Of course war is never a good thing, but it's a necessary thing. You can preach Ghandi all you want, but tell me what good Ghandi's principles are doing the people of Iraq. I doubt that any protest, peaceful or not, would go unanswered by violence with Sadaam's regime in power. Ghandi may have had a few good ideas, but he just wasn't all that.
War in iraq
- Thread starter exodus
- Start date
MeanMrMustard
New Member
I was referring to World War 1, which was fought for very foolish and pointless reasons in the first place. The reason Hitler was able to take over was because of Germany's loss in the first war and the forced reparations. I love it how you can just choose certain parts of history and ignore the rest. I think this is much more like Vietnam than World War 2, a country that even most conservatives admit today that it was a mistake to ever invade.[b said:
In order to justify war the burden of proof is on the hawks to show there is a threat. Otherwise we could just attack any country we felt like, I mean theres no proof that India isn't a threat, lets bomb them next. They've already got nukes in fact.[b said:
Ultima Avatar
New Member
OKay. I'll pick Israel in that case, and any country that's ever tried to invade it as of late. They've been screwed over.
But let's look at Babylon. Because Israel was straying from God, Babylon waltzed in and either exiled or enslaved them. Later on, when the Medes came in, the same thing happened. For a long time this went on, until finally the Romans came in this time and took over. Then the Roman hand was broken and Israel eventually reclaimed its lands.
You see you don't mess with ISrael or you'll find yourself in a pot of trouble.
Also let's look at WWII...what was up with Hitler? THe guy went psycho. Eugenics and all that. Idiot. You won't attain that. You can't attain it. And then mass execution of about oh I'll just say six million Polish Jews? HIs countrymen. The dude was freaking Polish! What's up with wasting his buddies? BEcause JEws believed in God and who knows what Germans do in their spare time? Because he hated the fact that these people said that God was with them? What for? THe Jews never uprised. They walked to the slaughter with little resistance.
It's said, but it happened. Good riddance to Hitler.
And Saddam! It's been said by eyewitnesses in that Kurdish village of 88 that IRAQI warplanes dropped some bombs which gave off two different colored smokes, which turns out later to be found out in 92 that it was mustard and nerve gas! Saddam slaughtered some people for no obvious reason. Then he just waltzes in and lists members of a conspiracy to take out the government. How do we know there was ever one? WE don't. He walked in, he stated what he pleased, and executed quite a few of those mentioned, and only those he felt were a threat to his throne.
As Yoda would say, "Grave danger Saddam is."
But let's look at Babylon. Because Israel was straying from God, Babylon waltzed in and either exiled or enslaved them. Later on, when the Medes came in, the same thing happened. For a long time this went on, until finally the Romans came in this time and took over. Then the Roman hand was broken and Israel eventually reclaimed its lands.
You see you don't mess with ISrael or you'll find yourself in a pot of trouble.
Also let's look at WWII...what was up with Hitler? THe guy went psycho. Eugenics and all that. Idiot. You won't attain that. You can't attain it. And then mass execution of about oh I'll just say six million Polish Jews? HIs countrymen. The dude was freaking Polish! What's up with wasting his buddies? BEcause JEws believed in God and who knows what Germans do in their spare time? Because he hated the fact that these people said that God was with them? What for? THe Jews never uprised. They walked to the slaughter with little resistance.
It's said, but it happened. Good riddance to Hitler.
And Saddam! It's been said by eyewitnesses in that Kurdish village of 88 that IRAQI warplanes dropped some bombs which gave off two different colored smokes, which turns out later to be found out in 92 that it was mustard and nerve gas! Saddam slaughtered some people for no obvious reason. Then he just waltzes in and lists members of a conspiracy to take out the government. How do we know there was ever one? WE don't. He walked in, he stated what he pleased, and executed quite a few of those mentioned, and only those he felt were a threat to his throne.
As Yoda would say, "Grave danger Saddam is."
Ultima Avatar
New Member
America's screwed up too. The military actually admitted to testing biological warfare potentiality on citizens, without telling them, in case the Soviets had attacked with bio weaponry.
But to date, America's government hasn't personally rounded up anyone who's rebelled against them and gassed them to death. They just imprisoned them, tear gassed them, or ran off.
But to date, America's government hasn't personally rounded up anyone who's rebelled against them and gassed them to death. They just imprisoned them, tear gassed them, or ran off.
T
Tom Kazansky
Guest
[b said:
It didn't sound like you were referring to World War 1, which actually had six underlying causes. And what part of history am I ignoring? I was the one who told you that Hitler's rise to power had to do with promises to the German people. Those promises were made because of the Versailles conditions.
[b said:
I think Saddam using chemical weapons on innocent civilians is constitutes a threat. I think tying a person to a post, cutting out his tounge, and leaving him to bleed to death because he spoke out against Saddam constitutes a threat. I think that throwing people into plastic shreaders constitutes a threat. I think ignoring UN and Ceasefire orders despite the threat of war constitutes a threat. I think firing on American and British aircraft enforcing the no fly zone before the relatively recent war talks even began constitutes a threat. I think that attempting to assassinate the American President constitutes a threat. And you know something? Bill Clinton's administration thought Saddam was a threat too!
I have been on the fence for a while, but I'm sick of all of the flawed logic and slogans that a lot of these war protesters are reading off of cereal boxes and clinging to them as if they were law. Here is something to think about. Why is it that not a single protester mentions any of the above statements? This is why I have such a problem with what they are saying. I havn't seen massive rallies of people protesting the disgusting way that dictators treat their citzens. Before the war, I never ONCE saw massive rallies of people demaning that Saddam comply with the UN! I never ONCE saw people protesting Saddam slaughtering political "dissidents". He could have stopped this war! People should have demanded he left his country when Bush told him he had two days, because THAT would have prevented war. This war is not the US's fault. Saddam could have prevented it. So why is it that these protesters are burning American flags?
I don't like war. Anyone who says they do is either a fool, or a liar. I don't think Iraq is a military threat to the US, so I don't buy that when President Bush says that. But you have to ask yourself. Is Al Queda a MILITARY threat? Militarily, no. Al Queda wouldn't stand a chance against Americas army under any conditions. However, you don't need a military if you've got guys who are willing to kill themselves in order to kill 100 others.
You should listen to that MP3 I posted up in another thread, it's really interesting. See if you can answer that guy's question.
Now. I have problems too with this war, but I want to make sure that people know what they're talking about before they sound off. The Bush Administration was way to aggressive in early talks, and people knew their minds were made up before they even talked to the UN. Bin Laden and other terrorist groups are definitely going to use this as recruiting material, which will put the West in a sticky situation down the road. People of the Middle East may get a more negative impression of the US and therefore the West, which may also cause us problems. And, most importantly, a lot of good men and women are going to die because of these actions. A lot of families are going to lose treasured members because of the dangers of combat. I listen when protesters are saying FACTS like these, but I don't listen to them when they ignore basic facts about the situation and create fairy tails like "this war is for oil" in order to get people to buy what they sell.
People, we should rally behind the troops! The bombs are falling now, there is no turning back. Blocking traffic trying to prove your point at this point will accomplish little more than making a lot of people late for work. No matter where you stand on this issue (or sit, if you're on the fence like me), the troops need your support to get the job done!
M
Mr_Eon
Guest
Tom, I agree with you completely.
I don't like some of the earlier rhetoric. I never REALLY thought that a negotiated settlement would happen. I think Bush's administration has behaved in an insulting and demeaning way towards the UN and certain member states.
But this war is necessary. It is legal. It is just.
Eon
I don't like some of the earlier rhetoric. I never REALLY thought that a negotiated settlement would happen. I think Bush's administration has behaved in an insulting and demeaning way towards the UN and certain member states.
But this war is necessary. It is legal. It is just.
Eon
T
Tom Kazansky
Guest
Wow Eon, we're seeing eye to eye on something
.
I think what caused problems for the US is that right from the get go they were saying "we're going to war, and if you want to come or not is your choice, and we don't give a crap about what the UN thinks". I think that aggressive stance was met with equal but opposite aggression from France and Germany, which basically screwed the whole diplomatic process. People were saying "why didn't Bush try to win the UN over". Well, what good is trying to win the UN over when France says they're going to veto everything you do!
I think what caused problems for the US is that right from the get go they were saying "we're going to war, and if you want to come or not is your choice, and we don't give a crap about what the UN thinks". I think that aggressive stance was met with equal but opposite aggression from France and Germany, which basically screwed the whole diplomatic process. People were saying "why didn't Bush try to win the UN over". Well, what good is trying to win the UN over when France says they're going to veto everything you do!
M
Mr_Eon
Guest
Exactly, France was incredibly foolish to make the veto threat. Personally I've always felt that France and China were deadweight on the permanent members rosta anyway, as France was supported entirely by the UK and China was supported entirely by the US. Russia certainly called into question their right to sit at the table on a number of occaisions.
However, the thing that has to be taken into account is that by the time the French made their veto threat, the whole diplomatic process had been shown to be pointless anyway. Personally I feel very sorry for Colin Powell, a man for whom I have immense respect. Whilst he and Tony Blair were working hard to build a coalition on this issue, Bush and Rumsfeld were discrediting and undermining them constantly - setting up a situation where UN approval would have been shown up as mere rubberstamping of US policy.
France made the decision to preserve the UN's integrity at the cost of its potency.
Eon
However, the thing that has to be taken into account is that by the time the French made their veto threat, the whole diplomatic process had been shown to be pointless anyway. Personally I feel very sorry for Colin Powell, a man for whom I have immense respect. Whilst he and Tony Blair were working hard to build a coalition on this issue, Bush and Rumsfeld were discrediting and undermining them constantly - setting up a situation where UN approval would have been shown up as mere rubberstamping of US policy.
France made the decision to preserve the UN's integrity at the cost of its potency.
Eon
T
Tom Kazansky
Guest
France didn't support the UN's integrity. Not enforcing their Iraqi resolutions and the ceasefire doesn't reflect well on the organization. I think they should have shown their teeth to Saddam right away before this situation got out of hand, not 12 years after the first Gulf War.
M
Mr_Eon
Guest
Well, yeah, that's true of course.
G
Guest
Guest
I for one am against this war not because i hate war or i don't think there is ever a need for it but because the lack of information provited for the reason to go to war by our own gonvernment.
1.Bush said they have proof iraq is a theat and was involed with the 9/11 act and with bin laddin, but has not shown anybody this proof nor is he planning to
2.Before Bush was president he was an oil bissness man and now he says after we remove Sadam we will restructer there government for the better of the people in iraq but america will control the oil fields
3.If the people in Iraq are that unhappy why havnt they done any thing about it them selves? though out histry people have over throuwn there govenments if they were truly unhappy with it.
4.Bush keeps saying that iraq should not be allowed to have wepons of mass destruction and as he says this we still have ours. who are we to say that others cant have things we have?
5.The way were fighting this war is weeking are economy. no I'm not greedy selfrightous person but if all the people over there why should we do any thing for them? we send 1 plane full of bombs to drop and an other full of food while there is still hungry people in america.then after the war is over we still plan on sending food and to add to it we will send people to rebuild there cities bridges and roads at are expence.
6.every son want to make his father proud of him at the same time he wants to acomplish more than his father did.
I know a dew of you might say the oil has litle or nothing to do with it and we can always get oil from alaska hers some info on that thogh.
we already recieve oil from alaska about 10% of all oil americans use comes from there and the oil is expected to run out within 20 years. Yes its true there is more than 1 spot in alaska that has oil we know of 2 the one we are not drilling just happens to be in a protected wild life land and we are unable to tap its resorce by our own laws.it is expect that the 2nd place is smaller than the one we are drilling now and would only be able to drill for less than 20 years. the amount of all the oil in america isnt very much compared with the amount of oil in iraq. If middle eastern countries ever decided to stop selling there oil to america we would run out of oil in less than 5 years.So maybe before saying that the oil has nothing to do with this war take what i said in consideration.
1.Bush said they have proof iraq is a theat and was involed with the 9/11 act and with bin laddin, but has not shown anybody this proof nor is he planning to
2.Before Bush was president he was an oil bissness man and now he says after we remove Sadam we will restructer there government for the better of the people in iraq but america will control the oil fields
3.If the people in Iraq are that unhappy why havnt they done any thing about it them selves? though out histry people have over throuwn there govenments if they were truly unhappy with it.
4.Bush keeps saying that iraq should not be allowed to have wepons of mass destruction and as he says this we still have ours. who are we to say that others cant have things we have?
5.The way were fighting this war is weeking are economy. no I'm not greedy selfrightous person but if all the people over there why should we do any thing for them? we send 1 plane full of bombs to drop and an other full of food while there is still hungry people in america.then after the war is over we still plan on sending food and to add to it we will send people to rebuild there cities bridges and roads at are expence.
6.every son want to make his father proud of him at the same time he wants to acomplish more than his father did.
I know a dew of you might say the oil has litle or nothing to do with it and we can always get oil from alaska hers some info on that thogh.
we already recieve oil from alaska about 10% of all oil americans use comes from there and the oil is expected to run out within 20 years. Yes its true there is more than 1 spot in alaska that has oil we know of 2 the one we are not drilling just happens to be in a protected wild life land and we are unable to tap its resorce by our own laws.it is expect that the 2nd place is smaller than the one we are drilling now and would only be able to drill for less than 20 years. the amount of all the oil in america isnt very much compared with the amount of oil in iraq. If middle eastern countries ever decided to stop selling there oil to america we would run out of oil in less than 5 years.So maybe before saying that the oil has nothing to do with this war take what i said in consideration.
CCGR
Member
Iraq has ahad plenty of time to pass the inspections, they failed..here we come!
the oil will be given back to the people
the Iraqi people have been repressed and in fear through out Sadaams regime...many are happy about this war
yes we have weapons but we use them peacfully...have you noticed we respect civilian life?
the oil will be given back to the people
the Iraqi people have been repressed and in fear through out Sadaams regime...many are happy about this war
yes we have weapons but we use them peacfully...have you noticed we respect civilian life?
T
Tom Kazansky
Guest
[b said:
Ok, let's think about this for a second. I'm not personally sure that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11, but hang on a sec. There were people who were accusing President Bush of "knowing something" before the attacks. Now President Bush is saying, "look, I know something about Iraq", and those same people are ordering him not to do anything. As one guy said on Crossfire, "liberals don't want a smoking gun they want a smoking city".
[b said:
That's what people said in 1991, but they didn't take the oil when they had Iraq down and out now did they?
Answer me this. If this war is about oil, than does Britain and Kuwait fight with the Americans because they want oil as well? Doesn't Kuwait have enough oil as it is? Are the protesters making this argument because they know something, or are they making this argument because they're anti-American?
[b said:
Well, coming from a family that lived under a dictorship I will tell you the reason for this. First, my family's experience. My dad's family is from Ukraine/Poland, and my dad was born in Poland in 1943, so you know what was going on there at that point. You have to understand a few things about what a dictatorship is and what happens there. People living there are NOT shown ANYTHING outside of the scope of what the dictator wants them to see, and therefore they believe that what they have is what EVERYONE has. Second of all, people who are either too smart or voice their displeasure with the dictator are exterminated. My family was lucky because my grandmother's grandfather was from Austria, and they were able to escape the Russian secret police by going over to the German side of Poland. How close were the secret police from getting my grandfather (he was an intellectual)? The secret police arrived at their house HALF AN HOUR after they left! Had they waited any longer he would have been SHOT! Why? Well, dictators want people that can't see the big picture. Any threat to their leadership must be "taken care of".
What about Iraq? Are you referring to the same state that tortures political dissidents? One guy who spoke out against Saddam was caught, tied to a post, had his tounge cut out and he bled to death. Saddam Houssein has killed over two million people. If the war protesters had any experience with dictatorships themselves than they would be retracting that statement very quickley. Need more proof? Here's what happened recently in Cuba.
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,58159,00.html
Any questions?
[b said:
Because last time I checked America has never used chemical weapons to attack it's own civilians, Saddam has. Got any questions? I've got some pictures of the chemical weapons attack that killed 5000 Kurds. If you want to see them, I can provide the link but I warn you the pictures are extremely graphic and are very difficult to look at.
K
Kralgon
Guest
I'll admit I didn't read through the entire thread, but as I saw little anti-war opinion, I'll throw in my 2 cents on that. I'm as close to neutral as can be on the issue, although I lean a little more to the anti-war side.
I find it ridiculous that Iraq is considered a big enough threat that we should go to war with them yet others are ignored. Their ballistics program is way behind. They may be able to produce chemical or nuclear weapons, or be close to it, but their ballistics are so horrendous that at best they'll be able to reach western Europe. Isreal on the other hand, has a much better ballistics program, and not only that, but is developing new types of gene warfare biological weapons. Weapons for targetting specific genes are being developed in Isreal so they can establish dominance over all the other Arab states. Yet of course we don't care at all because we support Isreal as long as they support us.
So what? We're basically going to war with Iraq because Iraq doesn't like us. Thus they are a "threat." So are we going to go out and destroy every single "threat" we think exists? That is exactly the Cold War system that we just got out of, except now we are the only superpower. It's only a matter of time until everyone gets fed up with it (and as we have seen, some European powers are already fed up with it). We saw how the Soviet Union fared, right? Well they did the same type of thing we're doing in Poland, Hungary, and various other satellite states. I'm sure we remember what happened to the Soviet Union.
And how many times did we institute a "friendly" government during the same period that were not really much better governments because at least they'd fight the communists. The only real successes of rebuilding nations that we've had are Japan and Germany, but both of those cost a lot of money. Are we really willing to pay that much money, or are we going to put in another "friendly" government that we'll want to replace in another decade?
Anti-American sentiment is real, and there's good reason for it too. The Mexican War, Spanish-American War, the war for the Phillipines, the Panama insurrection, Vietnam War, Korean War, Bay of Pigs, and much much more... All of these were conflicts fought for American interests. Arguably, with the last three, we were "fighting for democracy," but in reality, the regimes we were supported were more or less dictatorial. I don't see what's democratic about that. Throughout history, we have flexed our power to serve our own national interests and to try to force the world to conform to our standards. The Monroe Doctrine and the Roosevelt Corrollary epitomizes this American attitude that we must act as a "big brother" to the world, meaning "make everyone like us." Of course that's going to cause resentment in the world. Just because we're the world power does not give us the right to go crush anyone that opposes us or coerce everyone to bow to our will. This is a very dangerous precedent that we're setting now that is not a good sign for the future.
Yes, I agree Sadam is dangerous. Yes, I believe something should be done about him, but no, I don't really like the approach that we're taking to it.
I find it ridiculous that Iraq is considered a big enough threat that we should go to war with them yet others are ignored. Their ballistics program is way behind. They may be able to produce chemical or nuclear weapons, or be close to it, but their ballistics are so horrendous that at best they'll be able to reach western Europe. Isreal on the other hand, has a much better ballistics program, and not only that, but is developing new types of gene warfare biological weapons. Weapons for targetting specific genes are being developed in Isreal so they can establish dominance over all the other Arab states. Yet of course we don't care at all because we support Isreal as long as they support us.
So what? We're basically going to war with Iraq because Iraq doesn't like us. Thus they are a "threat." So are we going to go out and destroy every single "threat" we think exists? That is exactly the Cold War system that we just got out of, except now we are the only superpower. It's only a matter of time until everyone gets fed up with it (and as we have seen, some European powers are already fed up with it). We saw how the Soviet Union fared, right? Well they did the same type of thing we're doing in Poland, Hungary, and various other satellite states. I'm sure we remember what happened to the Soviet Union.
And how many times did we institute a "friendly" government during the same period that were not really much better governments because at least they'd fight the communists. The only real successes of rebuilding nations that we've had are Japan and Germany, but both of those cost a lot of money. Are we really willing to pay that much money, or are we going to put in another "friendly" government that we'll want to replace in another decade?
Anti-American sentiment is real, and there's good reason for it too. The Mexican War, Spanish-American War, the war for the Phillipines, the Panama insurrection, Vietnam War, Korean War, Bay of Pigs, and much much more... All of these were conflicts fought for American interests. Arguably, with the last three, we were "fighting for democracy," but in reality, the regimes we were supported were more or less dictatorial. I don't see what's democratic about that. Throughout history, we have flexed our power to serve our own national interests and to try to force the world to conform to our standards. The Monroe Doctrine and the Roosevelt Corrollary epitomizes this American attitude that we must act as a "big brother" to the world, meaning "make everyone like us." Of course that's going to cause resentment in the world. Just because we're the world power does not give us the right to go crush anyone that opposes us or coerce everyone to bow to our will. This is a very dangerous precedent that we're setting now that is not a good sign for the future.
Yes, I agree Sadam is dangerous. Yes, I believe something should be done about him, but no, I don't really like the approach that we're taking to it.
K
Kralgon
Guest
Other things the US has done that's similar to Saddam:
He's testing out his weapons' capabilities on his own civilians. Um... we put thousands of soldiers behind light sand bunkers and trenches and such and blew up nuclear bombs on them to see if they could survive and what the effects on them would be. I don't really see much of a difference there. How about McCarthy and taking out "subversives"? Seems quite a bit like Saddam imprisoning political enemies. Japanese internment camps? Similar deal.
I mean, there's some pretty big ethnocentricity here. When we do these things, it's ok. When it helps us, it's OK. But when they threaten us, it's not OK. There's this double-standard going on here, and France and Germany, they're trying to call us on it. It's pretty obvious that from Saddam's intentions, war is necessary to settle this, but with the attitude of the US and without UN approval, I have to lean a little more to the anti-war side in this situation.
He's testing out his weapons' capabilities on his own civilians. Um... we put thousands of soldiers behind light sand bunkers and trenches and such and blew up nuclear bombs on them to see if they could survive and what the effects on them would be. I don't really see much of a difference there. How about McCarthy and taking out "subversives"? Seems quite a bit like Saddam imprisoning political enemies. Japanese internment camps? Similar deal.
I mean, there's some pretty big ethnocentricity here. When we do these things, it's ok. When it helps us, it's OK. But when they threaten us, it's not OK. There's this double-standard going on here, and France and Germany, they're trying to call us on it. It's pretty obvious that from Saddam's intentions, war is necessary to settle this, but with the attitude of the US and without UN approval, I have to lean a little more to the anti-war side in this situation.
M
Mr_Eon
Guest
Actually, there's a big difference between testing nuclear weapons on troops in the fifties and sixties when we REALLY didn't know what the effects were, and in using Chemical Weapons to put down an uprising.
There's a difference between having Weapons of Mass Destruction for almost sixty years and using them to maintain a balance of power that prevented a war that would have made WWII look like a border skirmish and utilising weapons of mass destruction on a wide scale as part of a war.
There's a difference between having Weapons of Mass Destruction for almost sixty years and using them to maintain a balance of power that prevented a war that would have made WWII look like a border skirmish and utilising weapons of mass destruction on a wide scale as part of a war.
K
Kralgon
Guest
I understand what you're saying, but I personally cannot see how we could not have known what the effects were after seeing hundreds of thousands die in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. That and whatever other fatalities we may have had from radiation sickness throughout the development and testing of the atom bomb (from observers, not "let's drop a bomb on soldiers and see what happens"). Arguably, the chemical weapon usage could have been to see how effective it really would be. Instead of taking volunteers from his army, he took dissidents, and since he would have gotten rid of them anyway, he decided he might as well test his weapons on them instead of wasting precious man-power.
M
Mr_Eon
Guest
I maintain that the Army did not know the full scale of what they were doing during the tests you're talking about. Purposefully inflicting that sort of illness on your own men is the act of a maniac, not merely a ruthless man (which I've no doubt that Fifties general's were).
They wanted to know how soon after and how close to a strategic launch their troops could move up and secure terrain. They, I'm sure, believed that they were operating at safe distances - after all the Hiroshima victims were mostly at the epicentre.
Eon
They wanted to know how soon after and how close to a strategic launch their troops could move up and secure terrain. They, I'm sure, believed that they were operating at safe distances - after all the Hiroshima victims were mostly at the epicentre.
Eon