Why I think War with Iraq Is justifiable

[DBOY]

Originally posted by Lyzel@Mar 18, 2003 @ 03:35 AM

Well, people like you want to believe that there are no crimes in the world. It seems reasonable to deal with the problem now, than waiting for it to be worse later. That makes me a bad person?? No. I don't think the way you do. While you're hiding in a corner, hoping that everyone hold hands... I want to get rid of a problem before it becomes much worse than now.

World peace is impossible. There will always be conflicts. But conflicts usually have a purpose the people believe in. These actions have none except lining political pockets with $$$.

I'm not against war. If the troops want ot just kill each other, fine. All I ask is that they don't take 600,000 innocent civilians with them.

Of course given current military practice is raining tactical warheads on an antire city for 48 hours straight instead of a ground assault on two targets, that's impossible.

You know why America fights like that? Because America is arrogant. That is a loud and clear message that says, "The lives of American troops are more important and the lives of innocent civilians."

I can't agree with that. If I ever met anyone who could, I would probably use their head as a platform next time I feel like breaking bricks.

 

[Lyzel]

Originally posted by SkankinMonkey+Mar 18, 2003 @ 04:38 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SkankinMonkey @ Mar 18, 2003 @ 04:38 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'>

Originally posted by Lyzel@Mar 18, 2003 @ 07:11 AM

<!--QuoteBegin-SkankinMonkey

@Mar 18, 2003 @ 03:57 AM



Read: I hate hippies?

Grow up, peace isn't something the 'hippies' and younger generations want exclusively. It's goddamn common sense. You'd be suprised at the fact that the world will indeed still revolve on its axis even if someones not shooting at someone else in anger.

You should follow your own advise. This is a discussion board. You don't have to like my opinion. Right???

I also don't like Hitlers opinion on the Jews, doesn't make his opinion any more valid does it? :smash [/b][/quote]

Nor does it makes your valid either, right??

Again, follow your own advice and grow up. Stop attacking me personally.

 

[Myname]

Originally posted by mal@Mar 18, 2003 @ 12:12 PM

Has there been any word from Britain yet?

Not quite. Tony Blair's practically alone in his backing of Bush over here, but whether or not that will stop him remains to be seen.. I gather he's quite a religious man and if he deems this to be some kind of moral crusade, he'd probably go all out for it.

 

[mal]

Wow, they're actually voting on it.

Over here cabinet simply decided. If it had to be passed by both houses of Parliament it would be blocked in the upper house by the Opposition, Greens and Democrats.

It appears that in Britian there is a lot of Govenrment opposition and a lot of Opposition support. Go figure.

 

[Lyzel]

World peace is impossible. There will always be conflicts. But conflicts usually have a purpose the people believe in. These actions have none except lining political pockets with $$$.

How can you be 100% sure that this is for political pockets with $$$? Who are the people of Iraq? No one. Iraq is Saddam Hussein. Can the Iraqi people remove Saddam Hussein? No. Anyone that tries would be dead.

I'm not against war. If the troops want ot just kill each other, fine. All I ask is that they don't take 600,000 innocent civilians with them.

I don't want to see 600,000 innocent civilians dead either. Stop assuming that this will happen here..

You know why America fights like that? Because America is arrogant. That is a loud and clear message that says, "The lives of American troops are more important and the lives of innocent civilians."

You are exagerating (sp). Life is precious. The U.S. does not go out to intentionally kill civilians. If that was the case, they would have just bomb the place and get it over with, right?

I understand that you are concerned for the civilians of Iraq, and so am I.

 

[DBOY]

Watch what enfolds during the next weeks or months. But don't read what CNN and the US media tell you. All they say is what the US government says they can.

Reas what newspapers from Israel, Egypt, India, Taiwan, and other countries say. Almost all those countries have a good English newspaper with an online edition.

 

[mtxblau]

Originally posted by DBOY@Mar 17, 2003 @ 09:53 AM

Reas what newspapers from Israel, Egypt, India, Taiwan, and other countries say. Almost all those countries have a good English newspaper with an online edition.

The Hindu and India Today are outstanding sources in english from India. In the US, the citizens give the media a lot of leeway. The media around here can get away with anything. Not so overseas.

 

[DBOY]

Originally posted by Lyzel@Mar 18, 2003 @ 05:14 AM

How can you be 100% sure that this is for political pockets with $$$? Who are the people of Iraq? No one. Iraq is Saddam Hussein. Can the Iraqi people remove Saddam Hussein? No. Anyone that tries would be dead.

1. Honeywell - rockets and chemical

2. Spektra Physics - chemical

3. Semetex - rockets

4. TI Coating - nuclear and chemical

5. UNISYS - rockets and chemical

6. Sperry Corp. - rockets and chemical

7. Tektronix - rockets and nuclear

8. Rockwell - chemical

9. Leybold Vacuum Systems - nuclear

10. Finnigan-MAT-U.S. - nuclear

11. Hewlett Packard - nuclear, rockets, and chemical

12. Dupont - nuclear

13. Eastman Kodak - rockets

14. American Type Culture Collection - biological

15. Alcolac International - chemical

16. Consarc - nuclear

17. Carl Zeis -US - chemical

18. Cerberus (LTD) - nuclear

19. Electronic Associates - rockets

20. International Computer Systems - ?

21. Bechtel - chemical

22. EZ Logic Data Systems,Inc. - rockets

23. Canberra Industries Inc. - nuclear

24. Axel Electronics Inc. - nuclear

There's your top 24 arms dealers to Iraq and what they sold. This does not include at least 6 or so government affiliated coroporations which also sold to Iraq.

It's not JUST about money. It's also about saving their asses from embarrasment. Notice the media has kindly always forgotten Iraq was given ll their weapons by the US government and US corporations WITH Regan's seal of approval to use them on the Kirds and other minorities. Oh yeah, and in that whole kill their neighbors war thing too.

It's ok to help people commit mass murder since we're not actually doing the murdering right? I mean we just give them all the tools and a free semester in How to be Like Hitler 101.

Maybe if you ask the corpses really nicely they'll forgive you.

 

[Curtis]

I'm eternally greatful that some members of this board can see my "logic". Lyzel, you personally attack me and my motives for no reason other than I take a more moderate approach to the situation than you do. If I was going to get personal about this, I might use a few choice words in a sentance associated with your name but I realise that that would be utterly pointless.

Am I scared of the coming conflict? Not exactly. End of the day, Iraq and its problems are a long way from my little corner of the world. The potential - near certainty- it creates for further, more shadowy forms of attack (i.e. "terrorism") is much more worrying. Even your Government's own intelligence agencies predict that attacking Iraq will increase the terrorist threat because by a great many people, the war perceived as unjustified. As soon as the war was officially announced the alert status in your country was raised to its second highest level. Why do you think that is?

My point, as it has been for a long time now, is that war is not justified at this time. I'm not a extreme leftist "hippie" who thinks that war never yields a result (although recent conflicts are forcing me to rethink that), but I feel strongly that this war is being waged for all the wrong reasons.

US does not have UN backing - the reverse of the situation with the Afganistan war because the US has convinced no one that there is a real reason to attack now. The legality of this conflict is questionable. Bush's motives and eventual goal(s) remain unclear. Why not withdraw troops, wait for the inspectors to be booted from the country again and then attack?

Too many fundamental questions remain unanswered. I cannot support this war. Acting without a clear reason will create an East vs West scenario that may last another decade or more. I am not a brainwashed, propaganda filled person. I have formed these opinions by watching the continuous debate on both sides of the argument. I have formed these opinions as a human being.

 

[schi0249]

If there was a broader international support for this, I might be more willing to support it. However, we are stepping into a war where it is "us" against the "world". Will Russia attack us for it? Hell no. However, the US could possibly receive UN sanctions for its actions. We can probably expect OPEC to boycot it. We have an economy in shambles. And this war could possibly make things worse. The only person who has anything to gain is GWB. He will be able to ride the war and his popularity through the next election.

 

[FAKK2]

"The only person who has anything to gain is GWB. He will be able to ride the war and his popularity through the next election."

God I hope so, the last thing the US needs is another sleezy POS president like Boob Cunton! Im surprised nobody shot him!

Well, dumbass Saddam H. has 32 hours left to get the fu@k outta there or face his worst nightmares!! Man o man I cant wait till we drop the 3,000 bombs on his ass! Wooo hooo!! The end of his evil reign is very near!

:cheers

 

[DBOY]

Originally posted by ExCyber@Mar 18, 2003 @ 03:45 AM

But without an exceptionally brilliant course of post-war action we may lose the greater battle.

Exactly. Can you really trust the country that intentionally destroyed the only other free epublic in the Americas in the early 1800s for the sole purpose of graining land?

Not sure what I'm talking about? Look at what the second half of the Louisiana Purchase was. We didn't really get all the land that cheap. That's the popular part the textbooks tell. The other half of the deal was that we arranged false peace meetings between the president of free Hati to the French so they could be tortured and killed for treason and the French could get back the island.

I firmly believe America is no less willing to do something like that today.

How can you trust such a government to provide benevolent post-war reconstruction that's in the interests of the people of Iraq and not just the people of the US.

 

[Falstaf]

Possibly GWB might gain another four years, but I'm not so sure. Republican candidates have a history of foreign policy specialization, Democrats have a recent history of domestic excellence. Not that while many were (questionably, hipocritically?) horrified by Clinton's sexual faux pau's, the economy was never stronger than under his leadership. Conservative members here may disagree with me on this, it is just my observation.

This nation, while high on patriotism to the fanatical extreme at times, is driven by the wallet. We like our money. War can be a temporary fix to economical problems. But wars end and so do the stimulus they provide to Arms and Supply industries. What then? History shows inflation and economic depression and a rise in unemployment after a war. Most times to a lower level than before the war. War is never a good thing. The young soldier or civilian who's life is lost, might be the radical free thinker who finds the answer to a devastating disease or other affliction. Is has been said the the gene pool loss and intellictual loss resultant from WWII was possibly the greatest casualty of that war. What will this war bring?

 

[mtxblau]

Originally posted by falstaff@Mar 17, 2003 @ 08:47 PM

Possibly GWB might gain another four years, but I'm not so sure. Republican candidates have a history of foreign policy specialization, Democrats have a recent history of domestic excellence. Not that while many were (questionably, hipocritically?) horrified by Clinton's sexual faux pau's, the economy was never stronger than under his leadership. Conservative members here may disagree with me on this, it is just my observation.

This nation, while high on patriotism to the fanatical extreme at times, is driven by the wallet. We like our money. War can be a temporary fix to economical problems. But wars end and so do the stimulus they provide to Arms and Supply industries. What then? History shows inflation and economic depression and a rise in unemployment after a war. Most times to a lower level than before the war. War is never a good thing. The young soldier or civilian who's life is lost, might be the radical free thinker who finds the answer to a devastating disease or other affliction. Is has been said the the gene pool loss and intellictual loss resultant from WWII was possibly the greatest casualty of that war. What will this war bring?

Wow, a response to FAKK2 inciting comments. As of late it looked like the general consensus was to simply ignore him.

In any event...

In a completely unbiased observant manner (or as much as possible), it appears that this is 1991 all over again - the economy is again in the midst of recession, and the focus is completely on Iraq. This certainly isn't going to help Bush win the election upcoming, as he hasn't done or really said anything about the economy except tax cuts - and I feel like it's a buzz term that's wearing thin with the masses in general. If Bush does raise taxes (as any sane person would do, to fund this war... the deficits we'll be in is going to stick around for a really long time as is), the Democrats have that lovely quote from the first tax cuts (and I'll just paraphrase) - "Over my dead body will I raise taxes". Mr. Bush could do himself a world of good if he had a clear plan for the economy... and so far he doesn't.

Another issue is that since the total focus is on Iraq, the constant defeats of Bush's judicial nominees can't really be made an issue, because they've been out of the news for quite a while now. With the exception of the E. Smart case, I thought the news coverage is 24/7 Iraq-Attack.

Essentially this war has to be very quick, very decisive and bring in lots of cash. I wonder how the U.S. is going to react to the recent statement by France - Iraq owes France money in the billions, and would be a fairly large slice out of the US profits.

And finally, it's pretty funny that most of the complaints of Clinton is that he had 'sexual relations' on the side, which by and large had nothing to do with how well he functioned as president. And wallet wise, you have to be thinking that times were a little bit easier under the Clinton regime...

EDIT - As an addition to this post, which I suppose complements Curtis' post (from the NY Times):

"...The television showed Mr. Hussein, in military uniform, conducting a meeting of the Revolution Command Council - Iraq's highest executive body - and the heads of the governing Baath Party.

``The meeting stressed that Iraq and all its sons were fully ready to confront the invading aggressors and repel them,'' the television said.

Opposition to the ultimatum also came from France, Germany, Russia, China and Belgium, as well as the Arab League and Syria."

Hmm.

 

[tsumake]

MTX, it's good to hear from you. I appreciate your objective stance on the issue. I have been too emotional over this issue myself, and I personally apologize on this board.

 

[mtxblau]

Originally posted by tsumake@Mar 17, 2003 @ 10:09 PM

MTX, it's good to hear from you. I appreciate your objective stance on the issue. I have been too emotional over this issue myself, and I personally apologize on this board.

Oye, my stance on this war is far from objective. I've already said enough to write a short book on the subject. But at some point you give up trying to get your point across. Most people are settled in their beliefs. But those two things (the judicial nominations and economy) are things that I thought Bush could ride to an easy reelection. Now, not so much.

There's a lot of fanaticism on both sides of the issue in the US, and I think Mr. Bush is caught up in it. I suppose at this point, having delivered the ultimatum, it's a Kaiser Wilhem type situation - he really can't do anything about the economy because that'd show fear or lack of drive... it's a sad situation, and if it doesn't turn out as he hopes, this could be very messy for not just the next election but the next couple of elections, for republicans. All that democrats would have to do is refocus on domestic policy and use the ad campaign that was so successful for GB Sr., after Reagan's two term presidency. Getting the hispanic vote (historically difficult for democrats) would be insanely easy - Pres. Fox has been alienated once already.

Mr. Hussein has rejected the ultimatum - so... are we officially at war now?

 

[aaron]

i was born in 1984. pretty coincidental, eh? i feel as if through this whole ordeal i'm being born again and again and again.

 

[Tony Skyrunner]

Originally posted by DBOY@Mar 18, 2003 @ 04:21 AM

I hope it's tomorrow.

What to do in an emergency

 

[schi0249]

Dear god that is some of the funniest stuff i've seen. Did you do these? If so, pull the "s" from ...stations wagoon.

 

[Lyzel]

Originally posted by Curtis@ Mar 18, 2003 @ 10:22 AM

I'm eternally greatful that some members of this board can see my "logic". Lyzel, you personally attack me and my motives for no reason other than I take a more moderate approach to the situation than you do. If I was going to get personal about this, I might use a few choice words in a sentance associated with your name but I realise that that would be utterly pointless.

I'm sorry, but where did I personally insulted or called you names?? Did you really take "You act like a scared boy" as a personal attack?? What that really meant is that you would rather hide like a pussy rather than face the music.

(Ok, you will probably take that wording just as another insult, but to make it clear. It's not an insult, ok??)

Originally posted by Curtis@ Mar 18, 2003 @ 10:22 AM

Am I scared of the coming conflict? Not exactly. End of the day, Iraq and its problems are a long way from my little corner of the world. The potential - near certainty- it creates for further, more shadowy forms of attack (i.e. "terrorism") is much more worrying.

Sorry, but that statement sound like a pussy to me. You're basically saying that we should always live in fear because OH MY they might attack us. We don't want to upset them, we are sooooo scared. (sarcasm intended for those that failed to see it.) They will attack. If you let them get stronger, they will hit us much worse than now. Atleast we can prevent it now, than later. Didn't you know that these fanatics want to destroy every nation that's not Islam??

Originally posted by Curtis+ Mar 18, 2003 @ 10:22 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Curtis @ Mar 18, 2003 @ 10:22 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'> Even your Government's own intelligence agencies predict that attacking Iraq will increase the terrorist threat because by a great many people, the war perceived as unjustified. As soon as the war was officially announced the alert status in your country was raised to its second highest level. Why do you think that is?[/b]

This happens anytime there is war on any country. Just like France, Russia, Germany, etc alerted it's citizens to leave the country or be vigilant in your surrounding. What's the big deal?

Originally posted by Curtis@ Mar 18, 2003 @ 10:22 AM

US does not have UN backing - the reverse of the situation with the Afganistan war because the US has convinced no one that there is a real reason to attack now. The legality of this conflict is questionable. Bush's motives and eventual goal(s) remain unclear. Why not withdraw troops, wait for the inspectors to be booted from the country again and then attack?

Iraq has had 12 years to disarm. Enough is enough. Diplomacy has been exhausted. The United States does not need the backing of the UN Security Council when it's security is at stake. If the Security Council does not want to enforce Resolution 1441, then they should be irrelevant. Oh, do you know why France threatens to veto any resolution on Iraq?? Because they, just like Russia have interest/special relations with Iraq.

<!--QuoteBegin-Curtis@ Mar 18, 2003 @ 10:22 AM

Too many fundamental questions remain unanswered. I cannot support this war. Acting without a clear reason will create an East vs West scenario that may last another decade or more. I am not a brainwashed, propaganda filled person. I have formed these opinions by watching the continuous debate on both sides of the argument. I have formed these opinions as a human being.

[/quote]

Your opinion is noted, but please don't assume that I get my information from western media such as CNN, or from propaganda sources, etc. I fault my government when I believe it is acting improperly, I don't believe it is in this regard. Ok??