Why I think War with Iraq Is justifiable

[ExCyber]

It's not propaganda, it's truth!

To the extent that it's truth, it underscores the problem caricatured by the warmonger/peacenik piece: many who have pushed for this war have been either deluded or dishonest about their motivations, and seem to go to ridiculous lengths to misdirect the debate away from major issues such as how the war and the post-war reconstruction will affect the future of the US, Iraq and the Arab world.

War protester's here in America should celebrate the fact they have the right to protest.

I'm trying to think of a more appropriate way to do so than actually getting out and protesting, enduring arrest and harassment in some cases, in order to speak their minds. I'm really having trouble coming up with anything.

Nod nod nod nod! It's like he still believes he's in the age when we had Kings and Queens.

I'd imagine that the royal families of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia believe something like that too. Where do they get such silly ideas?

 

[antime]

To put it simply, Saddam is a terrorist.

And Seymour Hersh who uncovered Richard Perle's business dealings is a terrorist. Words lose their meaning through overuse and inflation.

Did you know under Saddam's regime an insult about Saddam wins you a death sentence? Iraqis are forced to like and respect him. Saddam admitted this himself in an interview.

And if you don't agree with the US party line you're branded as unpatriotic and a terrorist sympathiser. It's just a matter of degrees.

War protester's here in America should celebrate the fact they have the right to protest.

Apparently that right includes the right to get shot at with rubber bullets by the police. How very progressive.

Some spoiled Americans here don't know what freedom is because they havn't had it stripped from them like the Iraqi people.

Fortunately your government is doing its best to rectify the situation. It only took you some fifty years to reinvent Stasi.

 

[Tindo@heart]

Seymour Hersh? I'm not familar with the name so it's hard to reply. A quick google search tells me he often uncovers scandals. I also found this link to which I think you refer:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/a...article1994.htm

After reading this, you are right. The definition of a "terrorist" varies with each person and often misused like all derogatory terms. This doesn't change my mind that Saddam is a terrorist.

And if you don't agree with the US party line you're branded as unpatriotic and a terrorist sympathiser. It's just a matter of degrees.

Name calling is a lot different than executions. If I insult the Pres. I would rather be called "unpatriotic" than get a bullet in the back of the head! It's more than a matter of "degrees," it's on the other end of the spectrum!

Apparently that right includes the right to get shot at with rubber bullets by the police. How very progressive.

It's a right to protest, it's not a right to vandilize. It's also not a right to disrupt the flow of traffic, interupt business and endanger the public. Since the war we've had protest everyday here, and rubber bullets were only used once. What for you ask? They were blocking a road to a port.

I suggest reading Rubber Bullets Used Against Oakland War Protesters

Protest can be held in a formal and decent fashion. It doesn't have to be filled with rage and chaos. It's often a few over-passionate individuals that ruin a protest.

Ironically, the freedom of speech is often excercised on both sides and non-protesters can become harassing or confrontational. It's a display that can become a mess and safer if it is dispersed. It's not dispersed because it is a protest. It's dispersed because it becomes an interuption and dangerous.

Fortunately your government is doing its best to rectify the situation. It only took you some fifty years to reinvent Stasi.

"It only took you" .. I think you mean my government. There is a difference.

Again, you're using a term I'm unfamilar with. Stasi? I searched google and found this site on Cnn:

http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/e...ence/stasi.html

I'm not aware of anything close to that here in the US, not that I would be if there were such an organization. Could you please tell me what you are refering too.

As an American I happen to think we enjoy more freedom than ever! The last 50 years have been revolutionary for gays. Blacks are given equal rights. I can look in my neighborhood and see Martin Luther King's dream come true, white and black kids playing on the same playground. I think that is progress. Slavery still exsist in Africa and other parts of the world.

Your post seems to try to point out America's flaws instead of discussing the war. I'm not claiming America is the best, any government has it's benefits and flaws. It's all a matter of opinion. I'm not trying to compare countries, I was making points about Saddam's regime.

Would anyone here choose to live in Iraq under Saddam's regime?

I wouldn't, I would rather keep my fingers and toes.

many who have pushed for this war have been either deluded or dishonest about their motivations

ExCyber, you are exactly right. It is misleading. At first it was a war on terror, then it was to "disarm" Saddam, now it's candy coated with the title "Iraqi Freedom." Which is it; Disarm Saddam or liberate the Iraqi people? I'm sure there are goals here that are less mentioned, like securing the oil wells. However, IT'S ALL OF THE ABOVE!

-Saddam is a terrorist

-Saddam has been a threat and should be removed

-Iraqis are oppressed and terrorized

-Saddam has robbed the Iraqis and left them in poverty

-the oil wells have been abused and turned into enviromental hazards

-not to mention he has desecrated holy land, the birthplace of Mary Mother of Jesus

How many crimes does 1 man have to make against humanity before somebody does something? I happen to think it's inhumane to just ignore this and let the Iraqis suffer.

What does everyone think of the Iraqis celebrating in the streets of Baghdad? Some were even chanting praise to Bush. I suppose the only opinions that matter here are of the Iraqi people.

PS:

Walter Cronkrit has just critized Pres. Bush on TV, yet he lives.

 

[Curtis]

I think that there are convincing arguements that this war has absolutely nothing at all to do with liberation, disarmament, oil or any of the other of the commonly quoted reasons.

There is a possibility that Iraq is meant to be a "diplomatic solution" to the North Korea problem. By invading Iraq, the coalition forces have sent a clear message to NK "not to mess with us - we can do what we want and nobody will stop us". Certainly the action gives the US in particular a "foot up" in the region in terms of first strike capability.

All just conjecture, of course, but the arguements that claim the war is about liberation have a serious archillies heel. The coalition are showing no signs of planning to tackle any other "brutal regime" in the world. Why not step into Zimbabwe, for example? Robert Mugabe seems to be a man of few scruples, by all accounts. If you take the liberation angle, then why does it apply to Iraq before anyone else, and why not to other countries in a similar situation?

You mentioned disarmament is a reason. Again, what evidence is there that Iraq is a threat to US, UK or Australian interests? Indeed world interests? Maybe they have chemical weapons, but so does the US and UK - they show no signs of disarmament. There seems to be an unfair perception that because the US and UK are such freedom loving countries, that they wouldn't resort to such means. Instead they fight a war against forces - that have no means of defending themeselves - using "conventional" weapons. End of the day, you're just as dead. I have no idea of the Iraqi military casulaties, but they would number thousands if not tens of thousands.

Who has determined that the Iraqi regime has committed more crimes than anyone else?

Final point, there is no such thing as the "Iraqi people" - it's like saying every American is a Democrat. No matter what they tell us in the lovely briefings, there will always be a level of violent dissent amongst some factions directed towards the coalition forces. It is not as black and white as they are making it out to be.

 

[Tindo@heart]

-display to NK

Interesting conjecture Curtis. It's very possible, but I don't believe that would be their main objective. This opens my mind to other possiblities. The whole suppose "shock and awe" campaign may have been just that.

-Liberation

The US didn't mention liberation until the day of the war, and at the moment they named the war "Iraqi Freedom." So I don't think this is their main objective. I do think the main objective is to liberate the World from Saddam.

-disarmament

The fact that Saddam and his cousin has used chemical weapons before is proof enough for me. The fact they have gassed and killed 1000's of kurds is a large enough crime itself. I'm sure the US has sources that it can't reveal or it would be shooting itself in the foot. The world can't afford to chance WMD to get into such an unstable man's hand. He is greatly hated and vengeful.

Who has determined that the Iraqi regime has committed more crimes than anyone else?

I dunno. Who?

I think the Saddam regime has committed many notorious crime against humanity, maybe not the most. The keyword is Saddam's regime, not Iraq's. This one man is responsible for crimes on a Hitler scale.

Final point, there is no such thing as the "Iraqi people" - it's like saying every American is a Democrat.

I disagree. If I say "American people" I'm speaking about the majority of Americans, it has nothing to do with politics. If I say "Iraqi people" I am just speaking about the citizens of Iraq. Do you prefer me to say the majority of citizens of Iraq.

The majority of citizens of Iraq have been robbed by Saddam.

Now the majority of citizens of Iraq dance and celebrate the fall of the Saddam regime.

They dance in Tahriya Square in Baghdad, they topple statues of Saddam in Basrah, in Saddam City they chant "Bush, Bush, Thank you", and they fill the street in some "E" titled city (spelling)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/stor...2544475,00.html

Again I think the majority of the citizens of Iraq's opinion is the opinion that matters.

 

[Lyzel]

Hey Tindo,

I would not bother discussing this war with these people. They are against the war. They will argue with you no matter when you agree with their opinions or not. If you haven't noticed. They never admit that some of your points may be right. They refuse to admit when they may be wrong.

 

[mal]

Originally posted by Lyzel@Apr 10, 2003 @ 12:49 AM

They will argue with you no matter when you agree with their opinions or not. If you haven't noticed. They never admit that some of your points may be right. They refuse to admit when they may be wrong.

The very same things could be said of you too.

 

[Tindo@heart]

I don't think anyone likes to admit they're wrong. I have however acknowledged their valid points, they seem to ignore mine. <_<

Wanna know something funny Lyzel.

Your post count earns you the title "Peace not War"

Though Curtis' post count is titled: "Nuke 'em all"

 

[ExCyber]

Name calling is a lot different than executions. If I insult the Pres. I would rather be called "unpatriotic" than get a bullet in the back of the head! It's more than a matter of "degrees," it's on the other end of the spectrum!

This is true. It can be argued that being politically unpopular can cost you your livelihood, but realistically as long as your views are not completely absurd you're likely to find a substantial group that will at least tolerate your views.

Originally posted by Curtis+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Curtis)</div><div class='quotemain'>I think that there are convincing arguements that this war has absolutely nothing at all to do with liberation, disarmament, oil or any of the other of the commonly quoted reasons.

[/b]

I do think the main objective is to liberate the World from Saddam.

It really all depends on whose motivations you want to talk about and whether or not you believe they're telling the truth. There's a significant amount of evidence to suggest that, for some in the administration, the cause of ousting Saddam is little more than a banner to fly over the goals of establishing a strategic foothold in the middle east and putting US military might on display:

Originally posted by The Project For The New American Century+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(The Project For The New American Century)</div><div class='quotemain'>While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.

[/b]

<!--QuoteBegin-The Project For The New American Century@

If an American peace is to be maintained, and expanded, it must have a secure foundation on unquestioned U.S. military preeminence.

[/quote]

<!--QuoteBegin-The Project For The New American Century

There should be a strong strategic synergy between U.S. forces overseas and in a reinforcing posture: units operating abroad are an indication of American geopolitical interests and leadership, provide significant military power to shape events and, in wartime, create the conditions for victory when reinforced. Conversely, maintaining the ability to deliver an unquestioned knockout punch through the rapid introduction of stateside units will increase the shaping power of forces operating overseas and the vitality of our alliances. In sum, we see an enduring need for large-scale American forces.

[/quote]

This isn't to say that the liberation of Iraq and/or the world from Saddam, countering proliferation of WMD, oil, etc. are not goals (and for some involved, they may be primary goals), just that there's a very good chance that they're not the only ones.

 

[Eke]

i just finished reading the whole post ... woaaa

and i feel somehow better when reading so much intelligent messages (especially yours Curtis, well-balanced opinions, no extreme positions) but i feel also very sorry because, in my opinion, there is a lot of people like our two "war-defender", so naive and so much close-minded (the media have certainly a big influence in this) ... and that's why this war will certainly end up like it has begun ... in a global indifference

sorry, but i just can't forget the FACT that a powerful country has invaded an "under-armed" country without the approbation of the UN, using falsified proofs to justify their intervention .... and this is more anchored in my mind than the "Iraqui Freedom" reason.

'scuse for my english (not my native language)

 

[AntiPasta]

well I think the Iraqis couldn't care less now :cheers

 

[Curtis]

Originally posted by Tindo@heart@Apr 10, 2003 @ 09:37 AM

I don't think anyone likes to admit they're wrong. I have however acknowledged their valid points, they seem to ignore mine. <_<

Wanna know something funny Lyzel.

Your post count earns you the title "Peace not War"

Though Curtis' post count is titled: "Nuke 'em all"

I must say, you are much more interesting to argue with than Lyzel.

Now, to your points.

I can't see how you can confidently say that Saddam Hussein is the sole perpetrator of all the crimes of his regime. Obviously, it takes a concerted effort by many people to rule a country by fear. That is why I referred to it as the Iraqi regime - the regime in Iraq. Besides, I have seen no direct evidence that Saddam has personally taken a hand in feeding innocent civilians into a "human shredding machine". The Prime Minister of Australia has gone on record saying that the death or capture of Saddam Hussein is becoming increasingly irrelevant.

Liberating the world from Saddam is a little extreme. Certainly if it wasn't for CNN, ABC, MSNBC, etc Saddam Hussein would be of significantly lower profile than he is now - we would all be blissfully ignorant of whatever it is he does. Maybe we still are.

Your logic that because Saddam has used chemical weapons in the past, we should be fearful that he will do so again may be true. But does it also apply to the US - your Government remains the only one ever to use Nuclear weapons in times of conflict. Are we to be afraid that it will happen again? Maybe Saddam does have large stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, but a "hunch" that he may use them or may give them away seems to be a bit thin to use as an excuse to invade and start a war.

Again, your use of "Iraqi people" ignores the fact that it was a couple of hundred or thousand individuals who were "jubilant". Baghdad is a city of 5 million. Besides, even if a minority of the people violently oppose the so-called US occupation, it'll mean some very troubled and bloody times ahead for Iraq.

The one solid thing that this action has made me understand is that I do not trust the US Government. Their motives remain unclear, the benifits nearly non exsistant and the methods highly questionable. I don't believe that the coalition forces would pour all these billions upon billions of dollars into this conflict if there wasn't some kind of gain - something that outweighs the cost. It worrys me, meaning I can't bring myself to trust what they say.

Eke: What is surprising is that this board seems to buck the trend. At another board I (mostly)lurk at - Mike Portnoy.com the roles are reversed. Pro-war is much more prevelant.

 

[mtxblau]

Originally posted by Curtis@Apr 9, 2003 @ 05:09 AM

Their motives remain unclear, the benifits nearly non exsistant and the methods highly questionable.

Eke: What is surprising is that this board seems to buck the trend.

Well, the benefit is that once you install a US friendly president/dictator/etc., you essentially defeat OPEC.

It bucks the popular opinion, I think, because of the varied locales SX members hail from.

 

[Lyzel]

Nah, I could have given out my sources, but I chose not to. Why? I was expressing my opinion, not the media's opinions, etc., etc. I could have located pro-war articles on the internet, etc and posted it as backup. To me, it doesn't really matter what some of you think of the US. Though, I see a lot of anti-americanism on this board. The US isn't a perfect country, but so are all government. Some of you don't understand the history of the US. Oh well...

 

[Lyzel]

Iraqis Cheer Collapse of Saddam's Regime

Iraqis Jubilant as Saddam's Rule Collapses

Iraqis Attack Saddam Statue

It just makes all the efforts to remove Saddam the more worthwhile

 

[SkankinMonkey]

Originally posted by Lyzel@Apr 10, 2003 @ 05:32 AM

Iraqis Cheer Collapse of Saddam's Regime

Iraqis Jubilant as Saddam's Rule Collapses

Iraqis Attack Saddam Statue

It just makes all the efforts to remove Saddam the more worthwhile

Yeah, especially the iraqi's we blew up trying to kill saddam, I'm sure they're estatic we missed him again.

 

[mal]

And it sure isn't over yet...

 

[mtxblau]

Originally posted by Lyzel@Apr 9, 2003 @ 06:21 AM

Nah, I could have given out my sources, but I chose not to. Why? I was expressing my opinion, not the media's opinions, etc., etc.

You mean the opinions you were calling facts? Or are they still opinions?

In debating, there are methodologies for proving one's point. One is to provide 3rd party source after source, to prove your case. The other is to undermine the opponent's credibility by undermining their character. The latter works well in short debates. But once it's drawn out longer, it really weakens any valid arguments you may have had. Simply providing case after case also undermines one's point, but you're certainly not guilty of that.

What's really irritating is the idea that if you don't agree with the war, you're anti-american. I will say this much - the ideal of this nation in this country and these people rest in the fact that they are willing to uphold the truth to the highest order and degree in face of adversity. The country was founded on rebelling against the common theme of the world, imperialism. We fought tyranny because it was unjust. Now the roles are reversed. Leading these people to freedom was never the main cause. If it were, the United States would have demanded Saddam Hussein to increase funding to feed his people suffering under the numerous sanctions. The United States would have increased humanitarian aid. They would not have called Hussein to remove his weapons of mass destruction from the outset; and they would not have been so excited to label a pesticide plant a threat to humanity. Call it for what it is, don't call it for what it isn't.

Lyzel, to not have the courage to challenge what we are force fed to believe is un american. To allow the freedoms that the founders of this country fought and shed blood for be thrown to wayside simply at the whim of our 'leader' is cowardly. To follow like sheep the commands of our 'leader' to send our sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, mothers and fathers, to die for a cause that has not been fully revealed to even those fighting the war is unjust, immoral, and further from the ideals of this nation than anything else we've ever seen.

To march in protest against your country knowing very well that the country you owe allegiance to would find you a nuisance and react in violence, that's the ultimate test, recognition and utilzation of your freedoms. To go against the popular opinion and voice it is an act of courage. To blindly accept whatever reasons are given for this war without challenging the veracity, well, that makes you a pussy.

 

[Jeffrey]

ok. I finally heard about this war thing on tv. is it over already?

 

[cww80]

Whatever became of Lyzel?