Why I think War with Iraq Is justifiable

[Nadius]

Originally posted by MTXBlau@Mar 21, 2003 @ 02:23 PM

If the US knows where they are, how come Bush didn't tell the UN so they could send the inspectors to destroy them?

I thought that's what Powell's big presentation was all about... Well I suppose it wasn't about that, as much as it was for a case for diplomatic support of war.

 

[mal]

Trukish Troops 'enter Iraq'

Now it really starts to get messy.

Lyzel, what exactly is it that makes me 'Mr. Hypocrite'?

 

[Lyzel]

Originally posted by MTXBlau+Mar 21, 2003 @ 04:23 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MTXBlau @ Mar 21, 2003 @ 04:23 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'>You know, what's strange is, more than half the world agree with the stance of not going to war. With the exception of France (who would veto anything), most can't really find a strong argument that would say we should attack Iraq.

[/b]

I could care less about what the rest of the world believes. What matters here is whether the American people believe that the United States should have gone to war or not. As of Thursday, 62% of American's believe that the United States should have gone to war, while 35% said the United Nation and the Weapon Inspectors should have been given more item.

<!--QuoteBegin-MTXBlau@Mar 21, 2003 @ 04:23 PM

I'm not sure if you read Mal's article, but probably the best insight was in regard to the weapons themselves [/quote]

I stopped taking Mal seriously after he presented a link for an article that was supposed to be about "What War IS", that had nothing to do with the argument.

Then presenting a bias "analysis" with the purpose of just bashing every word, sentence, and paragraph of Bush's speech.

Originally posted by MTXBlau+Mar 21, 2003 @ 04:23 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MTXBlau @ Mar 21, 2003 @ 04:23 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'>if the US knows where they are, how come Bush didn't tell the UN so they could send the inspectors to destroy them?[/b]

Well that may have to do with how the US gathers it's intelligence. I would assume they don't want to share that information because it might give away their techniques. As it is, the war just started a few days ago. You can't expect them to show the proof this quickly. Did you noticed that Iraq IS using weapons that were banned by the UN??

<!--QuoteBegin-MTXBlau@Mar 21, 2003 @ 04:23 PM

One could argue that you're the closeminded one

[/quote]

You can argue it all you want. But, I'm not the one that's forcing you, or anyone into believing that the U.S. is right into fighting Iraq. I could care less if you're against war. But I do have a problem with people that think it's better to hide than to fight. So, if you're against war then GOOD for you. Don't tell me that I'm wrong either.

 

[mal]

Originally posted by Lyzel@Mar 22, 2003 @ 03:22 PM

I stopped taking Mal seriously after he presented a link for an article that was supposed to be about "What War IS", that had nothing to do with the argument.

If you can't see the relavance, then I guess that's just you. *shrug*

It graphically shows the horrific side of war that you won't see very often on the TV. All I was trying to do was to 're-humanise' the war a little, especially after your off hand remaks concerning civilian casualties.

Then presenting a biased "analysis" with the purpose of just bashing every word, sentence, and paragraph of Bush's speech.

That analysis doesn't 'bash' the US President. It challenges a lot of the assertions of 'fact' that he made. If you want to discuss specific points that you disagree with I'm happy to do that.

I don't take it as gospel. I don't know enough about all of the details that it covers. I was just hoping to try and generate discussion concerning the actual facts of the conflict rather than the usual "No War!" vs "War is the answer" arguements. I guess it didn't work out that way.

I'd still like to know what makes me 'Mr. Hypocrite'.

 

[Falstaf]

I'm not positive he knows what the word means. Reactionist that he is, he doesn't appear to be thinking through his words very well.

Most of the arguements for war don't seem to take into consideration the tenious position the US has taken. They are basically denying the soveriegnty of another nation state, maening that they don't like the leader of a another nation, they have the right to change it. Same thing happened in Vietnam, cuba, Panama..ect. If the US really wants to liberate a country, why not China? It's government is not popular with most of it's populous. They were the main backing force behind the North Koreans in the Korean war and also delivered aid to Pol Pot and the kamir rouge in Vietnam and Cambodia. Is it because the US is like so many 'bullies' that only take on those percieved as weak and relatively defenseless? Is it because China is more than capable of fighting back and possibly winning(if there are ever winners in war) a war with the US? The real hipocrite, in this scenario, is the US. As has been pointed out, if any nation is dangerous, per weapons of mass destruction, it's the US, the ONLY nation to EVER use nuclear weapons in a conflict.

One other thing, when a superpower, such as the US, China and other nuclear powers are, enter into a military action, anywhere in the world, the other power go on hightened military alert. Meaning, the possibility of World War, is closer than ever. Even if those nations are not taking part in the action. Damn, this is a dangerous world in which we live.

 

[tsumake]

Here's some fuel for the fire

:

http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=200303...21-023627-5923r

http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=200303...21-023627-5923r

Interesting blog of an Iraqi named Raed, take his journals what you will:

http://dear_raed.blogspot.com/

Lyzel, do some research. It isn't hard to dig up news sources that support your viewpoint.

Here's something that's been chewing on my mind:

On "Real Time" with Bill Maher, Maher questioned the rationale of "liberating Iraq", asking why should be put people up to our "standard" of living? Good point, but then he and his commentators went on to talk about how the US should help in humanitarian efforts, help stem world hunger, fight AIDS in Africa, etc...

Huh??

Isn't that putting someone up to "our" false standard of living? Perhaps people have actually learned to live with less. Perhaps people have found other means towards happiness and self-satisfaction other than attaining wealth and living a clean, "sanitary" lifestyle, a lifestyle that was started because soap manufacturers needed to make money thus starting an aggressive ad campaign expounding the virtues the cleanliness. Perhaps both sides need to get off their high horses and leave people alone.

 

[Curtis]

Originally posted by Lyzel@Mar 22, 2003 @ 10:22 PM

But I do have a problem with people that think it's better to hide than to fight. So, if you're against war then GOOD for you. Don't tell me that I'm wrong either.

If that's not the most hypocritical statement I've ever seen, then I've never talked to a hypocrite. You haven't addressed why you aren't signing up to fight in this conflict, yet still saying how just and good it is. You are not fighting, are you therefore hiding?

"Don't tell me that I'm wrong either" - why not?

All I have been trying to do is to get you to be critical of what is happening. This war is not just about sending in the troops to remove Saddam and then everyone will live happily ever after. That will not happen. That is fact, pure and simple.

When the current battle ends there will be other factions who are not satisfied with the outcome. This invariably leads to further conflict. Especially when the basis for attack is very thin.

Can't you at least admit that you see this?

 

[gamefoo21]

meesa think bush a moron, who is nothing more than a puppet, hell now they think blair tried to stop him hold him to the course of the un but that just gave him time to set up. me thinks its funny that they were bombing shit in the no fly zone weeks b4 bush said screw it, we are at war. i mean everyone knew it was coming now bush has commited to a war which is illegal in global law... oh well no one has the balls to stand up and slam the states like they would a smaller/weaker country. oh well, just the opinion of canadian that would of stood behind going to war if the un said it was all good. now the states are going to plant chemical and biological agents while they keep the news out, so they can cover there asses. ah oh well here comes WW3 but oh well, a need for power started the first one, a psycopath started the second, and a moron starts the third. i mean look at the irony, oh well shit happens. the world is like a stack of dominoes no one can really stop it once it starts.

By the way it disgusts me to see my fellow Canadians dressing up in the stars and stripes and hosting up American flags. Oh well its there opinion we probably will never know who is rite.

Another thing most ppl will stand behind there soldiers because they have no choice in what they do, so any census after the war starts is going to be swayed by that fact.

 

[Lyzel]

Many americans live in Canada. Of course they are going to show their patriotism for their country.

It disgusts me that Canada are a bunch of cowards. Hiding behind an umbrella. America should stop doing business with them. Then they will realize how much they need the US.

 

[mal]

US forms own UN

 

[Curtis]

Originally posted by Lyzel@Apr 1, 2003 @ 08:25 PM

It disgusts me that Canada are a bunch of cowards. Hiding behind an umbrella.

Very easy to throw words like "coward" around, isn't it?

I suppose it would be pointless to point out to you that the bravery required to fire a million-dollar cruise missile at a city 700miles away is minimal. And when US and British troops fire on a carload of civilians, it's out of fear.

You call us "lefties" cowards because we don't agree that war is/was the only answer. You are wrong. We have considered the outcome of an invasion may well be worse than any peaceful solution.

 

[Lyzel]

If you still believe that this war is not worth it, then please double check again on what Iraq is _currently_ doing to it's people. Using civilians as human shield, fake surrendering, blending with civilians to attack, etc, etc. Civilians deserve better from the Iraqi government, but their government does not care about them. It just goes to show you the moral value of this war. Iraqis will soon be freed from this regime..

So please, go back and hide under your comfy rock.

 

[Curtis]

From a military point of view, hiding troops within the general population is a very smart thing to do. It has been demonstrated on a number of occasions that if the Iraqis present anything that looks like a military target it'll be blown off the face of the Earth. Do you think they are all just ignorant pigs who'll keep presenting the coallition air forces with nice big fat convoys to strike? Would America do that if the situation was reversed? I can't condone using civilians as shields, but if we remove all this bullshit "good vs evil" crap that the "good guys" are pushing, it is an excellent strategic decision.

Justify it as much as you want, but the coallition forces are invading a country. It is not a liberating force yet - nobody has been liberated. People have a tendancy to get pissed off when you destroy their towns to blow up a small tank. Even if they are told "it's for your own good". People will fight back using whatever means they have.

 

[Lyzel]

I can't believe you just said that. You're just arguing because you want to argue. I can throw anything at you, and you will find a "small" tiny piece in there where you can argue about. I mean, I know you won't admit anything good about this war, even if it is right in front of you. So, whatever.

 

[Curtis]

I'm arguing with you because your logic is flawed. The conflict will not end with the death of Saddam. Iraq will not be magicly transformed into a stable, peaceful environment when the current Iraqi Government is toppled. There will be endless decades of struggle and bloodshed as a direct result of this invasion. The next wave has already begun with suicide bombers attacking American forces.

My arguements are about the big picture. This war is about the here and the now.

Once the coallition forces have finished destroying the Iraqi military/government they will have to remain to defend the remainder from Iraq's hostile neighbours. This means a strong and sizeable force in Iraq for the long term. The Arab world, by and large, does not want this. We are already seeming violent anti-American protests in some other nations.

I don't see anything good in this war, no. Saddam may be the most evil man on the face of this planet (I doubt this), but destroying his country around him is not the way to solve the problems of Iraq. Installing an "American prefered government" will not promote democracy. There are too many other factions and factors for anyone to be able to believe this.

 

[CHAZumaru °_°]

I thought I would have to make a long post giving my advice (in case anyone here cares

#) but I actually found an interesting interview of Noam Chomsky saying exactly what I think with much clearer thoughts and intelligent sentences :

http://www.zmag.org/content/print_article....57&sectionID=15

FYI if you don't know who is Noam Chomsky (not exactly the dumbest guy on Earth, or so it seems) :

http://web.mit.edu/linguistics/www/chomsky.home.html

 

[Lyzel]

Originally posted by Curtis@Apr 1, 2003 @ 06:03 AM

I'm arguing with you because your logic is flawed. The conflict will not end with the death of Saddam. Iraq will not be magicly transformed into a stable, peaceful environment when the current Iraqi Government is toppled. There will be endless decades of struggle and bloodshed as a direct result of this invasion. The next wave has already begun with suicide bombers attacking American forces.

My arguements are about the big picture. This war is about the here and the now.

Once the coallition forces have finished destroying the Iraqi military/government they will have to remain to defend the remainder from Iraq's hostile neighbours. This means a strong and sizeable force in Iraq for the long term. The Arab world, by and large, does not want this. We are already seeming violent anti-American protests in some other nations.

I don't see anything good in this war, no. Saddam may be the most evil man on the face of this planet (I doubt this), but destroying his country around him is not the way to solve the problems of Iraq. Installing an "American prefered government" will not promote democracy. There are too many other factions and factors for anyone to be able to believe this.

Dude, I don't give a flying fuck what you think. So, geez.. cry me an Argentina. The fact is, the War already started. Not much that you, or anyone else can do about that. You're still going to dwell on the motive for it? I mean, the US will just retreat with white flags because Mr Curtis said so??? Geez.

Now, let just hope the war does not last long, and all objectives have been completed so the troops can return home. OK???? Geez

 

[CHAZumaru °_°]

Originally posted by Lyzel@Apr 2, 2003 @ 02:22 AM

Now, let just hope the war does not last long, and all objectives have been completed so the troops can return home. OK???? Geez

Objectives which are, obviously, to kill as many British as possible.

 

[Lyzel]

Originally posted by CHAZumaru °_°+Apr 2, 2003 @ 09:03 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(CHAZumaru °_° @ Apr 2, 2003 @ 09:03 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'> <!--QuoteBegin-Lyzel@Apr 2, 2003 @ 02:22 AM

Now, let just hope the war does not last long, and all objectives have been completed so the troops can return home. OK???? Geez

Objectives which are, obviously, to kill as many British as possible. [/b][/quote]

Huh?

 

[antime]

This sums up the discussion so far pretty well:

http://www.netfunny.com/rhf/jokes/03/Apr/peacenik.html