Chat or Talk in the INReview Discussion Forum Chat or Talk in the INReview Discussion Forum
 
register chat members links refer search home
INReview INReview > Hot Topics > Post-9/11 Era > Are you FOR or AGAINST a War in Iraq?
Search this Thread:
Are you FOR or AGAINST a War in Iraq?
For.
Against.
Not sure at this time.
View Results [Edit Poll (moderators only)]
Pages (95):  [1] 23 » Last »   Print Version | Email Page | Bookmark | Subscribe to Thread
Author
Thread Post New Thread   
Staff
Marc Flemming
Renovator

offline
Registered: Jan 2003
Local time: 07:33 PM
Location: Santa Cruz
Posts: 3663

Are you FOR or AGAINST a War in Iraq? post #1  quote:



Are you FOR or AGAINST a War in Iraq? Explain your answer.

Old Post 01-06-2003 06:30 AM
Click here to Send Marc Flemming a Private Message View Marc Flemming's Journal Visit Marc Flemming's homepage! Find more posts by Marc Flemming Add Marc Flemming to your buddy list Reply w/Quote

esskay
Rookie

offline
Registered: Jan 2003
Local time: 07:33 PM
Location:
Posts: 4293

post #2  quote:

In my opinion, if the U.S. government invested half the money it does on waging war instead on education and in companies that specialize in alternative and renewable energy, it would lessen, and possibly even eliminate our dependence on foreign oil.

One day fossil fuels are going to dry up completely and we'll be forced to face the issue at the last minute. To me, wisdom would be advance preparation (disregarding entirely, of course, that renewable energy resources tend to be pollution-free, better for our health, better for the environment, etc).

Yes, that's what I think this war-mongering is all about: oil. Why else would we feel it necessary to baby-sit that patch of sand. Let them kill themselves if they want, just keep it away from us and we're fine. I know the politics behind it all are more involved than that, but to some the view is much more simplistic.


Old Post 01-06-2003 08:13 PM
Find more posts by esskay Add esskay to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore esskay REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

Staff
Marc Flemming
Renovator

offline
Registered: Jan 2003
Local time: 07:33 PM
Location: Santa Cruz
Posts: 3663

post #3  quote:

If the primary interest of our government was to obtain the oil reserves of Iraq - why didn't they achieve this goal in the first war of the gulf in the 90s?

Isn't it a little short-sighted to concentrate on obtaining a resource which is due to be replaced it the relatively near future?

I'm only throwing out some questions.

My other thought is that we can't disregard some of the facts surrounding Hussein's regime:

a) He's as close to a tyrant as you can get. He's has his political competition or tortured or assassinated. He was just recently elected back into his position by ALL of the Iraqi people. In other words, there was not ONE vote against him out of millions of voters. I can only wonder why.

b) Misappropriations of funds. His people starve and go without necessary medical supplies while he builds more and more million dollar palaces. Iraq largely blames this on the UN for their imposed trade sanctions.

c) Iraq supports the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. They reward these families with large sums of money. It's clear he supports anyone fighting against Western ideals. What will stop them from supporting any of the numerous terrorist organizations if and when they are capable of producing weapons of mass destruction?

Leading to...

9-11 all over again. We are day dreaming if we think that these terrorist organizations (funded by places like Iraq) are completely satisfied with what they accomplished on this tragic date.

Has anyone seen the Sum of All Fears? With nations like Iraq being run by power/money-hungry individuals like Saddam - is the prospect of a nuclear weapon being detonated in a US city that far fetched? Particularly when there are a thousand anti-US extremists that would die to go down in the history books as the first martyr to do such an act.

It's a simple equation: Terrorist + Money = SaddamxWoMD

While I'm not promoting pro-war propaganda - I'm not quick to write off our reasons for "baby-sitting" particular nations in other parts of the world. There certainly are significant reasons to get people like Saddam to step down. I, for the record, particularly hope it doesn't take a war to do it.


Old Post 01-07-2003 08:03 AM
Click here to Send Marc Flemming a Private Message View Marc Flemming's Journal Visit Marc Flemming's homepage! Find more posts by Marc Flemming Add Marc Flemming to your buddy list Reply w/Quote

esskay
Rookie

offline
Registered: Jan 2003
Local time: 07:33 PM
Location:
Posts: 4293

post #4  quote:

On second thought, we may need war to stimulate growth in this economy. The Labor Department's last report of mass layoffs in November (2,150 rounds, 240,000 workers!) was released in December - they recently announced that they'll no longer be releasing such reports - I guess they don't think we need to know any more.. perhaps they think non-disclosure will help us all just forget and go along our hunky-dorey way thinking everything is peachy - and of course, believing == receiving - yeah right.

They say war stimulates economic growth, especially BIG wars.. and though there will be massive suffering, violence and death, the economy will surge feeding supplies into battle. So watch out Saddam, here we come - you're going to do this country more good than harm in the end.


Old Post 01-08-2003 07:06 AM
Find more posts by esskay Add esskay to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore esskay REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

Gold Member
nthooze
whoever you want me to be

offline
Registered: Jan 2003
Local time: 07:33 PM
Location: Cali
Posts: 84

post #5  quote:

I'm no fan of Sadam.. ..BUT!! We had better have some REAL PROOF of weapons production come out of there before we lift a finger!! If we don't we will be forfitting forever our place in the world!! We will be no different than the solviates when they started taking over other countries without real probibal cause!! We will simply be imperial expansionists. International opinion of and trust in America is already in the gutter over our forign policies. We need to stop the bleeding before it's too late and show some integrity. This is a crossroads in our history and a wrong move will have long lasting if not perminant ramfifcations.

Old Post 01-08-2003 10:13 PM
Click here to Send nthooze a Private Message Find more posts by nthooze Add nthooze to your buddy list Send an AIM message to nthooze Send a Yahoo message to nthooze Click Here to Ignore nthooze REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

Kenny Loren
Qualified Rookie

offline
Registered: Jan 2003
Local time: 03:33 AM
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 27

Thumbs down post #6  quote:

Anybody who's in bed with Osama needs to be nuked.

Kenny


Old Post 01-09-2003 02:52 AM
Click here to Send Kenny Loren a Private Message Find more posts by Kenny Loren Add Kenny Loren to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore Kenny Loren REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

kunun
Enthusiast

offline
Registered: Jan 2003
Local time: 03:33 AM
Location: Malibu, CA
Posts: 42

post #7  quote:

So if we were to become imperial expansionists, wouldn't you say our system of government (despite their inclination to coverup the UFO pnehomenon) is more of step in the right direction than the one they currently have in place?

While death may occur - aren't we doing these countries a benefit in the end to step in and take over?

In otherwords, doesn't the greater good outweigh the bad? After all, everyone dies eventually.

Signed,

Devil's Advocate


Old Post 01-09-2003 03:08 AM
Click here to Send kunun a Private Message Find more posts by kunun Add kunun to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore kunun REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

Gold Member
nthooze
whoever you want me to be

offline
Registered: Jan 2003
Local time: 07:33 PM
Location: Cali
Posts: 84

post #8  quote:

I agree that we are doing them a favor in the long run... ...the problem comes in with world oppinion. If we fail to prove a real threat.. ..then we will be commiting unprovoked aggression.. ..only furthering the low oppinion of America and our policies in the world stage. It's not our planet and we need to wise with our poisition in it.

Old Post 01-11-2003 04:10 AM
Click here to Send nthooze a Private Message Find more posts by nthooze Add nthooze to your buddy list Send an AIM message to nthooze Send a Yahoo message to nthooze Click Here to Ignore nthooze REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

sanjimmy
Enthusiast

offline
Registered: Jan 2003
Local time: 03:33 AM
Location: San Leandro, CA
Posts: 41

post #9  quote:

So far, the US is being wise and exercising restraint (despite talking the talk). They haven't started a war, so they're sitting back and waiting for Iraq to give them a reason.

Ball's in Iraq's court right now.


Old Post 01-11-2003 04:23 AM
Click here to Send sanjimmy a Private Message Visit sanjimmy's homepage! Find more posts by sanjimmy Add sanjimmy to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore sanjimmy REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

simplesimon
Rookie

offline
Registered: Jan 2003
Local time: 03:33 AM
Location: Washington D.C.
Posts: 8

post #10  quote:

It'd certainly appear as though we're being a tad on the impatient side. News indicates that a military force of 150,000+ will be in position by mid-February.

Old Post 01-11-2003 09:13 PM
Click here to Send simplesimon a Private Message Find more posts by simplesimon Add simplesimon to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore simplesimon REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

esskay
Rookie

offline
Registered: Jan 2003
Local time: 07:33 PM
Location:
Posts: 4293

post #11  quote:

quote:
Originally posted by sanjimmy
They haven't started a war, so they're sitting back and waiting for Iraq to give them a reason.


Dozens of thousands of enemy soldiers loitering at the gate alone may be reason enough to start throwing stones.. it could easily escalate from there.


Old Post 01-12-2003 08:02 AM
Find more posts by esskay Add esskay to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore esskay REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

simplesimon
Rookie

offline
Registered: Jan 2003
Local time: 03:33 AM
Location: Washington D.C.
Posts: 8

post #12  quote:

With all the money being spent to put these soldiers into place, it's beginning to look like a fairly expensive threat. Or perhaps something all together more sinister.

Old Post 01-13-2003 08:49 PM
Click here to Send simplesimon a Private Message Find more posts by simplesimon Add simplesimon to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore simplesimon REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

esskay
Rookie

offline
Registered: Jan 2003
Local time: 07:33 PM
Location:
Posts: 4293

post #13  quote:

quote:
Originally posted by Sean Kelly
On second thought, we may need war to stimulate growth in this economy.... So watch out Saddam, here we come - you're going to do this country more good than harm in the end.


For the record, I fully retract my above statements - while war may indeed stimulate the economy to some degree (though such stimulation tends to favor only those sectors directly related to war production and support thereof), how selfishly uncivilized would we be to go picking fights for the wrong reasons - or no reason at all? Economic stimulation is a bad reason and does not justify death and destruction abroad. What kind of maniacs are we? This country is blood-thirsty after the destruction of the World Trade Center and has used that event as a launching lynchpin for an unprecedented "crusade" that "innocents" should not have to pay for with their lives. Innocents are our own soldiers. Innocents are foreign civilians and citizens.

You think our soldiers are so well-trained, educated and out-class the enemy that they are impervious to attack? You point out the Desert Storm operation as a track record for U.S. military deaths? Swallow this: following the conclusion of desert storm, I had good word from someone directly involved in the U.S. mortuary that while the government reported minimal losses (148 Killed In Action and 457 Wounded In Action - see CNN's Report on this.. astonishing compared to the 100,000+Iraqis killed) during the operation, he was rolling in bodies faster than he could count. Since then, another ~7,700 Desert Storm vets have died from Gulf War Illness. Nearly 200,000 additional vets have filed for medical benefit claims. That's 28% of the nearly 700,000 troops that were sent in to the Gulf War. (Read this) This report as of September, 2002 indeicates that after $150M in research, still nobody knows what the cause of Gulf War Illness is. And this was a "victory"? Hardly, me-thinks..

quote:
"President Bush shouldn't order our warriors into another Gulf fight until we know what happened 11 years ago," says Robert McMahon, president of Soldiers for the Truth. "The VA needs to tell the truth regarding the suffering of thousands of vets."


Iraq has complied with U.N.'s demands - they fully disseminated their arms documentation. WHAT MORE? If the rest of the World does not stand WITH us, then do they by definition stand
AGAINST us? Who, then, would be guilty of starting WW3?

Yes, there are some bad things going on in that country. The people are oppressed. Their leader is off his rocker. Is this our responsibility to fix? NO. Those facts should be disregarded. Now on to the matter of harboring terrorists - in America's "War on Terror", perhaps some resolution needs to be made here. But perhaps such a resolution could be reached diplomatically. The U.S. tends not to budge a damn inch when it comes to giving in on trade embargos. Damnit, it they're trying to work with us we need to work with them BACK. Same goes with Kadaffi's recent turn where he complied with 4 of 5 stipulations for the embargo against Libya to be lifted. The fifth was an acceptance of responsibility for the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 back in the 80's - LET IT GO! Give peace a chace! Who gives a rat's @$$ if there's a "confession", it still accomplishes nothing. Why the hell would a nation admit to fault of the actions of some individuals? Like China expecting an apppology from the U.S. on the downed surveillance aircraft incident - did we give them an appology? Hell no. Does Libya owe us one? Hell no! Should we be more willing to negotiate with Libya? YES! How about Iraq? YES. If these squabbling politicians have to spend the rest of their lives squaring off negotiations, then so damn be it - that's what they're PAID for - if it means averting a senseless war of unspeakable consequences...


Old Post 01-16-2003 09:06 PM
Find more posts by esskay Add esskay to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore esskay REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

Dreamimages
Rookie

offline
Registered: Jan 2003
Local time: 03:33 AM
Location:
Posts: 2

Unhappy post #14  quote:

My opinion is that if a war is started against Iraq, the
Consequencis are terrible!!
I ' m afraid of Suicide attacks all over the world,but especially
in the US!!!
ANY lunatic can walk into a building and blow himself and take
many innocent civilians with him!!


It could take place all over the world,everyday,any minute
several times!!
I know that fear is a bad thing,and you must NEVER surrender
to any kind of Terrorism...but what is the price we all
must pay!!
I think the US must REALLY not attack Iraq,if there do not find
any Nuclear weapons!!

martin
The Netherlands.


Old Post 01-20-2003 01:41 PM
Click here to Send Dreamimages a Private Message Find more posts by Dreamimages Add Dreamimages to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore Dreamimages REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

Strav
Rookie

offline
Registered: Jan 2003
Local time: 03:33 AM
Location:
Posts: 1

post #15  quote:

Im for ousting Saddam and his regime by military force. Most of the people I have talked to agree that he needs to go, but many dont want to see a war to do it. I have listened to the reasons for not going to war, and I understand their fears, and even share them to some degree. Yet not one of these people have offered a credible alternative. This says to me that they, while not happy with the present situation with the dictatorship of Iraq, think it is perferable to keep the status quo.

The status quo means that the people of Iraq continue to be without basic freedoms. They are killed, raped and tortured for even suspected disagreement with the government. And the government is so intrusive, any hint of rebellion is squashed before anything can become of it. Without offering a credible alternative, the people who are against war agree that it is better for the people of Iraq to be oppressed, tortured and murdered than to do something about it.

The status quo means that, if nothing is done, Saddam WILL at some point obtain nuclear weapons. Why is this so bad? Saddam's character, beleifs and ambitions.

Character: Without a doubt, a murderous dictator who oppresses his people and has no qualm about using chemical and biological weapons, against his own countrymen as well as against his neihbors. For good reason? No. For ambition.

Beleifs and ambitions: Saddam beleives that his destiny is to rule the middle east. When the city of ancient babylon was discovered south of Bagdad, Saddam began building his palaces with the bricks inscribed with his name on them - just like the ancient evil babylonian ruler Nebuchadnezzar did on the bricks archeologists uncovered for hispalaces.
It is Saddam's ambition to obliterate Israel. 3 nuclear reactors were purchased from France years ago for this very purpose. Israel, knowing this, went in in the 80's and bombed them.

Now about oil. If Saddam gets nukes and the means to deploy them, he WILL be in a position to take over the middle east. If that happens, Saddam will be a world power, a very evil one. He will lift sanctions with the threat of nuclear war. He will build his war machine with the trillions of dollars he will have in oil spoils. He will finally be able to realise his dream of destroying Israel.

No country...NO COUNTRY will be eager to go to war with a nuclear power ruled by a dictator like Saddam with the means to deploy his missles. The time for war will be OVER. ANY WAR at that point means NUCLEAR WAR.

He could ruin industralised countries such as the US by witholding oil. Remember that Saddam encouraged OPEC countries to do this during the gulf war. With that much money at his disposal, he could easily become the richest, most powerful man on the planet.

It is said that WW2 was "won on a sea of oil". The war machines of powerful countries run on oil. Economies of powerful countries run to a very large degree on transport made avaliable by oil.

The people who chant "no war for oil" are missing the point. Without it, we would instantly lose our status as a world power. Our economy would crumble. Our industry would crumble. Our war machine would crumble. Our farmers, which have decreased exponentially over the years, for lack of mechanization, would fail to provide food for the masses.

Sure there are other forms of fuel and energy. But they are not as cheap as oil. And studies have shown that they cannot, alone, sustain us. For instance, a study was done on the use of ethanol as a means of fuel for cars. Taking everything into account, the US does not have the amount of biomass needed to produce the amount of ethanol to fuel our transport.

Would it be so terrible if the US lost it's status as a world power? No, as long as there is a democratic one with similiar values to replace it.

Having a dictator like Saddam as a world power is not an option.


Old Post 01-21-2003 10:59 AM
Click here to Send Strav a Private Message Find more posts by Strav Add Strav to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore Strav REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

Staff
Marc Flemming
Renovator

offline
Registered: Jan 2003
Local time: 07:33 PM
Location: Santa Cruz
Posts: 3663

More on Gulf War Illness (GWI) post #16  quote:

"What we're looking at is a biological weapon," said Joyce Riley (gulfwarvets.com ) about Gulf War Illness (GWI) in her appearance on a recent radio show. She believes GWI is a communicable disease, with not only spouses and children in families of veterans coming down with symptoms, but their pets as well.

Riley, an impassioned speaker, is a nurse who served as a captain in the Gulf War. "We're looking at an astronomical figure," Riley said estimating that as many as 400,000 veterans have some symptoms of GWI.

Whether it was our government that was experimenting on the troops with vaccines, or exposure in the Gulf to depleted uranium or biological/chemical weapons, Riley feels "that what is going on in our military is an abomination," because they have not taken responsibility for this devastating illness...


Old Post 01-21-2003 08:07 PM
Click here to Send Marc Flemming a Private Message View Marc Flemming's Journal Visit Marc Flemming's homepage! Find more posts by Marc Flemming Add Marc Flemming to your buddy list Reply w/Quote

ellissg
Rookie

offline
Registered: Jan 2003
Local time: 03:33 AM
Location:
Posts: 6

Angry George W & Saddam post #17  quote:

I wouldn't mind if George strapped on his six guns and called Saddam out into the street for a shootout. He has made this a personal struggle, so he should handle it himself. If he causes one American GI to lose his or her life in that "God-Forsaken Desert", we should Impeach him!

Old Post 01-21-2003 08:58 PM
Click here to Send ellissg a Private Message Find more posts by ellissg Add ellissg to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore ellissg REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

esskay
Rookie

offline
Registered: Jan 2003
Local time: 07:33 PM
Location:
Posts: 4293

post #18  quote:

quote:
Originally posted by Strav
Im for ousting Saddam and his regime by military force.... Having a dictator like Saddam as a world power is not an option.


Well thought out and stated.. I'm still absorbing all this


Old Post 01-22-2003 04:20 AM
Find more posts by esskay Add esskay to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore esskay REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

ellissg
Rookie

offline
Registered: Jan 2003
Local time: 03:33 AM
Location:
Posts: 6

post #19  quote:

Lets take this one step further. Wouldn't it be great if all the members of Congress who are opposed to the war, would get up and walk out during the upcoming 'hawkish" State of the Union speech. Make a real statement! We need a show of conviction from people in power who are against this maddness!

Old Post 01-22-2003 12:33 PM
Click here to Send ellissg a Private Message Find more posts by ellissg Add ellissg to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore ellissg REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

Dreamimages
Rookie

offline
Registered: Jan 2003
Local time: 03:33 AM
Location:
Posts: 2

post #20  quote:

quote:
Originally posted by ellissg
Lets take this one step further. Wouldn't it be great if all the members of Congress who are opposed to the war, would get up and walk out during the upcoming 'hawkish" State of the Union speech. Make a real statement! We need a show of conviction from people in power who are against this maddness!


I agree absolutely !

We will NOT be in a F@cking war here in europe,
because of cowboy BUSH !!

P.s It's not only US ,but the whole world he takes with him.
Where does it end


Old Post 01-28-2003 11:21 AM
Click here to Send Dreamimages a Private Message Find more posts by Dreamimages Add Dreamimages to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore Dreamimages REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

ellissg
Rookie

offline
Registered: Jan 2003
Local time: 03:33 AM
Location:
Posts: 6

post #21  quote:

If you get the chance, go to the following web site and read Jimmy Carter's speech of acceptance at the Nobel Peace Prize ceremony. No one has said it better, especially the quote, "We will not learn to live together in peace by killing each others children."
www.nobel.no/eng_lect_2002b.html


Old Post 01-28-2003 01:29 PM
Click here to Send ellissg a Private Message Find more posts by ellissg Add ellissg to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore ellissg REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

jayterrier
Qualified Rookie

offline
Registered: Feb 2003
Local time: 03:33 AM
Location:
Posts: 26

post #22  quote:

I keep hearing how president clinton is to blame for the sept. 11 tragedy. Those damned right wingers are saying he did't act upon the intellegence information available at that time. Now people are saying that if we attack Saddam, we are only giving terrorist more reasons to attack us. Catch-22. For those of us who like to point fingers, we have got this Bush fellow either way he goes. As for whether to trust Bush,I would go with your own instincts. Trust Saddam? No freaking way.

Old Post 02-02-2003 02:07 PM
Click here to Send jayterrier a Private Message Find more posts by jayterrier Add jayterrier to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore jayterrier REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

Hypewaders
Qualified Rookie

offline
Registered: Feb 2003
Local time: 10:33 PM
Location:
Posts: 28

Thumbs down post #23  quote:

IMHO, America is perceived as an extremely biased neo-colonialist intruder by the majority of inhabitants of the region. We are not heeding the bloody lessons of the past, that technological and military superiority does not bring victory in wrongful interventions. The Middle East is at the very brink of dramatic changes: After the inevitable fall of Saddam Hussein, we will not have the stomach to keep Iraq intact, and the United States (along with Israel, defacto U.S. territory) will be blamed for triggering an environment that will spawn regional disasters including the collapse of several "moderate" regimes, possibly including (nuclear) Pakistan and (Bin Laden's) Arabia. The Middle East will experience political convulsions similar to the evolution Europe underwent over the past 300 years, but in very bloody fast forward. The United States, rightly or wrongly, will be blamed for the carnage, will continue lashing out disruptively in response to a cycle of terrorism, until expending itself into a repressive, bankrupt shell and world pariah. Tough lessons lie ahead for a country whose power has far outpaced its awareness and understanding of others. I cry for my country, more for the millions of victims, and turn my hope to the survivors. One more time, humanity, while there's still time, the sad refrain: Don't Get Fooled Again.

Old Post 02-03-2003 09:44 AM
Find more posts by Hypewaders Add Hypewaders to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore Hypewaders REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

ellissg
Rookie

offline
Registered: Jan 2003
Local time: 03:33 AM
Location:
Posts: 6

Unhappy post #24  quote:

Hypewaders:
Thanks for the insightful post. I think the opposition to this maddness is too little......too late. Our Cowboy President has already invested so much manpower, money, supplies, and military might to that region, there's no way he can pull out now and save face.................or so he thinks in his demented state.
If the taxpayers in the U.S. really knew what this was costing us now, and what it will cost in the future, there just might be an uprising that would get some attention.


Old Post 02-03-2003 01:23 PM
Click here to Send ellissg a Private Message Find more posts by ellissg Add ellissg to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore ellissg REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

britbox
Rookie

offline
Registered: Feb 2003
Local time: 03:33 AM
Location:
Posts: 3

Two thoughts... post #25  quote:

So the "official" reason for attacking Iraq is to "liberate" the people of Iraq and disarm Saddam Hussein because he "might" have Weapons of Mass Destruction?

Do any of you believe that?

Let me just explain a few things:

1) 1.5 million Iraquis have died as part of the UN sanctions (blockade).

2) The US dropped uranium tipped missiles and bombs into Iraq during the first gulf war leading to over a 700% rise in cancer and also birth deformities.

3) The US have not ruled out the use of bunker-busting nuclear bombs in Iraq this time round.

There is absolutely nothing huminitarian about the US & UK's war proposals.

and on the subject of Weapons of Mass Destruction.

1) The US are the ONLY country in the world to have ever used nukes, dropping 2 on Japan in 1945.

2) The US dropped millions of tons of agent orange (cancer producing defoliant) and flesh burning napalm on vietnam.

3) The US refuses to sign up to the international treaty on banning biological weapons and testing nuclear weapons.

4) The US has sprayed chemicals all over Cuba to try and destroy and contaminate crops.

5) The US is now stating a policy of pre-emptive attacks on any soverign nation who "might" have the means to attack the US.
This is illegal in international law and the Geneva convention.

6) The head of the Japanese Biological and Chemical Weapons Unit in WW2 was given a job in the US instead of facing war crime charges.


Still think your the good guys?

In saying all this, I am well aware Saddam Hussein is a an unsavoury brutal man. But he is certainly far less dangerous than when the US was supplying him with all manner of arms and chemical weapons in the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s.

September 11th was a hideous murderous attack but Americans must realise that in comparison to the daily death and carnage going on around the world (Some of which is US sponsored) it is the tip of the iceberg. And definitely the tip of the iceberg compared to the terror that will result from a continued US globalisation policy on other nations involving pre-emptive attacks - where does it end - North Korea, Iran ...?? You must realise why people in certain parts of the world are so anti-american. Understanding your enemy is probably the best think you'll ever achieve rather than simply trying to blow every one of them away.

PS I am not anti-american, just trying to help you understand WHY there is so much anti-american feeling around the world (which is rapidly increasing).


Old Post 02-04-2003 11:39 AM
Click here to Send britbox a Private Message Find more posts by britbox Add britbox to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore britbox REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

esskay
Rookie

offline
Registered: Jan 2003
Local time: 07:33 PM
Location:
Posts: 4293

Re: Two thoughts... post #26  quote:

quote:
Originally posted by britbox
Still think your the good guys?

PS I am not anti-american, just trying to help you understand WHY there is so much anti-american feeling around the world (which is rapidly increasing).


Some will buy this, some won't. Personally, I agree.. see, the problem is not with the people of this country, but with its leaders. The people can "feel" like they're "good" and their govenment can make them feel good about the tales of heroics and humanitarian aid, but the only thing the people really know is what their government tells them. And what the government tells them has been openly admitted is what they want to hear - stuff that makes them feel good. And so, yes: I think a lot of people in this country really, genuinely think that we are the good guys as a result. And I believe that a good lot of them would continue to think this even in the face of disheartening facts like those that you presented because they can always offer up some counter-facts to justify/rebut each of yours. They WANT to believe they are good.

And I don't see any easy way out of this situation. My own conspiracy theory states that the President of the United Statesreally is just a figurehead - a fall-guy or a messiah, whichever the nation needs at that moment - and the true ruling power, the military power, those who hold all the keys, gaurd all the gates, protect all the wealth and information, some close-knit disavowed organization with a select few, identity-protected individuals who pass down the real orders are unknown to the populous, and beyond our grasp. It is for this reason that putting a new president in office has no impact on the direction of the nation. This sort of secret society of "leaders" is all-powerful and all-controlling and could propagate itself over the ages without any official organizational structure, nor any external indication that it ever existed in the first place. You could replace the entire whitehouse staff and all of congress and still have enough "men in black", if you will, running around in the Pentagon to successfully lay seige on any nation of their choosing. They don't take orders from some newbie President who hasn't the faintest clue about the intricacies of foreign affairs. They don't give a rat's ass what the American public and "voters" think - but they would need to make the voters think that the "government" does care what they think. And hence we have presidential and congressional elections. And we have government agencies ready to listen and respond to your complaints and blah blah blah. It all sounds like a bloated, purpously over-complexified bureaucratic structure designed to mask the truth to me.

If such a structure does indeed exist in this nation, it is my opinion that the only way it would ever be exposed and/or erradicated would be an attempt at a complete government overthrow - who's going to try that?


Old Post 02-04-2003 06:43 PM
Find more posts by esskay Add esskay to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore esskay REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

Hypewaders
Qualified Rookie

offline
Registered: Feb 2003
Local time: 10:33 PM
Location:
Posts: 28

commenting on sean kelly above post #27  quote:

I don't believe the US' problems can be shrugged off in terms of propaganda and shadow government. I think part of the reason our government behaves in selfish and misinformed ways is precisely because it is a fairly representative democracy. I interact with fellow Americans every day who have incredibly shallow knowledge of history and the world outside, hold oversimplistic notions about US righteousness and superiority, and whose opinions are entirely compatible with current Washington dogma.

I believe Americans could influence their government for the betterment of themselves and the entire world. Unfortunately, selfish aspects of human nature and herd instinct seem to be heading a spoiled, comfortable USA on a collision course with a world outside that is just growing increasingly intolerant of us. Ultimately, we'll get put in our place. Unfortunately, it seems likely millions will be maimed, starved, and killed in the process.

Such a pity. If Americans could understand their own civics, hold their elected representatives accountable, and learn respect and empathy for the world outside, we could continue to enjoy our place in the world. However, I think we may be just too spoiled to be bothered with the self-examination. We may sooner rather than later be put in our place in ways we have no real countermeasures for. Human history remains in apparent acceleration, and many changes are coming in the Middle East. If Americans remain too apathetic to adjust, there are others who are going to rock our world for us. Enemies will exploit fatal weaknesses of empires past, a far more potent threat than WMD to our "national interest." Enemies will manipulate the predictable overreaction the US demonstrates when challenged. Empires have always succumbed in surprise to their militarily inferior colonies, and we cannot expect to somehow be different.

I share the frustration with the inertia of our huge government. But in respect to the big picture, both regime change and hubris begin at home. Personally, I don't expect to influence a great deal. But I speak out anyway, write letters to congress, and attend the big protests. And I vote my conscience on the issues, and not along any party line. Unless more Americans do the same, I think we are going down.


Last edited by Hypewaders on 02-05-2003 at 12:19 AM |
Old Post 02-05-2003 12:07 AM
Find more posts by Hypewaders Add Hypewaders to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore Hypewaders REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

w4c
Rookie

offline
Registered: Feb 2003
Local time: 03:33 AM
Location:
Posts: 2

post #28  quote:

Hi, I'm sorry for my english...

I think that USA (goverment ;) will gain on war in Iraq and so petrol will be pretty cheap in USA. (One liter in Europe is about $1 and more, $0.5 in USA right???...) It is necessary for the ***American life style***. (But for european too...) But I want to say something different. Well: Yes, Americans will have cheaper petrol (say), but it is true that Iraki people will have freedom. NO, don't stop reading, I know it sounds quite naive (stupid (sorry)), but I think, there is a pees of truth too. I'm from Czechia, last sunday Vaclav Havel become an EX-president. I was thinking about what did he do, and what realy happened to me in last 14 years, what has changed. And I think I should say 'thank You' to him for at least that I can travel freely now. Now I can visit France, India, USA, everything, but it would be very difficult before 1989 (impossibel in fact). There is much more, but I'm giving this examle, for I'm not sure if You (from free counries) can imagine what freedom realy means (or how it is if you don't have it). I wanna say that it's not normal if 99% of Iraqi peope vote for Saddam. It can't be true, it was very the same in Czechia before (99.9% peole voted for their beloved comunist party).

So I say Yes for invasion to Irak.

Have a nice day, Mirek.


Old Post 02-06-2003 12:56 AM
Click here to Send w4c a Private Message Find more posts by w4c Add w4c to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore w4c REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

Hypewaders
Qualified Rookie

offline
Registered: Feb 2003
Local time: 10:33 PM
Location:
Posts: 28

post #29  quote:

Ahoj Mirko-

If you want to compare the Middle East with Central Europe in the 20th century, the closest fit would be to imagine the United States playing the part of the Soviet Union: Unrelated events created the situation whereby a superpower takes a weaker country without serious international opposition. This invasion will be much more violent than the 1st and 2nd Soviet invasions of Czech.

I lived in the Middle East as a teenager, served on Board American Submarines during the cold war, and lived in Czech shortly after communism.

Iraq has already suffered under US more than Czechs did under Russians- and I realize that is saying a lot. Not unrelated in the context of Arab feelings, Israel & America together continue to act in defiance of civil rights, and have been humiliating the Arab world for a longer period of time than the 3rd Reich cursed Europe, and nearly as long as the Soviet Union held Central and Eastern Europe prisoner. However, few Czechs had their land taken away, and few by comparison were shot in the streets. This is happening today. American troops are in heavily armed camps in nearly every middle eastern country now, and have very little friendly interaction with native people outside their fortress walls. They are seen as hostile occupiers by most of the people, just as the Soviets were despised by free-thinking Czechs. All of these issues and more are on the minds of people just like you, who want the same things in life, but who have already seen many friends and family hurt and killed by sanctions and bombs, and they are now waiting with great uncertainty. Some expect only death as victims, some as soldiers. Some expect a better future.

In most every past intervention by the US, how these people feel is not a consideration in Washington. Most political analysis predicts Iraq will end up very much like Yugoslavia, because the borders do not reflect political realities, and there are many scores to settle that have been held at bay by Tito/Saddam.

In the first minutes of Gulf War 2, a large number of Iraq's oil wells will be burning. In the aftermath of the US occupation and exit, the entire region will be destabilized, and major conflicts are likely between Progressive and fundamentalist Arabs, and between Arabs and Israelis.

Your energy will be more expensive, and so will ours in America. Czech will come through much better though, because your country will not be blamed for millions of deaths. The United States will never recover from this disaster as a trustworthy world power, in my estimation.

Of course, in large regional conflicts like this anything is possible, so I wish you good luck too. Don't be too hard on us Americans when it's over. It was only my government, as the Germans and Russians used to say.

-Cau!


Old Post 02-06-2003 02:39 AM
Find more posts by Hypewaders Add Hypewaders to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore Hypewaders REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

Staff
Marc Flemming
Renovator

offline
Registered: Jan 2003
Local time: 07:33 PM
Location: Santa Cruz
Posts: 3663

Question post #30  quote:

quote:
Originally posted by Hypewaders:
I cry for my country, more for the millions of victims, and turn my hope to the survivors. One more time, humanity, while there's still time, the sad refrain: Don't Get Fooled Again.


Your predictions are noted.

What then will happen if the US does not remove Saddam?


Old Post 02-08-2003 07:03 PM
Click here to Send Marc Flemming a Private Message View Marc Flemming's Journal Visit Marc Flemming's homepage! Find more posts by Marc Flemming Add Marc Flemming to your buddy list Reply w/Quote
Time: 03:33 AM Post New Thread   
Pages (95):  [1] 23 » Last »   Print Version | Email Page | Bookmark | Subscribe to Thread
INReview INReview > Hot Topics > Post-9/11 Era > Are you FOR or AGAINST a War in Iraq?
Search this Thread:
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is OFF
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
Forum Policies Explained
 
Rate This Thread:

< >

Copyright ?2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited
Page generated in 0.11635089 seconds (76.53% PHP - 23.47% MySQL) with 43 queries.

ADS

© 2018, INReview.com.   Popular Forums  All Forums   Web Hosting by Psyphire.
INReview.com: Back to Home