war on iraq..

Discussion in 'Politics and Society' started by dasant, Jan 16, 2004.

  1. dasant

    dasant Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2004
    Messages:
    12
    Likes Received:
    0
    Countries, in Africa have many more problems then Iraq. With aids, mass murders, and many troublesome horrors. Iraq, on the other hand has a dictator, who kills his own men and women. That in itself is horrid. You should never kill your own people. Just because a country has this going on, does not give us the United States the right to ‘but’ in. That is what the Europeans did to Africa. They used ethnocentric ideas, which is believing your society is better then any other; thus it’s your common duty to change their ways of life. That is something that I long to disagree with. If we were going to be true to that statement we would pick African countries over Iraq. But then the game comes in, raw materials. Africa does not have oil…, which America needs. Making Iraq a prime target for American war.

    Not having actual factual information against, Iraq makes this war a huge mistake. When a country strikes war, you must always have facts. Not having facts that they were tied to September 11, and not having facts that they have weapons of mass destruction makes this war more and more invalid. In the mean time, Iraq never had the weapons bush said they did.

    So then we invade Iraq, to ride a murder. In doing so we bomb buildings that civilians work at, and kill innocent lives. We have now become no better then Saddam, we are ridding a murderer to become one ourselves.

    Now that the bible plays a role into this, makes it all the more right. The bible, says that if you are on the side of Israel you will be on the winning side. To make this bible statement become true, America turns to war against and enemy that Israel has. Has anyone heard the term separation of church and state?

    If you notice our terror alerts have gone up, even though they were suppose to go down once we got Saddam Hussein. Oh and our prime target osama bin laden, is now shoved into our memories.

    America has suffered the civil war, and the revolution. All of these wars were not fought on a world platform or considered a world war. All the people that lived through these wars are thus not living. We choose not to listen to Europe, when they speak out against our war. We don’t give two cents to the people that have had massive wars that also have people who are still alive that have suffered a home front war.

    The United Nations, we left. We leave an organization that we are committed too. Then now asking for help in return.

    The only correct way to fix iraq, is to do it on a world platform

    I think that Iraq needs to be fought with the world support not just American and British support. Although most people in the United Kingdom don’t agree with this war...

    If you notice we got military support from Germany and France when we attacked Afghanistan. Those are the two countries that have fought out against our war. So my taking is we should maybe listen to the wise. Maybe that’s a wake up call, in saying this war isn’t correct…for they don’t support us like they did previously.

    The protests that were throughout America, and all around the world mean nothing. Thousands protested. None were heard. This brings me back to; bush senior didn’t get the job done. So now bush is getting it done for him. And in doing so, it’s costing billions to destroy Iraq, and billions more to rebuild it.

    an essay i wrote awhile ago
     
  2. iBrian

    iBrian Peace, Love and Unity Admin

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2003
    Messages:
    6,532
    Likes Received:
    12
    Of course, Europe hasn't been a colonising power in Africa for quite some time. :)

    As for Iraq - quite true - it was an issue of Strategic Planning over American reliance on oil.

    You don;t need to listen to the French or Germans for a conscience on the matter, though - the Europeans were and have been just as eager to sell weapons to Iraq as the Americans once were. In fact, it could be said that some of those countries particularly vociferous against the war in Iraq - ie, Frnace and Russia - were doing so because of the financial losses they would submit themselves to (ie, old debts being wiped out by a new Iraqi administration).

    In a few weeks we have an inquiry over here in the UK opening up, which touches deeply into the War in Iraq issue. It's going to put Tony Blair under immesne pressure. And, without the much vaulted WMDs being found - allegedly the main reason for going to war - he's up for a frying.
     
  3. Anzac

    Anzac Resident Anarchist

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2003
    Messages:
    59
    Likes Received:
    0
    Just on a side note first - I've often noticed both by talking to Americans and reading "Dude where's my country" (not anywhere near as anything else he's done as it's a blatant chunk of cross-Atlantic xenophobia!). It seems to me that even liberal Americans seem to wish to place someone or something at the heart of September the 11th, and then attack and destroy them. I don't get a message of "we'll sort this out without bombing the crap out of them"; it was an excuse to everyone to "attack attack attack!". To me this seems odd, though the event was a tragedy it doesn't give anyone the right to attack people, if everyone attacked everyone that irritated them straight off there wouldn't be a Europe or America!

    As for the "ethnocentric ideas" it is true. The US now wants to follow in the footsteps of the British Empire and enslave the world because it's the good and proper thing to do. Has anyone actually stopped to think people liked it before they were "westernized". No, because WE as the west know best. Imposing out ideology without any contention directly onto others does insinuate inherent superiority on our behalf.

    As for the war on Iraq itself, it is and was a blatant theft and "securing" of vital resources to the US. Also, don't just look at the US for this one, look at the UK and the rest of Europe - how much money have they made off of arms since 11th September? A huge increase in profit from arms sales is good for them so the only people that have really lost out are Moslems and Iraqis - a small price to pay to make the smaller percentage of people very rich. The war, as every war is false and with no reason or cause. When will the US learn that the world doesn't want or need "gunboat diplomacy" to achieve anything.

    Also, on another side note:

    Which was the only nation that abstained about the Israeli Berlin Wall Mk2? You guessed it, everyone else voted against!
     
  4. Quahom1

    Quahom1 What was the question?

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2003
    Messages:
    9,906
    Likes Received:
    5
    I will tread lightly here, but I will walk this path

    Fact: Arrafat declared that there would be no peace until every Israeli was dead or chased off ( 1970, 1975, 1976, 1978, 1983, 1990, 1996, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003). HE DECLARED THERE WOULD BE NO PEACE. It is news, it is in print, deny all you want, he said it, and it is recorded.

    Fact: the French had over several billion US dollars invested in oil wells in Iraq. ( it is on record)

    Fact: the Germans had over several billion US dollors invested in oil wells and medical research in Iraq. (it is on record)

    Fact: the United States is not the only country who made a mistake rubbing elbows with the Iraqi government, but the United States backed off and out over a decade ago (right about 1988, when Iraq "accidently" launched two exocet missiles at the USS Ward, in the Persian Gulf). The Ward survived, but it was an omen of things to come. (it is all on record)

    Fact: Over four hundred thousand bodies have been found in mass graves, less than 12 years old, in Iraq. (it is on record)

    Fact: Almost every hijacker who participated in 9/11 expressed their enjoyment in living in the United States, but had to fulfill their mission, and expressed hesitation at doing the same. (it is on record)

    Fact: the government of the United States is still run by the People, for the people, and of the people...so if blame on the US for expansionist ideas is to be made...make on the people, and watch their fury fly. (it is on record...and still being recorded)

    Fact: the US Media is not a true representation of the opinion of the country, cross and abroad. It isn't even close. (on record).

    Fact: the US as a whole could care less about the rest of the world, as far as ruling/colonizing/what have you. Its people are too damn busy running their own lives. (historically on record)

    Opinion: Generalizations on a people as a whole is not healthy. You don't know the people of the United States, then do not attempt to cast judgement. The Japanese did so once, and it was a mistake...one which they paid dearly for.

    If you have not walked the desert of the Middle East, you are in no position to judge the soldiers there, or the government that put them there...they are welcomed, accepted, and it is hoped they do not leave too soon, by the majority of the people who call that place home.

    I know...
     
  5. Susma Rio Sep

    Susma Rio Sep Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2003
    Messages:
    828
    Likes Received:
    1
    Too rush and rash

    On my part I think the U.S. war on Iraq was too rush and too rash. The United Nations asked for more time and more deliberation. Now everyone with eyes to see realizes that it was indeed too rush and too rash.


    On another matter, the colonization by a more advanced technological society over a less technological society, I think is good for the latter, only if the former acts from pure altruistic motivation by means of education and transfer of technology, and no exploitation of the resources of the latter and hoodwinking of its ignorance and innocuousness.

    I have not seen so far any colonizing power to have been thus motivated and thus acted and thus advanced to a less technological society.

    Susma Rio Sep
     
  6. suanni

    suanni Confused

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2004
    Messages:
    184
    Likes Received:
    0
    *please note, this is nothing more that personal opinion, I have nothing to substantiate it*
    I often wonder if this war had much more to do with boosting Bush himself. His popularity would have suffered a massive slip in the ratings because of Sept 11. He couldn't seem to find Bin Laden so turned on an 'easier target' Most U.S. presidents who have gone to war have gone down in the history books with glory attached to their name. (My US knowledge is sketchy....can't recall whether Nixon was in power with relation to the war in Vietnam) I say most, of that I am most unsure and this really is a personal opinion more than anything else. The oil issue cannot be denied. Oil though is money. Once more a war for greed?
    Iraq once sided with the UK and it has been said there has been much trade in arms prior to the war. No, it wasn't right what was happening in that country and from what I understand the UN was investigating what was on going in that country.
    Agree that Iraq really needs world-wide support at this time. So do a lot of war stricken countries in S. Africa.
    With events that have happened in the UK since and subsequent inquiries on many different aspects it really does seem as this war was unjustified. The general public were deceived by the media, but just who deceived the media?
     
  7. JJM

    JJM Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2003
    Messages:
    375
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ok Let me start out by saying that I agree that any educated person could see that Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction. If they did Saddam would have given up most of them an hidden the rest. It would have been the smartest thing to do. Try to make it look like you where doing what we ask but actually not. Who could say that he was lying. Bush would have to stop. And even if he did don't you think he would have used them.

    Secondly I t is also obvious that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with al Qaeda or September 11th. While Osama bin laden may be a Extremist and dare I say a bit crazy he is still a very devout religious person. Saddam Hussein on the other had is a dictator who rule with FEAR. While he was technically Muslim He would not support religion because. Religion makes people FEARLESS. And some one who rules with FEAR would not want to much of something that makes people FEARLESS.

    So yes it is obvious that President Bush had been lying to the American People and that He took advantage of the Stupidity of the average American. But lets face it Saddam Hussein was on sick Individual and he had even more twisted sons, and Iraq is much better off with out him. In my book that alone justifies war. And If president Bush would have simple stood up and said that in a speech I think that he would have actually gotten more support form the American people. How ever He didn't only need the support of the American people he also need the support of the UN and unless I'm mistaken you can't just tell the UN Saddam is one mean SOB and get a resolution. And While I feel sorry for all those who have died I feel that the loss of life would be just as hi with Saddam still in power.

    Finally before you Glorify France and Russia you must realize that their reasons where the same as those you vilify (assuming that the US went to war for Oil something I do not truly believe). Money. They stayed out of the war because they'd loose cheap oil and another place to sell their weapons to. So If the US went to war fro nothing but Oil yes condemn them but don't put France and Russia on pedestals for choosing the opposite action for the same out come.

    _______________________________________________________
    I am the wisest man alive, for I know one thing, and that is that I know nothing.
    Socrates
     
  8. suanni

    suanni Confused

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2004
    Messages:
    184
    Likes Received:
    0
    No, I wholeheartedly agree. Sadaam Hussein really needed being taken out of power. I suspect that if both parties (the UK and the US) had said we are going into Iraq to free these people from this dictator they would have received much more support from their people than they did over the 'weapons of mass destruction'. No 'civilised nation' likes to see the people of another nation suffer under a cruel dictator especially when we know that we have the facilities to take that dictator from rule.
    I couldn't understand why the rest of the world could stand by and watch the cruelty ongoing in that country. Nor can I understand why we can watch it happening in others.
     
  9. Susma Rio Sep

    Susma Rio Sep Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2003
    Messages:
    828
    Likes Received:
    1
    Any critical study of Saddam's regime?

    I wonder if I might request posters here who are cognizant of the horrors of Saddam, to refer me to careful critical evaluative studies of the man's horrors during his regime from the beginning to the invasion of Iraq by the coalition forces.

    One thing I see of merit in the guy, though: he gave a level playing field to all religions during his regime, and advocated secular education and women's rights and equality. Should I change my observation on these particular matters?


    Susma Rio Sep
     
  10. overdose

    overdose Member

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2004
    Messages:
    5
    Likes Received:
    0
    Lets not forget, that yes Saddam is a bad man. But just because he is bad, do we go to war against him? Do we fight him? Do we fight him because he killed Iraqi's? While America kills 10,000, Iraqi citizens (in a matter of months). You can say Saddam has killed more, but how much more time has he had? Do you not realize that this is something the world should take care of?

    Is Iraq really better, with America now killing the citizens? Is it better that they are madder then ever? Is it good that a democracy won't work in Iraq? They will vote someone in, and it will turn to a religious dictatorship once again. Countries deal with this all the time, dare I say North Korea? Why do we choose Iraq? Why do we DO what we say we are trying to stop?

    It wasn’t a problem with him doing this before, why now? He does not have weapons, no ties to September 11th, and no ties to anything new. Why now? Maybe my country needs to wake up, and realize that we have bigger more important issues to deal with. Such as real terror, or real threats. Or real problems, like AIDS, or North Korea? Murders happen all the time, we have the death penalty? What’s so different? Why are we so ethnocentric?
     
  11. Susma Rio Sep

    Susma Rio Sep Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2003
    Messages:
    828
    Likes Received:
    1
    Let's interview Saddam.

    The best resource person on Saddam Hussein and Iraq during his regime and all matters related to the U.S. war on Iraq is Saddam Hussein himself.

    And he is now in the hands of a democratic state, an advocate of human rights and the rule of law.

    Before the invasion of Iraq, Saddam offered to go on public debate before the international community with Bush, on all questions or any questions touching on the U.S. grievances against him. Bush never accepted the offer to debate.

    Now, all researchers can have him for a subject of study. Let's all interview the man. I suggest to Bush and his people and the government of the U.S. that he should be interrogated in the commission set up to investigate the faulty intelligence on WMDs, which is the caus belli for Bush to launch his attack on and conquest and occupation of Iraq.

    Does anyone know whether Saddam is allowed to receive visitors, and how to obtain persmission from the powers that be to visit the man?

    Susma Rio Sep
     
  12. suanni

    suanni Confused

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2004
    Messages:
    184
    Likes Received:
    0
    Whilst Sadaam was in power a lot of people believed that he was the reincarnation of Adolf Hitler and that was before we knew some of what went on in the form of the 'horrors'.
    I suspect a lot of people don't give a damn on how 'just' he is treated. Many believe that he should be given a dose of his own medicine.
    But we are, or believe that we are humane and don't give and 'eye for an eye'.
     
  13. Anzac

    Anzac Resident Anarchist

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2003
    Messages:
    59
    Likes Received:
    0
    National security as so many of you spout at me consists of just that. Exactly what you use as defence.

    Fact: The US launched an unprovoked attack on Iraq with the aide of the British.

    Fact: Most of western Europe invaded ten years earlier for exactly the resons Quahom1 states with involvement in oil - THEIR money was at risk, this time it was not and so did not move in.

    Fact: I make no generalizations (well, not all that often), I am constructing an opinion based on actions the US government has taken since it decided to poke it's nose into the world scene in 1941. Every devious action it has taken I note and make my own opinion.

    Fact: The rest of the world is just as guilty as the US in this respect, don't think I have a personal vendetta against the US or it's citizens, I have a personal quarrel with the institution it represents and as such categorize it by the term US rather than "all US citizens".

    To me the biggest irony is invading a sovereign state only to attempt to impose democracy. However much I hate oppression in any form and would occasionally like to exercise the right to freedom of speech (which, coindicentally isn't allowed in the UK). I think it's terrible that such regimes exist, I also think it's terrible that executions continue and a third of the world is on the brink of starvation whilst few die because of excessive obesity - it doesn't mean I kill all of them and then distribute it - it means I take action that isn't their own. Fighting fire with fire ends up with everything burned to the ground. However much the US (and their subsiduary allies) like bombing people there is no justification for war if it has been denied by the only theoretical international body - the UN.
     
  14. Susma Rio Sep

    Susma Rio Sep Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2003
    Messages:
    828
    Likes Received:
    1
    Spirit willing, flesh weak

    Anzac writes:

    The League of Nations and then the United Nations were founded by powerful modern states to prevent war and violence among nations and to resolve conflicts by peaceful diplomacy.

    That was the spirit, but when the flesh steps in with any of the same powerful modern states, all the best ideals of the spirit go up in a puff, with so many extremely urgent rationalizations of self-preservation for any state to take direct and even preemptive measures to attack and invade and occupy another state.

    Susma Rio Sep
     
  15. JJM

    JJM Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2003
    Messages:
    375
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't doubt it exist but where did you get the 10000 figure I'd just like to see it. However America Isn't continuously killing Iraqi citizens. It happen quite a bit in the invasion. But now I'd like to know how many Iraqi citizens that where not attacking the USA where killed by the US since major combat has ended.


    I also like to ask what makes you think a democracy won't work? just asking. And was Saddam really a religious dictator? Yes he was Muslim but It was no Iran.


    Anzac I know you position on war but now that we are there is something really other than democracy that we can set up. Isn't the only other option a dictator. Just a thought.

    _________________________________________________________
    I am the wisest man alive, for I know one thing, and that is that I know nothing.
    Socrates
     
  16. Susma Rio Sep

    Susma Rio Sep Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2003
    Messages:
    828
    Likes Received:
    1
    No next time around, please...?

    The U.S. is in Iraq, up to its neck. So, I agree with you, JJM, that democracy is the only saving grace available to U.S. to do with Iraq, in a kind of post factum rectification and thereby earn for itself approbation.

    On the other hand, I believe that the U.S. should be very careful with acting unilaterally, when the rest of the world conspicuously could not see any justification for launching a war, on even a dictatorship -- well, next time around.

    Susma Rio Sep
     
  17. Quahom1

    Quahom1 What was the question?

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2003
    Messages:
    9,906
    Likes Received:
    5
    Things to think about:

    From 1980 to 1988, Iraq used chemical and biological weapons on the armies of Iran (and vice versa), which resulted in the deaths of over 2,000,000 soldiers and civilians.

    Iraq also "tested" its chemical weaponry on the northern Kurds (subjects of its own government and country), resulting in the deaths of over 5000 men women and children (all civilian).

    In 1990, Iraq sent nearly its entire airforce to Iran (a hated enemy), rather than have it destroyed by the coalition. At the time Iraq was according to Janes, the fourth largest and powerful standing army on earth.

    From 1991 to the present day, coalition soldiers of the first Gulf war, continue to suffer from a strange malady called Gulf War Syndrome.

    From 1992 to 9/11/2001, the US suffered five terrorist attacks on its soil, each giving rise to even greater and bolder attacks - 1993 Twin towers bomding, two emabassies, The USS Cole in Yemen, and the Twin Towers' destruction.

    During this time the president of the US and presiding branches did nothing to stop this escalating violence. His name was Clinton.

    Eight months after his replacement took office (Bush), the twin towers came down, and the new change in our governement said this was enough.

    The coalition forces of the second part of this Gulf War did in weeks, what other military forces could not do in years (vanquish two terrorist regimes, restore some semblance of order, and give the people of those lands better living conditions than before the war.

    1. Russia could not defeat Aphganistan based regime.

    2. Iran could not defeat Iraq based regime.

    3. The coalition did both.

    If oil was what the United States was soley interested in, then it would have been much easier to just go to the UN and get the sanctions lifted from Iraqi oil, and to hell with the people or the region.

    In World War II, after the war was declared over, several thousand AMERICAN TROOPS lost their lives, over the course of a couple of years while trying to bring some semblance of order to the countries of Germany and Japan. How? Terroist attacks, ambushes, booby traps and home made bombs. Who were the terroists? German nationals, Japanese nationals, and foriegn insurgents who did not want change, or who had other ideas about who should be the new power in the area.

    In 1789, there was a vote in the US Congress to determine what the United State's official language would be. English beat out Dutch-German, by one vote.

    The United States is not a democracy; rather a federal republic based on democratic principles. A true democracy would amount to MOB RULE. Its origins can be found in the Athenian form of government, Roman republic, British common law, and as a spicy touch - anarchy or self reliance. An excellent reference for this is a book called "The Federalist Papers".

    When asked by the new "citizens" of the United States what form of government do we have (they had no clue, some expected a monarchy), Benjamen Franklin is quoted as saying "a federal republic...if you can keep it." This blazed the trail for ensuring the "people" of the nation becoming educated, literate and questioning.

    The United States fought the most vicious civil war in known history. Europe could not believe the ferocity at which brother could battle brother over, political, economic and morale concepts. To a color blind individual, the uniforms were so similar he would not have been able to differentiate between the two.

    The United States was dragged kicking and screaming into world politics by our neighbors across the pond. We were generally an "isolationist nation" until World War II.

    The United States mentality has not changed in over 400 years, we still believe in doing it ourselves, not asking for hand outs, would rather die than give in, and have a stubborn streak as long as the Milky Way.

    We are reluctant to step into the fray, and once in, reluctant to walk away. The United States was made in its parents' collective image, and the parents of the United States is the world.

    Nothing new under the Sun folks.
     
  18. overdose

    overdose Member

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2004
    Messages:
    5
    Likes Received:
    0
    The Reason...

    I think democracy won’t work in Iraq, for many reasons. One of which they have religious feuds all the time. This is a country based on massive history and culture; democracy will take hundreds of years to work. When Saddam was in power, he kept and maintained power by killing the civilians. Although it was wrong, it was one of the methods he used. Now with all of the feuds of Iraq having some that support America, some that don’t, different religions, different thoughts, anti-democracy, pro-democracy, woman’s rights, no woman’s rights. With all of these issues it will make the people in Iraq hit heads, and it will turn to hell. With all of this, I believe it won’t work. But we have already started this, so now we will have to finish it. We need to bring the world into Iraq, for it to be possible, maintain power, and peace.




    The 10,000 figure I saw a long time ago…I have no idea where it is now.
     
  19. Susma Rio Sep

    Susma Rio Sep Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2003
    Messages:
    828
    Likes Received:
    1
    I am optimistic.

    I am optimistic. The obscurantist elements in Iraq will come down to meager fringe groups, like Amish and similar groups in the U.S., once things get to be more and more common, that is, the democratic lifestyle where everyone can pursue life, and the pursuit of happiness, ascribing to the ideals of liberty, equality, and fraternity.

    It will take a lot of sacrifices from the U.S., but the U.S. will succeed in bringing democracy to Iraq, to its multi-ethnic and multi-reigious peoples.

    The U.S. is a well-meaning giant or genie, at times bullyish, but in the long run effective in bringing the good life to the rest of mankind. It is still a very young nation, and it will learn wisdom in dealing with other older nations as it progresses in some kind of destiny for the enlightenment of mankind on its path toward universal brotherhood.


    To Quah who writes:

    Of course, no one is saying that a democracy should be a 'democrazy' or anarchy in all its most extreme variations. Democracy before anything else is founded upon the rule of law. The distinction between a true democracy amounting to MOB RULE and a government founded upon democratic principles is, I think, an example of a straw man.

    Otherwise, I must commend you for binging up a number of facts for the consideration of careful observers.

    Susma Rio Sep
     
  20. JJM

    JJM Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2003
    Messages:
    375
    Likes Received:
    0
    Amen, this in my opinion is freaking genius.

    Well yes but it is true that the united states in a republic. It is not a true democracy but many people who live in the country wouldn't know it. (my 8th Grade English teacher for one). However the people do choose those who represent them so it is in fact a democratic republic. And that is what we will be bringing to Iraq I'd say that it is near impossible to have a democracy run anything other than a group no larger than 200-300 people. assuming all people can vote.

    __________________________________________________________________
    I am the wisest man alive, for I know one thing, and that is that I know nothing.
    Socrates
     

Share This Page