farm and they've killed my trees. K-man

User avatar
fnordboy
Ed Zwick Wannabe
Posts: 1954
Joined: Sep 25th 2002, 10:29 am
Location: Exit 16E, NJ
Contact:

Post by fnordboy » Feb 18th 2003, 3:33 pm

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"BUSH SAID that the size of the protests against a possible U.S.-led war against Iraq was irrelevant.
“Size of protest, it’s like deciding, ‘Well I’m going to decide policy based upon a focus group.’ The role of a leader is to decide policy based upon the security — in this case — security of the people.” "

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

well that about says it all.

See you all in hell ;)

User avatar
lance
Ed Zwick Wannabe
Posts: 1983
Joined: Jul 6th 2002, 4:47 pm
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Contact:

Thanks

Post by lance » Feb 18th 2003, 4:20 pm

Mglenn, Starburg, K-Man, Fnordboy and others

Thank you all for a very insightful, informative, and respectiful thread. All of you have gotten the concept that you don't have to agree with another's point of view to respect the person behind it.

More later.

Lance Man

User avatar
fnordboy
Ed Zwick Wannabe
Posts: 1954
Joined: Sep 25th 2002, 10:29 am
Location: Exit 16E, NJ
Contact:

Re: Thanks

Post by fnordboy » Feb 18th 2003, 4:35 pm

lance wrote: Thank you all for a very insightful, informative, and respectiful thread.
Is that a new Bushism? ;)

Come on :lol: , I couldn't resist that one.... :twisted:

User avatar
mglenn
MSCL.com Team
MSCL.com Team
Posts: 552
Joined: May 25th 1999, 4:46 pm
Location: Butler, PA ( AKA: Three Rivers, PA )
Contact:

Post by mglenn » Feb 18th 2003, 5:07 pm

I would accept some fairly hefty circumstantial evidence in Sadaam's case, considering his past record.
Check out Saddam's Bombmaker by Khidhir Hamza. He was Saddam's top man in the creation of a
nuclear bomb.
The point is that you can't just wade in and attack a country because you believe they might be preparing to attack you.
Has used Chemical weapons in war? Check!
Has invaded other countries? Check!
Has funded suicide attacks? Check!
Rapes Wives and Daughters in front of fathers? Check!
Dips people in acid? Check!
Has Olympic athletes beaten? Check!

What exactly are you looking for to justify the need to remove him?
your nation risks being held responsible for mass civilian casualties
How so? Will it be the US that puts its military command structures below civilian bomb shelters? Will it be the US that build schools and Hospitals next to military targets?

How does it become the responsibility of the US for putting people in harms way in an effort to protect military assets?

The US doesn't put its military command structures under baby formula factories and Marine Training Grounds are not in the middle of daycare centers!
Worst of all, you would be defeating your own object and playing exactly into Osama's hands.
That’s a short-term look. You fail to see the difference between the 91' Gulf war and what we are doing in Afghanistan. (Note this also is a response to Oil company adviser named US representative to Afghanistan) You claim that the appointment of a big bad oil exec proves that this is all some huge secret takeover to make the rich richer and the poor poorer. Yet you fail to put things in perspective. The transition to a valid export economy is good for Afghanistan. Now instead of being the number one exporter of Opium they can now enter the international community with something valid to offer. Instead of shooting women before the soccer game and rampant warlords, they now have the start of a valid government. As money is invested schools and health care quality of life will begin to improve. As the more and more western ideas and influence are absorbed the ability of Osama and his lackeys to recruit dumb peasants willing to die for him will begin to shrink. It’s not hard to convince a guy whose life has been destroyed to die for a belief. It’s much harder to the same to a guy who has something to live for.

None of this happens over night and its not a paradise there, but it is improving and we can help it to improve. And we can do the same thing in Iraq!
I think all that anyone is asking is that the US be a little more diplomatic before marching in with the firepower.
We've been trying to work this out for ten years. How long is long enough?
I hope the world gives the inspectors a little more time
What is more time going to do? The inspectors are not there to find the weapons and the items needed to build them. We sent the inspectors in with the expressed agreement that Iraq would show the inspectors and the UN what they had and allow the monitoring of the destruction of those items and supplies. Instead they are playing Hide and Seek with the inspectors. We know they have VX, Anthrax, Growth medium for Bio weapons and a nuclear program. We either found it after the Gulf war or obtained shipping manifest that show they received it. NO ONE IS ARGUING THIS! It’s been there and everybody knows it! What the inspectors were supposed to do is go in and watch as Iraq destroyed it. Instead Iraq has claimed that "ah we don't know about any WMD's!" And yet on the other they are authorizing their field commanders to use said weapons incase of attack! hmmmmm...
Look at North Korea.
I know that I'm in the minority when I point this out but there's a reason Bush isn't talking about N. Korea. It's because that dog is all bark and no bite. First off the leader of Korea is a much more stable individual. Second There's a reason that they are facing a food and energy shortage and that’s because China isn't giving them these resources because they don't want them having Nukes anymore than we do. Third, being that they are short on resources they have no logistical backing to conduct any sort of hostilities.

But yes, once we are done with Iraq we will deal with N. Korea.
Stop treating it like people aren't going to die over this.
Yes people will die. They die everyday. They are tortured and raped everyday. Evil happens everyday. Should we try to talk evil out of its crimes? Or should we take the chance to stop that evil now before it leads to a bomb in NY or London? Should we allow Islamic extremist to think that if they blow up a bomb on the bus your grandmother rides to the store and we'll give them what they want? Or should we remove those like Saddam that fund and supply those wishing us harm?
"When I disagree with a rational man, I let reality be our final arbiter; if I am right, he will learn; if I am wrong, I will; one of us will win, but both will profit." - Ayn Rand

User avatar
mglenn
MSCL.com Team
MSCL.com Team
Posts: 552
Joined: May 25th 1999, 4:46 pm
Location: Butler, PA ( AKA: Three Rivers, PA )
Contact:

Post by mglenn » Feb 18th 2003, 6:35 pm

I should add that the views I stated above as well as anywhere else are my views and should be considered such. I'm quite sure that they don't represent the views of all the project team.

And once again the points I make are not personal. If they come across as such I apologize! And if at the end of this discussion we don't agree I'll still buy you a beer at the bar and smile while I'm doing it! :D
"When I disagree with a rational man, I let reality be our final arbiter; if I am right, he will learn; if I am wrong, I will; one of us will win, but both will profit." - Ayn Rand

User avatar
fnordboy
Ed Zwick Wannabe
Posts: 1954
Joined: Sep 25th 2002, 10:29 am
Location: Exit 16E, NJ
Contact:

Post by fnordboy » Feb 18th 2003, 7:09 pm

mglenn wrote:And if at the end of this discussion we don't agree I'll still buy you a beer at the bar and smile while I'm doing it! :D
Great, what's on tap? :)

andrewgd
Liberty High Graduate
Posts: 676
Joined: Sep 11th 2002, 9:49 pm
Location: Seattle
Contact:

Post by andrewgd » Feb 18th 2003, 8:32 pm

I caught Tony Blair on CNN today talking with the press. I have to say, I'm much more impressed by what he has to say than anything that has come out of GW's mouth. Instead of the very base responses we get from GW of "He's an evil man, and its up to us to police the world and get rid of him." I actually heard some intelligent responses as to why this needs to get done, and why its right to do it.

I guess it falls back to the UN resolution of 1441. The UN agreed on it, and now France and Germany are backing out of it. Saddam has already failed to comply with the resolution, so its up to the UN to enforce its ruling. So basically France and Germany and others are taking the teeth out of the UN, and it will become worthless if it cannot even enforce its rulings.

Now, I realize it is the right thing to do, and the UN had agreed previously that action should be taken if Saddam didn't comply, and he hasn't. BUT, now that it comes to the point of taking action, I think it will be bad if we attack without the ok from more nations. The US seriously needs to change the perception that it is unilaterally attacking a nation without being provoked.

So I guess I've somewhat changed my postion. We need to enforce 1441. But along with that, we desperately need to change the worlds perception on this.

On another note in response to Mglenn: While I realize that GW probably won fairly (although the margin of error in Florida was very close to the difference in the vote count) He still did not recieve more votes than Gore. I know how our voting system works, and that it was set up for a reason, but I still think something is wrong when someone can get more votes and still lose an election.

Oh, and do you have any reference as to the horrors of the Iraq regime? I saw the state of the union, but I've never actually seen any other reference to these acts other than the "gassing of the kurds" you always hear about. I'd like to know that the state of the union wasn't just propaganda, but I've never seen any other reference to it. Do you know of any articles on it? Thanks.
"Your imagination, like a child, will explode with unrestrained possibilities for adventure."

User avatar
Nostradamus
Marshall Wannabe
Posts: 1213
Joined: Jun 29th 2002, 6:42 am
Location: No matter where you go, There you are.

Post by Nostradamus » Feb 18th 2003, 9:01 pm

I found a pretty good article about online debating here.
I have never killed a man, but I have read many obituaries with great pleasure.
-- Clarence Darrow

I didn't attend the funeral, but I sent a nice letter saying I approved of it.
-- Mark Twain

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests