February 4th, 2003 10:02 PM
USA - Iraq (part 7387c)
I know there have been many threads about terrorism, wars, Iraq, etc. And I know this is in the first place a security forum. I decided to post my question in a new thread because it doesn't really fit in another one. Also it's more clear to have one separate thread again.
My question is to all Antionline members who are for an American war against Iraq. What are your motivations to justify the war ? And what prove you have for all your reasons, motivations, opinions, etc ?
I'm (you could probably judge that from my question) against that war and any other war. I don't want to sail into one big flameing jungle. Please only respond if you have something to say. The antipoint system is for the flaming part.
I'm not on any of both sites... not USA, not Iraq. I just want to have a clear view on why people think a war should be. I only heard views from a few people who are for a war, the main reasons were oil and terrorism. But judgeing from many (dutch) newspapers, most American people agree with a war, so there should be many on these forums to.
I'd like to discuss these things here. Wheter or not there is going to be a war. My purpose is not to overrule all who don't share my opinion. I just would like some kind of debate on views, everyone keeping his selfrespect etc.
Hope you people can clear those things up for me and for anyone else that's interested.
February 4th, 2003 10:48 PM
I fully agree with your post. Me, I am against any war too. I think that we, as human beings, are intelligent enough to solve conflicts in peaceful ways.
Unfortunately in our media, we seemingly only get carefully selected information. I'd like to hear the opinions of people in the other parts of the world. How do you think about this in Brazil, in India, in Nigeria, France, Australia .... ?
With kind regards
February 4th, 2003 11:17 PM
war vs "peace"
I am in the USA and I am not sure if we should go to war. Allthough i have strong opinions usually on politcal and social subjects i think that us the little people really don't know what is going on, there is allot of inconsistancy on the part of the leaders, for instance bush is VERY pro-defence and makeing sure that america is safe, but at the same time no one dares do anything about our completely open boarders with mexico and cannada. so maybe we should go to war maybe we shouldn't. however if you watch closely enough america has been and is at war all the time we are have military in action allmost always in some part of the world. I can't help but laugh at the big Anti-War rallies and all their slogans. They are for the most part mindless followers that wish they were in the 60s protesting Vietnam. I have talked to many of them about it and none of them seem very informed they just know that bush is evil and war is evil and the people of iraq need to be left allone, but none of them seemed to complain at all when Clinton was useing military force in iraq. i think we should take down the current gov. in iraq because it follows the patterns of other very not nice governments in history. very evil things are being done to people by the government there, as far as they tell us in the news anyways.
that's what i think,
February 4th, 2003 11:33 PM
I am very indifferent in this regard. I know that the indifference is bad. Does Iraq really have MODs? If it does I am more in favor of going to war. If not then let the inspectors and sanctions do there work. It seems that the president is pushing his own agenda -it might boil down to two points:
1.) Saddam tried to kill his father -vengence is a dish both served cold
2.) A war will distract people from the ecconmy and possible help it (second part less likely).
I also think that Bush thinks he can quickly topple Saddam and capture him -something that he as so far failed to do to Osam Bin Laden (sp?).
I think if there was a clearer link between Iraq and bad things happening in America I would be stronger in favor of war. At the same time if the govn't knows something they are not sharing I do not want another tragety to inspire us to action.
I question the rush to war but think it is something Bush sees as a "must have" -even if the people do not support it. We will see what happens. I guess I'm less indifferent then I thought.
If you spend more on coffee than on IT security, you will be hacked. What\'s more, you deserve to be hacked.
-- former White House cybersecurity adviser Richard Clarke
February 4th, 2003 11:34 PM
Yeah those are some true points... The US "controles" many place in a way of preventing local fights and threaths to neighboor countries. I'm not going to say Bush, or anyone else (president of iceland ? I don't know), should or should not open any war. I just think in this case and many other cases were the US is involved as a superpower who prevents fights, if the US is in those cases right in their own playing judge and executor (sorry my english is crappy, I mean the people who cuts of heads so to speak ). It's not in any case about if they're allowed or not, because it seems you can make your own rules if you're powerfull.
The US doesn't need any other country in this specific case of Iraq, but what reasons do they have, and what prove of those reason, to really threath (or start) with a war like they're doing now... I personally haven't seen any real prove Iraq is in any way threatening anything. I know that's the power of Sadaam. He is a very diplomatic person, but there were big killing rages in his and nearby countries, so I don't believe he's a real nice person. But still then what evidence is there for all those mathers.
For what I heard from friends people and some little bits of news and articles the USA as an example bombed large parts of Afghanistan to kill terrorists, with that destroying thousenths of people's lifes. I still didn't see much of prove of a threath that gives a reason to hit those cities and villages...
Anyways, thanks for the input so far already
(damn.... I really like to follow this thread every second, but I have to get up early tomorrow :/, see you all later and good night)
February 4th, 2003 11:39 PM
I live in Australia and are against the war, basically on the basis that all governments are still justifying that it is a war against terrorism, and the fact that Iraq (may) have weapons of mass destruction, when I believe that the real motives are purely economic.
Why are the US trying so hard to disarm Iraq, when it hasnt yet been proven that they possess weapons of mass destruction? Especially when Korea, Pakistan, India and not to mention the US possess these destructive weapons themselves... Seems somewhat hypocritical.
I also resent the fact that it seems that when GWB says "jump" our Prime Minister say "how high?" every time. I think that our PM is more interested sucking up to the US than listening to the Australian public.
In ending, I think that unfortuantly, war is inevitable. Iraq will be blown to bits, the price of Oil will be more favourable to western countries, and Iraqs infrastructure will be rebuilt (assumably by US companies).
[glowpurple]There were so many fewer questions when the stars where still just the holes to heaven - JJ[/glowpurple] [gloworange]I sure could use a vacation from this bull$hit, three ringed circus side show of freaks. - Tool. [/gloworange]
February 5th, 2003 03:47 PM
I'm totally against this war. Why ? I'll explain and hope not to offend the Bush-minded friends 'round here, just gonna what I think of all this.
At first, I do think USA wanted revenge on OBLaden, which they partially had, only himself they didn't catch... I agree this guy needs to be nailed.
On the other hand I do think Bush has some personal feelings mixed in all this, such as being popular, as of course the oil, but also he wants the same reputation as his dad, Correct me if I'm wrong. There are indeed lots of countries with potential problems, such as India who can nuke tests without being bothered, they don't go there ??!!!
If they wanted so badly Saddam, why don't send one of their special forces, seals, or something like that. Less expensive and by my means could be as effective as a war.
Btw, Why didn't Bush Sr. let not go Schwarzkopf in GW I, he would surely have got Saddam.
I also heard Bush raised the funds for defence just like that, this is always on the back of the taxpayers. Why keep they so enthousiast about all this ?
Well, for all who are offended by this, my apologies, I'm just giving my opinion,
February 5th, 2003 06:38 PM
I’m total against any type of war but I’d support anyone in killing a leader that only brings misery to his own people and country. In this world Saddam is not the only one but if you could start with him then the North Korean leader then the leaders of all the terrorist groups may be then the world would be a better place for all us to live.
People of Iraq should be enjoying almost the same living standards as the people of Kuwait but they don’t because of Saddam.
I think the American has enough power to get rid of them all but they only act on their own interests not on the interests of innocent people suffering around the world because of bad leaders and lack of democracy.
If the Americans go to war in the Iraq they should make sure that the only people that get bombed or killed is Saddam and his regime.
February 5th, 2003 07:00 PM
Well, right now I am against a war in Iraq, but I can see how war, in general, is sometimes necessary. For example, in World War II, there was no real possibility of a diplomatic solution until after the Japanese and the Germans were militarily defeated. In the case of WWII, the war was self-defense for many countries.
In Iraq, however, there doesn't seem to be an immediate threat to any other countries. Does Saddam Hussein have weapons of mass destruction? I don't know, but I do know that the United States has not presented any plausible, real evidence that he does.
Right now, President Bush seems to be backed into a corner, because he cannot find an acceptable reason to attack. The reasons he wants to go into Iraq are numerous, but I think high on his list is getting his approval rating back up. After having the highest approval rating of any president in decades, Bush is suddenly faced with waning support. If he is going to get reelected, he is going to need majority approval and support; he's trying to get this by winning a war.
The reason I'm against an armed conflict in Iraq is because I haven't seen any evidence that a military intervention is necessary. Should Saddam and his government be overthrown and replaced with a real democratic government? Definitely, but I'm not sure that a war is the best, most efficient way to do that. Right now, to me, it looks like Bush is just grasping at straws. He wants a reason to attack, and yet every time he issues a new ultimatum to Saddam, such as allowing UN inspectors, Saddam complies. So now it has gotten to the point where if Iraq can't prove they don't have WMD, then the US will attack. I don't know how someone proves something doesn't exist, but apparently the US expects Iraq to do just that.
In conclusion, I'm against the war because I see no reason, and no evidence that all other possible approaches (including, but not limited to, diplomacy) have been exhausted.
February 5th, 2003 07:16 PM
Powell lays out U.S. case:
i believe him! I believe everything he says here.
Ive had my doubts up until now. not about saddam but about going to war without UN approval to stop him. saddam is a bad man with or without a war but now i think the line is drawn. he will be stopped.
i pray it will be fast and complete and the innocent will be spared but there's no doubt in my mind now. were marching.
Bukhari:V3B48N826 “The Prophet said, ‘Isn’t the witness of a woman equal to half of that of a man?’ The women said, ‘Yes.’ He said, ‘This is because of the deficiency of a woman’s mind.’”