| |
Site Navigation
Main
News
Forums
Games
Games Database
Top 100
Release List
Support Files
Features
Reviews
Previews
Interviews
Editorials
Diaries
Misc
Download
Gallery
Music
Screenshots
Videos
Miscellaneous
Staff Members
Privacy Statement
|
|
|
|
| Did Bush make a case for war? |
| Yes |
|
38% |
[ 10 ] |
| No |
|
50% |
[ 13 ] |
| Will decide with evidence from Colin Powell |
|
11% |
[ 3 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 26 |
Gorath
Mostly Harmless
Joined: 03 Sep 2001
Posts: 6327
Location: NRW, Germany |
quote:
Originally posted by Val
Then what, pray tell, is your solution to the problem? And don't state something that's already been tried and has failed.
How about doing something new like ....
negotiations! There haven´t been direct negotiations between USA and Iraq for 12 years. The USA is in a strong position, the Iraq in a weak one. This whole situation could be solved without a war.
_________________
Webmaster GothicDot |
Fri Jan 31, 2003 5:07 am |
|
|
ballistic
Eager Tradesman
Joined: 13 Dec 2002
Posts: 44
|
I think you people are arguing it from the wrong end. Consider this.
The US government/military has budgets that dwarf the rest of the world combined. Its technologically untouchable (according to the Army's brochures, at least). It controls most of the world economic, cultural, military, legal and political institutions (by virtue of funding and other means). It has about 81% of the wolrd weapon trade (conventional). Europe will suck up to us as long as they can sell their stuff here with no tarrifs (I won't even mention Britain, our long time lap dog)
It has no 'counterweight'. It's got a free hand. The temptation to (ab)use it is very high. If only to solve the domestic problems of the Presidency. Only the American public can affect the course of this jaugernaut. But, it's probably too apathetic and sheep-like to do anything.
A lot of politcal commentary here (North Cal., US) has started throwing the term 'Realpolitik' around. (a German term from the Kaiser Willhelm times, I believe). Which really freaks me out. My gut feeling is that Iraq is just 'testing the waters'.
Basically, IMHO, it's even irrelevant whether Iraq is an actual threat, or not, wether it's got nukes, or not. The war had been approved of long time ago. For whatever reasons. Now, just some formalities are due. Sorry for being cynical (especially, since actual people are going to be dead  ) |
|
Fri Jan 31, 2003 5:16 am |
|
|
Gorath
Mostly Harmless
Joined: 03 Sep 2001
Posts: 6327
Location: NRW, Germany |
@Sauron: Old but still funny! 
quote:
Originally posted by Val
I find it insulting that you are implying we're going there to commit genocide. Did I ever say that innocents would never be hurt? No. In fact, I said that innocents will probably get hurt. That's a hard fact of war. What I did say was that we will take great pains to avoid civilian casualties. We certainly won't be trying to harm civilians.
Val, this statement is naive. There are no bombs which can distinguish between soldiers and civilists. And if there is a choice between killing 100 more civilists or endangering the own ground troops which are to walk in later the dicision from a military standpoint is simple. 
What the USA are about to do is bomb the Iraq to ruins, kill at least 500.000 civilists, then invade and kill everybody who is carrying a gun. Or do you really think the civilists will leave their cities? Where else should they go?
There can´t be any excuse for crashing a plane in the WTC. But there also cannot be any excuse for killing thousands of innocent people in an almost defenseless country.
Violence is no solution.
_________________
Webmaster GothicDot |
|
Fri Jan 31, 2003 5:22 am |
|
|
ballistic
Eager Tradesman
Joined: 13 Dec 2002
Posts: 44
|
quote:
Originally posted by Val
In fact, I said that innocents will probably get hurt.
In fact, innocents will get killed. Which is different from 'hurt'.
quote:
Originally posted by Val
What I did say was that we will take great pains to avoid civilian casualties. We certainly won't be trying to harm civilians.
And how exactly do you know that? Will you, personally be supervising troops conduct?
I can tell you that military doctrine hasn't changed that much. It is still considered better to kill a bunch of 'them' than one of 'us'. And, it makes sense too.
I'm not trying to be antagonistic, and I understand your point of view, but let's be realistic. |
|
Fri Jan 31, 2003 5:38 am |
|
|
xSamhainx
Paws of Doom
Joined: 11 Sep 2002
Posts: 2192
Location: San Diego |
http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/01/19/wirq19.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/01/19/ixnewstop.html/news/2003/01/19/wirq19.xml
Ammon, lol.='.'=
Bush Sr. didnt "fail to finish the job" in the Gulf War. You actually think we "couldnt finish the job"? It was arguably the quickest, most efficient, most decisive war in US history. The Iraqi soldiers were surrendering en masse to tv crews, for petes sake, they got their clocks cleaned in a matter of days! We were never supposed to go into Baghdad, the mission was to get Saddams forces out of Kuwait, thats it. They got completely wiped out by bombers,tank columns,choppers, and ground troops, the only casualties we had were from friendly fire that i can remember. Then, as they retreated with their tails between their legs, we bombed the hell out of them until the world begged us to stop. Remember the "Highway of Death"? Miles of his soldiers and armaments blown to kingdom come, until finally when he thought we might just make an extra trip to Baghdad to pay a personal housecall to Saddam himself, he surrendered. In the terms of that surrender, he agreed to fully disarm and leave his neighbors alone. He also agreed to let the UN come and make sure he was abiding by the terms of the agreement via inspections, which he cast off eventually. You guys are too funny sometimes ='.'=
And Gorath, you have no idea what the US Military war plans are, none of you do. Unless you purrsonally get a call from the Pentagon telling you just what they are planning on doing, you are gettin all preachy about something you know nothing about. Violence is sometimes the only answer. Was he thinking "Peace" when he was gassing the Kurds? Was violence the answer back in '91 when he invaded Kuwait and was killing its civilians? Think Saddam wanted "Peace" then? Think he wanted "Peace" when he set all the oilfields on fire on his way out? What to do then, ask him to politely stop? Send him a bouquet from Susan Sarandon? Send him some "Good Vibes"? Violence is what solved that, and it sure solved the Tyrant that sprung up in your neck of the woods 60 years ago that had to be put down, or have you forgot all about that conveniently? Should we just sit around and wait until it gets that bad? Whatever happened to "Never Again"? Have you people just completely forgotten all of history's lessons or what? He's had his chance to play by the rules for 12 years, in fact he's getting *another* one as we speak, chance #3,684. He'll get a couple more, than its curtains, lest we have 2 North Koreas, which is the result of those brilliant "negotiations" with those wonderful egalitarians in the prior administration. When will ya'll learn, treaties mean nothing to tyrants.
This is my last post on this thread, I promised that I wouldnt start with the arguing again here, thats not what I come to RPGdot for. Im not even looking at this topic again ='.'= *drops thread and bolts for the hills*
*whistles innocently and inserts link into post quickly, then bounds away*
http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/01/19/wirq19.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/01/19/ixnewstop.html/news/2003/01/19/wirq19.xml
_________________
“Then away out in the woods I heard that kind of a sound that a ghost makes when it wants to tell about something that's on its mind and can't make itself understood, and so can't rest easy in its grave, and has to go about that way every night grieving.”-Mark Twain
Last edited by xSamhainx on Sat Feb 01, 2003 9:39 am; edited 2 times in total |
|
Fri Jan 31, 2003 5:39 am |
|
|
Lintra
Elf Friend
Joined: 23 Apr 2002
Posts: 9448
Location: Bermuda, the triangle place with SANDY BEACHES |
@Val - Come on. That was very clever. When I got that e-mail I spewed coffee all over. I may not agree with the politics, but it IS funny.
Edit - Just replace Bush with Clinton (he had the same kind of band) for a good guffaw.
_________________
=Member of The Nonflamers' Guild=
=Just plain clueless=
Last edited by Lintra on Fri Jan 31, 2003 2:40 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Fri Jan 31, 2003 1:01 pm |
|
|
TheDarkside
Eager Tradesman
Joined: 23 Dec 2002
Posts: 46
|
quote:
Originally posted by Suicidal Cockroach
Yes very. I believe the sum total of lives lost in this war (civilian and military alike) will be dwarfed by the number of Iraqi citizens saved.
dwarfed by the amount of civilians saved??? Please elaborate on this... before we started dropping bombs on Iraq's water treatment plants, hospitals, schools and other important civilian infrastructure Iraq had the best standard of living in the region. And let's not forget the uranium waste we littered their country with! Do you realize how atrocious that is? That's a war crime if I ever heard one.
quote:
Originally posted by Suicidal Cockroach
To everyone saying that there is no evidence that Saddam is still killing his own people, and especially to TheDarkside for that last comment. Why don’t you do your research? I’ll give you a great place to start, try looking for information about the UN’s oil-for-food program, and what Saddam does with that food while he claims that the US is starving his people due to the UN sanctions.
Yeah what about the sanctions? Do an internet search on "sanctions against iraq medical supplies" and let me know how your reading goes.
some other interesting places you can learn truth is from Scott Ritter- he was a chief weapons inspector for the UN and a member of the team for many years. See what he says about Iraq- he's been there.
Also read about Sean Penn who visited Iraq- listen to some of his views.
Otherwise, if you just stick to the views of Donal Rumsfeld and Colin Powell who make drastic accusations with no evidence to back them up, then there is no point in arguing with you- All the truth in the world cannot cleanse a biased mind.[/b][/i] |
|
Fri Jan 31, 2003 1:40 pm |
|
|
Remus
Overgrown Cat
Joined: 03 Jul 2002
Posts: 1657
Location: Fish bowl |
quote:
Originally posted by Lintra
...the west is seen very poorly by the average muslim citizen. Why? If not for religious reasons then why? Explain Indonesia to me. The part of the country that sees the west as evil is the muslim half. Were they singled out in Indonesia for persecution by the west? Are they more exploited than the rest of the country? Why is only the muslim half of the country unhappy enough to blow up discos, take hostages etc.
This topic is fun.
@Lintra
No Lintra, Muslim are not people who tend to be violent. Remember that there is certain groups with their own interpretation of Qur'an or with political agendas and did indeed commit violence in the name of Islam. But Islam didn't teach it believer to be violent or commit all kind of violences. Christianity also never advocating violent or war, but you all knew that European Christians did indeed use religion to wage war upon Islamic countries during 11th to 13th centuries. So it is not about religion or Islam or Muslim. It's human nature or weakness that exist among ourselves, either as Muslim, Christian or even an atheist.
Futhermore, not all Muslim are anti-west, especially among the more educated or upper middle class. There is different between fundamentalist Muslim, moderate Muslim, and a more liberal Muslim (highly urbanized groups like businessmen, professionals, etc, although this later group is smaller in number).
After 9/11 incident, many moderate Muslim actually sympathetic with US and angry at the acts of Fundamentalist or Islamic militant groups that use the name of ISLAM or ALLAH to justify violent. But when US decided to use violent to invade Afghanistan, and then the corpses of innocent civilian and children started to pile up - most moderate Muslim also started to became very critical toward US; so the end result is more and more Muslim became anti-US. If US does invade Iraq, i bet even more moderate Muslim would become militant Muslim or at least anti-US. Why not?, it's all about "an eye for an eye," so why not someone slip into US with chemical weapons so that the corpse of innocent US civilian and children also start to pile up?.
I do think Saddam should be remove, but not through another war if it's avoidable. |
|
Fri Jan 31, 2003 3:58 pm |
|
|
Jung
Most Exalted Highlord
Joined: 19 Jun 2002
Posts: 411
Location: Texas |
quote:
Originally posted by Ammon777
quote:
Originally posted by Jung
quote:
Originally posted by Ammon777
EVERYONE IS BUILDING NUKES. gimee a break...
Indeed, and the world is trying to stop it. If you want every loose cannon country with nukes, then you are helping with your indifference. Sure, US has nukes, and it was a big mistake to build them in the first place but it is not so easy to undo. Countries like Iraq would possibly give them to terrorists. This is not a problem to you? Just let them do it 'cause everybody is too?
Jeez, I've never heard so many lame excuses.
Do you usually take one sentence, taken out of context, and comment on it, while ignoring entirely the rest of the message?
I'm not indifferent about nuclear weapons, i am rabid. What gave you the idea of that? Have you ignored everything i have been saying? I hate the fact that ANYONE has nukes. Nobody should have nukes. I was just stating that it seemed a tad hypocritical or ironic for the USA to be pissed at everyone else that has nukes, while we have the biggest collection of nukes in the entire world! That was what i was saying. I was not belittling my country or anyone. Why did you have to say i have lame excuses?
Now i understand that if Iraq has got WoMDs, then they should be taken away. What i have been saying, for the past 3 posts, is essentially that War is Not a Good Thing, and that we should try very very hard to avoid it, and i have also been implying that IF SADDAM HAS GOT NUKES, he should be removed from his seat of power; But if Saddam DOESNT have nukes, and if the president and his cabinet is only looking for a politically-motivated EXCUSE TO START A WAR, i.e. if they dont give sufficient evidence to convince me that i should TRUST THEM, then that is what is WRONG with this whole situation. Do you get it now? Sheesh.
I brought up the specter of Saddam having or attempting to have nuclear weapons and you seemed to basically say that everybody is doing it, so what? That is a lame excuse, akin to what you would tell you mother if she caught you smoking. Of course, I wasn't talking entirely about your excuse, but also about others like, there are many other dictators so we shouldn't do anything about Saddam. The rest of your post was about how politicians might be corrupt or try and influence us, so I didn't see anything about how you would like to disarm Iraq.
The word hypocrisy doesn't really have any meaning in these sorts of situations. Not that it isn't true, but it just does nothing to point that out. Sure we have nukes, but that doen't mean we shouldn't try and stop others from having nukes just to avoid the label of hypocrite.
As far as evidence goes, I personally don't think we need more. It is my understanding that we know Iraq has chemical weapons, and we know they haven't declared them to inspectors as required by UN resolutions. He kicked them out of the country for four years which should have been a trigger for something to happen, but nothing did. Do you think he was spending those years destroying his stockpiles of weapons? This situation already has a lot of history so I don't know why many people are ignoring that and demanding proof for things that are already known. Saddam doesn't deserve the benefit of the doubt anymore.
_________________
"You two are a regular ol' Three Musketeers." |
|
Fri Jan 31, 2003 4:55 pm |
|
|
Roach
SBR Belfry Bat
Joined: 20 Jan 2002
Posts: 3233
|
quote:
Originally posted by TheDarkside
then there is no point in arguing with you- All the truth in the world cannot cleanse a biased mind.
I was thinking the very same thing of you right before I read this line. (That is if you replace the word biased with uncaring)
quote:
Originally posted by TheDarkside
some other interesting places you can learn truth is from Scott Ritter- he was a chief weapons inspector for the UN and a member of the team for many years.
Who should I believe? What about Chief inspector Hans Blix? Just because they disagree with each other doesn’t mean one should be ignored. Though I admit I am more likly to listen to Hans Blix for the reasons that he is in there now, while Scott Ritter quit five years ago, and is angry at the government that he says set him up in an arrest for child pornography.
Now could Ritter have been set up? Possibly. I have read articles claiming this to be true. But I have also read articles that claim that Iraq has been blackmailing him with actions he did while in Iraq. Could that be happening? Possibly.
By the way Ritter resigned saying that Bill Clinton was being too easy on Saddam.
Edit: Just found this.
(Time magazine) “You've spoke about having seen the children's prisons in Iraq. Can you describe what you saw there? “
(Scott Ritter) “The prison in question is at the General Security Services headquarters, which was inspected by my team in Jan. 1998. It appeared to be a prison for children — toddlers up to pre-adolescents — whose only crime was to be the offspring of those who have spoken out politically against the regime of Saddam Hussein. It was a horrific scene. Actually I'm not going to describe what I saw there because what I saw was so horrible that it can be used by those who would want to promote war with Iraq, and right now I'm waging peace.”
I personally am more concerned with the people of Iraq than Saddam’s (in question) WMD.
From the BBC (1998) Scott Ritter “Iraq should be subjected to a major campaign that seeks to destroy the regime of Saddam Hussein.”
From the BBC (2002) Scott Ritter “The truth of the matter is that Iraq today is not a threat to its neighbours and is not acting in a manner which threatens anyone outside of its own borders.”
So what has changed in the time since he left Iraq? Take notice of the highlighted word. |
|
Fri Jan 31, 2003 5:23 pm |
|
|
Ammon777
Warrior for Heaven
Joined: 20 Apr 2002
Posts: 2011
Location: United States |
@Samhain, hehe
@Jung, well okey, good points 
@everybody, this thread is overworked! cyu in the war! lol!  |
|
Fri Jan 31, 2003 6:09 pm |
|
|
TheDarkside
Eager Tradesman
Joined: 23 Dec 2002
Posts: 46
|
You coudln't misconstrue my argument more than you have just done. The quotes you pasted are against Saddam himself, I am not defending Saddam. I am defending the civilians of Iraq from the sensless bombing campaign that is looming on the horizon- that is not how you topple a dictator, and we both know this. How? Because that's what we did in 1991 and we slaughtered thousands of civilians with our specific targetting of non-military facilities such as public works facilities and non-military factories-- a war crime according to the Geneva Conventions, not to mention our thoughtful depositting of depleted uranium and our sanctions which ban basic medical supplies.
Did Saddam get toppled after all that?
It's time to try something else instead of repeating our past belligerence. |
|
Fri Jan 31, 2003 6:40 pm |
|
|
Remus
Overgrown Cat
Joined: 03 Jul 2002
Posts: 1657
Location: Fish bowl |
Here is some parts of the article from Asia Times by Jim Lobe.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of intimidation and Israel
By Jim Lobe
WASHINGTON - Why is the administration of US President George W Bush preparing to go to war against Iraq?
It has put forward three reasons, none of which is taken particularly seriously by policy veterans. They include eliminating Hussein's presumed arsenal of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), reducing the threat of international terrorism and promoting democracy and human rights in Iraq and throughout the Middle East.
As Michael Klare of Hampshire College argued recently in a paper, none of these rings very true. Yes, Iraq undoubtedly has WMD - although not nuclear - but so do many countries in the wider region, including Israel, Pakistan and Iran (not to mention North Korea, whose destructive capabilities not only are far greater than Iraq's, but also can be delivered at much longer range with much greater accuracy).
As for international terrorism, Washington has been insisting for years that Iran is far more active than Iraq, and, despite extraordinary efforts, administration hawks have yet to come up with any persuasive evidence that Saddam has any ties at all to al-Qaeda or other active terrorist groups.
Indeed, according to the CIA, Saddam is considered most unlikely to use WMD against the United States, let alone hand them over to terrorists for their use, unless he were face-to-face with his own elimination - precisely what the administration is now planning.
As for promoting democracy, critics note that this theme has been pushed by neo-conservatives who rose to power in the Reagan administration by attacking Jimmy Carter's human rights policies, which they claimed unfairly undermined friendly "authoritarian" regimes like the Shah of Iran and Somoza's Nicaragua, and have since argued that Arabs and Muslims respect only power and force.
"There is ... something hypocritical about the belief in democratization when it is propounded by people who also hold the belief in the 'clash of civilizations', [and] who were insisting a few months ago that there are regions of the world, particularly the Islamic regions, in which culture makes freedom impossible," noted The New Republic magazine last fall.
That hypocrisy is compounded by the fact that the administration has shown no reservation about aligning itself since the September 11, 2001 attacks on the US with some of the broader area's worst dictatorships, including Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan and Saudi Arabia, among others.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Previously (first post) i stated US lean too much toward Israel in Israel-Palestine conflict, and historically this already cause much anti_US sentiment among Arabs and have no doubt, offer great opportunity and make thing easier for Islamic Militant. If US so to attack Iraq without a very convincing reasons, surely more militant Muslim ready for " suicidal mission." Anyhow, below is some more form Jim's article about Iraq-Israel-US.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
...Intimidation underlies much of the hawks' rhetoric and comes across very strongly in the administration's National Security Strategy document published in September, which makes clear that the United States favors a uni-polar world in which its military power is unrivalled. In that respect, invading Iraq is meant above all as a "demonstration" of what will happen to "rogue states" with WMD, links to terrorism or anyone else, for that matter, who challenges US supremacy.
"The fastest way to impress one charter member of the axis of evil," argued the Wall Street Journal, a major cheerleader for the hawks, earlier this month, "is to depose another, and sooner rather than later."
Klare offers an interesting, oil-related variant of this view by citing 1990 remarks by Cheney to the effect that whoever controls Gulf oil enjoys a "stranglehold" not only on our economy, but also "on that of most of the other nations of the world as well". By overwhelming Iraq, he argues, Washington will be sending an unmistakable message to potential future rivals, namely China, whose economy will depend increasingly on Gulf oil.
Significantly, the imperial worldview that underpins the intimidation rationale was first articulated by neo-conservative policy analysts and writers who have long championed the positions of the right-wing Likud Party in Israel and now occupy key positions in the Bush administration, particularly in the offices of Cheney and Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld, and the latter's defense policy board, chaired by Richard Perle.
Some critics argue that Iraq policy is driven primarily by these individuals, who, like Likud, believe that Saddam's obsession with obtaining WMD marks the greatest threat to Israel's regional military dominance and security.
Indeed, the strongest advocates for attacking Iraq both inside and outside the administration - Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, Perle and other defense policy board members, respectively - have been the neo-conservatives.
"Absent their activities, the United States would be focusing on containing Iraq, which we have done successfully since the Gulf War, but we would not be trying to overthrow Saddam Hussein," says Stephen Walt, a dean of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, who also points to Washington's unexpectedly sharp tilt toward Likudist positions on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as evidence of the neo-conservatives' influence.
In their view, the interests of Israel and the United States are virtually identical, or, as one of them, former Education Secretary William Bennett, noted last year, "America's fate and Israel's fate are one and the same." |
|
Fri Jan 31, 2003 7:28 pm |
|
|
Ni-Androth
Village Dweller
Joined: 10 Jan 2003
Posts: 6
Location: United States |
I read the first two pages of this thread, then I decided to skip the rest. On topics such as these, you could continue the discussion forever talking about a wide range of religious, historical, and current political views. I would like to focus on the religious aspect of todays events. For anyone here who is Christian and believes in God, they should know that the things that are happening today are part of Gods prophecy. Just as God stated that Israel would once again become a nation of its own, it did in 1948. During the holocaust one third of the worlds Jewish population was executed by the Nazis, but God saved the Jewish people and led them to fulfill his prophecy. The nation of Israel is under the protection of the hand of God. Proof of this is their victory over their Arab neighbors in the Six Day War in 1967. The roots of these confrontations goes back to Abraham and his two sons from where todays Jews and Arabs originated. God said that he would bless any nation who supports Israel and his people, and curse any that would oppose them. Every nation may fall, but I would assure you on my life that Israel shall never fall again, no matter if the entire world opposed them. If we the United States ever turned our back on Israel, that will be the day of this nations fall. God stated that the last battle would take place in the valley of Megiddo, and the the nations of the world led by the anti-christ would be defeated by Israel through the will of God. Prophecy is unfolding everyday before the worlds eyes, but most will never notice it. God stated that the old Roman empire would be reborn nearing the end, and that the anti-christ would be its leader, and lead the world to peace for a short time. This would be the first 3 1/2 years of the 7 year period called the tribulation that is the end of time. The European Union already in effect is growing larger and is much of what the Roman Empire once was. The official stance of many European countries is always peace, which the anti-christ will use to bring himself to power promoting world peace and unification. God mentioned that nearing the tribulation, Babylon would be rebuilt. Baghdad is very near to the location of the ruins of Babylon. The United States if successful in Iraqs regime change would then proceed to rebuild Iraq into a new state which would in a sense rebuild the old Babylon and fulfill prophecy, while also bringing another part of the world closer to unification. (The last statement about Iraq and Babylon is purely my opinion but does fit into prophecy). So if you look at Biblical prophecy, you will see that the events that are happening in our current time is part of a (bigger picture) that has been conglomerating over time and is part of divine will. Not just mans issue over an ever decreasing valuable natural resource, an unjust dictator who has continually violated the terms of loosing his war of aggression 12 years ago, and the threat that he does pose to innocent lives, not to mention his own people that have not the power to over throw this 20 year dictator. I don't even worry about these things, because God is and always will be in control, and every thing that happens is part of His unfolding plan. Well I suppose this would be a good place to end this long statment I will probably look at a few of the following responses. But my main purpose was to just put out my response and my beliefs in regards to this ongoing and controversial subject for you all to think about, regardless of any who may oppose my views. |
|
Fri Jan 31, 2003 9:40 pm |
|
|
Hyrrix
Fourty-two
Joined: 20 Jan 2003
Posts: 282
|
I'm going to apologize even before I write anything, because what I say is not intended to offend anyone. I haven't fulle read this topic and I'm probably not as well-informed as most of you are, but as I think it is an enrichment to listen to other opinions, I'll add mine.
First of all, I have no idea why the US should go to war in Iraq. I heard some reasons flying around here... Oil is a good reason according to some. So what do you think, that Saddam is going to let the oil mysteriously vanish somewhere, or that he won't pay enough attention to his main source of income? Why is it that the US should control the oil and not any other country, and that it's even a good reason to have a war over the control of this oil. Regarding the oil-industry in Bush's administration... I don't think that's a big secret. Anyone checked out where Condolesa Rice came from? Uhu, right.
Now, what was the other reason again? Ah yes, to disarm Iraq. So... that's great logic, you START a war to DISARM a country. And the US doesn't have any weapons of mass destruction of course? But yes, I do understand the need to make sure countries don't produce weapons of mass destruction, only I believe there are other ways to do so. Starting a war is only the start of more trouble. Somewhere above this post, someone argued that Bush Sr. was capable of finishing off Saddam; I believe he was not. That person also said that, and I quote: "It was arguably the quickest, most efficient, most decisive war in US history. The Iraqi soldiers were surrendering en masse to tv crews. " First of all, never take anything you see on TV for granted... never heard about censoring and propaganda? During WWII, people in Germany had NO idea that the Germans were actually losing battles, because radio told them they were winning; so never rely on that kind of information. So that war was the most decisive war in US history... and still, several years later what do we have? Even MORE muslim-fundamentalism, even MORE support for Saddam in Iraq, even MORE instability in the area. So do you really think ANOTHER war would do any good? I saw some people argue that everything in Afghanistan went fine... yeah, fine. Cities with no electricity, streaming water, barely enough food, third world country; THAT was attacked by the US? Killed innocent citizens who have absolutely no idea of world politics... and you are telling me that it was a clean job and the US actually SAVED those people? Do you really think that those people out there are grateful now? I'm sorry, I don't think so. I think it only feeds the fundamentalism.
People say they don't understand muslims and why they're so against the West. Well I do understand them (mind you, there's a big difference between understanding and having sympathy for). Berlusconi said: "We should be conscious of the superiority of our civilization over the islam." Bush keeps telling everyone that they are the valiant white knights on the horse, out there to protect the freedom of the world (if he was so passionate about the world... why Kyoto?) and get rid of the evil men in countries like Afghanistan and Iraq. Meanwhile, what do muslim people see? Don't forget that most of these people live in poor countries, which makes them more easily attracted to extremism and fundamentalistic religion. They see the rich West (Christians) on one side, and muslims on the other side, with issues like Palestina, Afghanistan, Libanon, Syria, Iran, etc. In a situation like that, with no freedom of press, it's easy to be influenced. But, hmm... I'm losing my point.
Don't get me wrong however, Saddam is no angel and when there's enough proof that there are still weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, they should go to the next step in the disarming process... an ultimatum and then, if all other options are outruled, a war. To this point, I have seen NO evidence whatsoever.
_________________
Vault Network Editor |
|
Fri Jan 31, 2003 9:58 pm |
|
|
|
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next
All times are GMT. The time now is Sat Apr 13, 2019 5:37 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
