Track this topic | Email this topic | Print this topic

So the time ticks down for Sadaam and comes to an end. Now we're headed for a war. Any opinions?

Personally, there are alot of factors going into this. Many people that dont want the war are very uneducated as to what is actually going on is what i've found in my personal experience. I can't stand all the anarchy and anti-flag kids at my school that are saying the whole war is just about Bush stealing Iraq's oil. He's already openly said that it's Iraq's oil and the U.S. isnt going to take it.

Another good one is how Iraq doesn't have any dislike for America at all, and wouldnt have any intention of using them. Then why not just publicly destroy them? The weapons were there when Sadaam kicked all the UN inspectors out in '97 or whatever, and now they're just gone? No documentation of destroying them..are they really that ignorant that they wouldn't expect someone to come knocking on their door again?

But then again, I think that Bush could have at least tried something more. Afghanistan was obviously for a good reason. But I feel we're mostly just angering the Middle East, while threatening them to officially "support" us so we don't look bad. If Sadaam's neighbors had come to us asking for help, then be all means we would. I just wish the whole thing with Iraq could be solved another way. Innocent lives shouldnt need to be lost. Looks like we have no choice though.

[EDIT] We've officially led a strike on Iraq, a "point of opportunity" which seems to have been on fairly short notice. A "decapatation" attempt to disable communications and strike specific targets. It seems to be meant as a wake up call for the Iraqi Regime, and the real fireworks won't start until tomorrow night in Baghdad (it's dawn there now, about a 12 hour difference or so.) Bush just spoke to the nation and said that we are taking every precaution to minimize civilian casualties. It also seems that we've pirated radio in Iraq with a new type of aircraft (forgot name). Good, let the people hear what is actually going on.



--------------------

The clouds ran away, opened up the sky
And one by one I watched every constellation die
And there I was frozen, standing in my backyard
Face to face, eye to eye, staring at the last star
I should've known, walked all the way home
To find that she wasn't here, I'm still all alone

-Atmosphere "Always Coming Back Home to You"

Personally, I think North Korea is a greater problem, we know
FOR SURE that they have nuclear and chemical weapons, and they have threaten to use them before, so they might do it again.

I dont know what to think now, i mean first we blame osama, and now were blaming saddum, so whos next after that?

a bit off topic:
so how many of you guys think osama is dead?

--------------------

Why do kamakazi pilots wear helmets?

Seriously enough let's have a look at this from Iraq, particularly Saddam's point of view.

America buys lots of my oil, America is a very powerful country. America wants us to put down our strongest source of weapons. Without nuclear defense, America could invade and take my oil, so I'll hide the weapons just in case. Afterall, they helped me fight Iran, but they used me, used me for their war. Now they are coming after me, the other big evil dictator running an oil country.

See where those oil arguments are coming from, and yes, Bush said Iraqi oil was for Iraqi people. Who belives the president nowdays anyway? On top of this, this is the son of a former president who was on edgy conditions with Saddam. Even if it isn't over oil, which I don't think it is over oil, a lot of people simply do not want loss of life and feel that Bush is manufacturing the hatred of the 9/11attacks to fuel the war. (I saw this in a special forces soldier remarking about 9/11 for the reson he joined the forces, and as I was protesting in Atlanta a man remarked somthing from 9/11) Like you said, there are many aspects to this, but this isn't a bunch of eneducated rabble bitching about the war. Maybe in your town there are, but here a lot of people have logical exuses why they do not want war.

There is somthing people call "manufactured response" it's a mind control tactic using events and mental 'levers' to make people think and feel a certain way. Bush has a whole room of people that write manufactured responses for him. Make sure you aren't doing this because of some patriotic speech, and that you do it on your own investigations, and your own look into the situation. Make sure you know the difference between this rather annoying nationalistic mind dribble, and what really happens.

--------------------

At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid.
Friedrich Nietzsche (1844 - 1900)

Today is a sad day in the history of democracy. Not only for the US but nations like the UK and Australia. Despite the fact that Saddam Hussein is an evil military dictator. The coalition against Iraq directly ignored the people who elected and put in power. Today the most recognised democracy in history became the very thing it despise's. But even though this is a sad day I have hope. Hope that after this conflict the world will have a greater tolerance of difference of opinion.

I believe Saddam Hussein should be put on trial. What the US Govt doesn't know that even though there is no proof Saddam has weapons of mass desruction. This war could the catalyst Saddam needs to use them.

Also what if Saddam did have nothing all along. How will the Coalition look if all along there are no weapons. Personally alot of evidence I've seen from the 3 tankers, refusing to let the UN Inspectors do their job, this proves to me that Saddam is clever at decieving people.

If George Bush does indeed give Iraq back to the people when the war is over and over quickly. Then he will retain the respect the world has for him. It may not look like it, but he does have alot of respect.

Quote (MorgueN @ 20 Mar 2003, 00:09)

The coalition against Iraq directly ignored the people who elected and put in power.

Are you talking about the people who elected Bush, or Saddam, or some other person? If you're talking about Bush, polls show the majority of Americans are for the war. If you are talking about Saddam, do you really believe that he was legitimately elected? Last election he recieved 100% of the votes. Not one for someone else, a little suspicious when it's a dictator we're talking about.

--------------------

What would Zorro do?-Homer Simpson

Well when saw that poll it was if it was UN backed and this isn't a UN backed war. Here it would be close if it was UN backed but majority 80% are against a Non UN backed war.

(I won't get into the topic deeply because if I do, my post will be 3 times longer than Tidu's )

I am not for this war. However I think that affirmative action is needed by the UN. The waiting game that the United Nations was playing obviously wasn't working. Iraq has gotten away with his actions for 13 years. I agree with MorgueN and think that Saddam should be put to a trial (only after viable, tangible proof of weapons of mass destruction) Hussein has treated his people like crap since he became the president of Iraq.

However, I believe the US was too preemptory in the invasion of Iraq. A war can cost hundreds, maybe thousands, of lives, given a worse-case-scenario. Waiting for the UN to come around isn't a good idea, but war should be last resort.

I also agree that North Korea poses a bigger threat. The US knows that they have nuclear weapons AND they are closer geographically to the US. Kim Il Sung is guilty of opressing his people just as much as Saddam Hussein is. Many people speculate that N. Korea will use the war on Iraq as a diversion to attack the south, resulting in South Korea beefing up it's border defenses.

I don't agree with war, but since the UN can't come up with any other plan other than waiting, there isn't a way around it.

"Freedom" fries and "Liberty" toast for all!

--------------------

"When I turn the page
The corner bends into the perfect dog ear
As if the words knew I'd need them again
But at the time, I didn't see it."

~"This Ain't a Surfin' Movie" - Minus the Bear

The funny thing is, though, Bush wasn't really legitimately elected either, was he?  All indications suggest that Gore had the overall majority.  It's quite funny for him to scoff at the Iraqi "vote of confidence" stuff.

It's been the same story here for most of the history of this buildup to war.  We're supportive if the UN agree, otherwise not.

I'm not opposed to removing Saddam Hussein from power per se.  My understanding is that he's not, uhm, especially nice to his people.  But when this began, I thought, "Why now?"   You have to admit, since he's been violating the UN for so long, it's a bit strange that he is suddenly a massive threat to the world who must be disposed of immediately or suffer the consequences.  My thought initially was that Bush wanted to ride the patriotic wave of support he had after his handling of 11 Sept. and beat on some more enemies (especially the ones who made trouble for his papa) while the people would be in favour, but I don't know.  I don't think it's all about oil, I'm not that cynical, but I have to question Blair and Bush's motivation in general.

Well, no need to question Blair's.  I'll write an algorithm to describe his leadership:

Code Sample

if (Bush.says("Jump")) { Blair.respond("How high?"); }

In the end, I don't think that saying France, Germany and Russia's refusal to comply is cynical carries any more weight than saying the war is in the first place.  The USA has an enormous amount of political and military power, and going against its wishes is not something a leader will do lightly.  I'm not saying they'll get blown to bits by America, but the potential for damaged trade etc. is enormous.  (Not that America couldn't blow them away if they wanted.  Don't even get me started on the hypocrisy of the West asking Iraq to disarm when they hold all sorts of nasty destructive power themselves.  Yeah, okay, Saddam is maybe a bit more insane/stupid than GWB, but can't you see why he'd want to defend his country in spite of UN resolutions?)

The strange thing about it is, when I'd flick on Ceefax news at the weekend, I'd always see stories like this:
IRAQ DOES EXACTLY WHAT IT'S TOLD, BUT A BIT SLOWLY
JACK STRAW DENOUNCES IRAQ'S CUNNING TRICKS
Hmm.  And didn't I hear recently that they actually HAVE been disarming some stuff?  And there was an article on BBC news about how the "evidence" documents presented on Saddam's Evil Might were actually very wrong in a number of places.

Frankly, I don't think there was ever an option for Bush and Blair.  Pure motives or not, I think they were always going to go to war from the word go.

Blair makes constant WWII references about anti-war protesters being remembered in the future like Neville Chamberlain.  That's naive.  He has no idea how history will record this.  But Britain always does have this chip on its shoulder about Chamberlain, and how it should have been harder to start with, but how can you know?  It's not like he was dealing with someone who was openly thought to be evil incarnate at the time.  There was quite a lot of support for the Nazi party in Britain, and taking a hard line might not have been in line with the opinions of the country he was supposed to represent.  Of course, that's really quite irrelevant these days.

And what about the Suez Crisis?  Military action isn't always remembered as the right thing to do, you know.  The US wasn't playing ball with us on that one though, but I refuse to believe that the only criterion for a war being right is American involvement.

In the end, I don't know.  I don't have compelling evidence either way.  The weapon inspectors knew a bit better, but they've gone now.  I won't take Bush/Blair's reports seriously because I know they're not entirely factual, which is reason enough to be a tad suspicious.  But I don't know.  But then, isn't the fastest way to find out if Iraq will use weapons of mass destruction on the West, to attack him?  (And by the way, WHY do you believe him when he says he'll blow America to bits if they attack, but not when he says he has no weapons?  Don't take any of it that seriously, he publically talks as much sense as a schoolyard bully, or one of those internet people who says things like "im gonna go to ur house and kill u wit a nucular ray gunn u sux lol".  Except when the UN push, he seems to get like a bully who's in too deep and just quietly agree to stuff, but slowly.  It's not easy.)

But still, we don't know.  You don't know how it'll work out, nor does Bush, and nor does Blair.
Richard Herring sums it up fairly well.

Here's my thoughts on the current situation.

I'm not surprised that France and Germany hold such adamant opposition to our standpoint on Iraq.  They have opposed us at almost every opportunity in this issue.  Their views sound one thing in my mind:  European Union.  The EU is all for restoring world power back to Europe, and in my opinion, sees this as a chance to condemn American and British involvement and win some support for themselves.  Furthermore, it should be no surprise that France in particular is so opposed, seeing as how Iraq is their primary customer in the arms dealing business.  They'll lose a lot of business if Iraq is forced to surrender.

In regards to World Opinion and Saddam, I don't think it can be discussed whether or not Bush or Blair are "Idiots" or "Wrong".  They are doing what they think is the right thing to do, and will fight for their beliefs as much as any other country.  Think about it for a moment if/when we find chemical or biological weapons or weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.  The UN arguments for peace were based on the fact that no such weapons were found, which is a pretty weak case to me.  I think it's pretty obvious they exist and Saddam is trying his best to hide them, because he's used them before in other circumstances, like in the 80's when he gassed his own people.  He's proven his evil intentions, and has even put military personnel and supplies around civillian areas, to hopefully use civillians as a shield against American bombardment or invasion.

Here's more of my thoughts.  We've given Saddam numerous chances to avoid war.  We've wasted enough valuable time complying with UN demands for inspection, which is time that we don't have.  Granted, the demands to avoid war were high, but he should expect nothing less with the atrocities he's committed.  The decision for war has been made, whether we agree with Bush or not.  I think that now is the time that we start giving our support to our government and our British comrades, and not protesting.  I think we should stand behind our president, because being bitter about it will not change the government's decision.  We've been called upon for support, and to not give it is to turn our back on our country (MY opinion, remember, not fact).  We have family and friends that are fighting to protect our freedoms from imminent danger as we speak, risking their lives for what they believe in.  Should we just wait around for another 9/11 or Pearl Harbor to happen to us before we will go to war?  I think the time to act is now, before the threat infringes on our lives.  

After the war with Iraq has concluded, and if/when we've successfully removed the threat, I think we must remain there to set up a proper system of government with the views of their people to have a voice.  To me, that's what it will take to prevent us from having to go back there in another ten years.  

My 2¢.  Take it or leave it.

Quote (Tiddles the Cat @ 20 Mar 2003, 06:09)

The funny thing is, though, Bush wasn't really legitimately elected either, was he?  All indications suggest that Gore had the overall majority.  It's quite funny for him to scoff at the Iraqi "vote of confidence" stuff.

Took the words right out of my mouth, Tiddles.

As for the whole oil-stealing thing, it's not that we're going to directly steal the oil, oh no, Bush would never do that. We're just going to set up a friendly dictator to sell us the oil nice and cheap.

My whole thoughts about the war can be summed up in this article I wrote. I'm going to write another, more scathing anti-war article next week.

Quote

I’m sick of this war already.   It hasn’t even started yet and I can’t stand it. I’m sick of hearing about it, I’m sick of reading about it, and I’m sick of every problem in America being blamed on it.   Which is why I need to write about it.   From what I’ve been able to discern, there are two main reasons we need to go war with Iraq.   Reason #1: “We need to make the world safe for democracy.”   This one is the most bullshit to me. America may very well be under attack, but by whom? The majority of the terrorists involved in the September 11 attack were Saudi Arabian. Great, let’s go to war with Saudi Arabia. What’s that? They’re our ally? We’re going to war with Iraq? This is getting confusing.   So what has Iraq done to draw our ire? They might secretly be making nuclear weapons? So what? Nowadays any country that can afford clean water has a nuclear arsenal. Many political scientists believe this is a good thing, because the more countries that have nuclear weapons, the less likely they are to use them. Mutually Assured Destruction is the term for it. And while that’s a scary thought, it does have kind of an insane logic to it. Why would anyone fire a nuclear weapon when they know in minutes they could receive ten times what they just fired.   Besides, we’re the last country that should be pointing fingers about nuclear weapons. After all, everyone here from a country that’s dropped a nuclear weapon on another country, raise your hand. Not too many Iraqi hands up now, are there?   So Sadaam is vocally anti-American? That sounds like a good reason to go to war. While we’re at it, let’s go to war with every country that doesn’t like us. I heard China doesn’t like us too much, let’s declare war on them. Most of South America thinks we’re greedy imperialists, let’s just take the whole continent out. Come on, we’re America! We can beat anyone!   Reason #2: Sadaam has committed numerous human rights violations as dictator of Iraq.   This one’s a little more believable, but still does not hold water. There’s no doubt Sadaam treats his citizens as despicably as any World War II despot. But why are we so socially conscious now all of a sudden? Where were we when Rwanda political factions were putting guns into the hands of ten year old boys to go out and do their dirty work? Why did we support South African apartheid until very nearly the bitter end?   I’ll tell you why. There’s one big difference between Iraq and other countries. And that difference is…   Reason #3: Oil.   Iraq is inconveniently located in between the Caspian Sea (the world’s largest remaining oil source) and the Indian Ocean. Imagine how much easier it would be to get at that oil if the Iraqi government was Pro-American. But for that to happen, Sadaam has got to go.   I wish Bush would just come out and say “We’re going to war so that those people I’m giving tax cuts for can drive their $75,000 SUV’s to soccer practice without having to pay five bucks for gas.” I’d respect the man a lot more if he said that. But that’s not very patriotic sounding, is it?   Whatever happened to “Peace on Earth and goodwill toward men?” I thought that was everyone’s goal. It does not seem that hard to me. There are alternatives to war, don’t try to tell me we’ve resolved them all already. I’m sure our fearless leader is smart enough to figure some way to not go to war. Okay, maybe not, but I still think a solution can be reached.   Am I “Anti-American” because I don’t want to see anyone die? Am I “helping the terrorists win” by trying to save as many lives, American and Iraqi, as possible? I don’t think so.   I just want a little peace on Earth and goodwill toward men.

--------------------

Hip-Hop QOTW:

"Yeah, where I'ma start it at, look I'ma part of that
Downtown Philly where it's realer than a heart attack
It wasn't really that ill until the start of crack
Now it's a body caught every night on the Almanac"

"Game Theory"
The Roots

i cant so much agree with either side of an opinion. i dont want to go to war but it has to be done. for too long, saddam has been allowed to continue with his erratic behavior and nobody has done enough to stop it, and thats called appeasement. and if youre not familiar with what happens when you appease a tyrant, then take a look at european history from the years of 1936 to 1945. you should all understand what im talking about. saddam simply needs to be stopped, and the time is now.



--------------------

You watch the world exploding every single night
Dancing in the sun, a newborn in the light
Say goodbye to gravity and say goodbye to death
Hello to eternity and live for every breath

Your time will come...

i was opposed to attacking Iraq, i felt N. Korea was the better target. Now it has begun, i will support my nations troops as they fight. i will not use the war as an excuse to try an skive off classes, like some high- school pupils did in the UK.
"I do not fear, but  am cautious."- i know that iraq will not affect me. i know that the peace protseters are wasting their time.
and i know that 22 regiment will be a critical thorn in iraqs side. Great Britain ahs some of the best troops in the world- 22 regiment (SAS), the Royal marines, the Desert rats. Hey, our guns jam, but we are THE best in the world.

God Save the Queen, and God Bless America!



--------------------

"Only the dead have seen the end of their quotes being misattributed to Plato."
-George Santayana

"The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here..."
-Abraham Lincoln, prior to the discovery of Irony.

It's a question of ends and means, to me.  I've had a hard time forming an opinion on this, because I tend to agree with both sides.

Saddam has to go.  I don't think anyone will disagree with that.  The way he treats his people can only be described as purely evil.  Even if he doesn't have weapons of mass destruction, he's still guilty of countless other horrible crimes.  So, regarding the human element of this conflict, I have to support whatever removes Saddam from power.  In truth, I think it should have been done during the Gulf War.

However, I am very suspicious of of the real motivation behid this 'war' (I hesitate to call it a war; 'slaughter' seems like a more accurate term).  I don't really think oil factors into it very much at all.  Rather I think that President Bush has been swept away in his own political maneuvering.  

Bush had the misfortune of taking office just as certain Islamic extremists were completing preparations for their massive 9/11 attack.  After that event, Bush started his "War on Terrorism" (an incredibly stupid concept, in my opinion, since 'terrorism' is an attitude; it's like trying to wage war on 'love').  I actually think he handled things quite well at the beginning, showing a great deal of restraint during a time when many Americans were crying for revenge (as opposed to President Clinton who, after a terrorist attack on a US embassy, launched missiles at the Middle East almost at random).  

However, after the military action in Afghanistan, people saw that nothing was really being accomplished.  Osama bin Laden still couldn't be found, and maybe terrorism isn't so easy to wage war against.  Sensing the restlessness of the American people, Bush discovered . . . "The Axis of Evil!!"  

Finally, Bush has an actual opponent in his war!  Iraq has borders and territory to attack, not to mention a leader with a history of getting on America's nerves.  Never mind the fact that there is not a single shred of evidence linking Saddam to the 9/11 attacks.  

Still, I don't think that Bush and his advisors really thought about military action against Iraq.  But everyone else did.  Soon, everyone thought that Iraq was the next target in the War on Terror, and Bush had no choice, really, but to go along with it.  

Things kept escalating until, finally, we arrived at this point.  We've got America and Britain launching an unsanctioned attack on a nation that poses no threat to the United States or any of its rich allies.  This is going on against the will of the majority of citizens in America, England, and the other nations of this coalition, and might well cause more unrest in that unstable region of the world.

Hmm.  I don't know.  Like I said at the beginning, it's a quesion of ends and means.  Saddam will be removed from power, and that is a very good thing.  But, the means to that end seem somewhat shady to me.

--------------------

Always hopeful, yet discontent; he knows changes aren't permanent --
But change is!

In response to anyone and everyone who said that North Korea was a more dangerous target, let's use a little logic here.  Iraq has oil, and plenty of it.  North Korea has...cabbage.  The North Korean government is morally bankrupt; this is a fact.  Yes, I said "government," because anyone who wants to pin this on the North Korean people  and maintain prejudice against Koreans in general, North or South, is, and I don't use this term lightly, a total idiot.  That aside, Americans can't power their cars on kimchi.  (Even though kimchi rocks as a source of nourishment; take it from a Korean American.)  The North Korean government has starved its people and forsaken any attempt on improving the sorry condition of the populace in favor of weaponry.  As a result, there isn't a whole lot to win in direct conflict with them.  In conclusion, I repeat, Iraq has oil, and North Korea does not.

Anyway, on to the war.  I can't say I agree with either side strongly on this one.  Of course, I say that about pretty much everything that has to do with politics.  (Straight down the line independents all the way!  WOO HOO!)  I see the logic behind the war (read: "How did our oil get under their sand?")  However, I'm irritated by the way Bush can't come out and admit that he wants Iraq for natural resources.  Saddam Hussein is definitely a power-hungry and in many ways sadistic and depraved despot, and anyone who disagrees hasn't kept tabs on current events over the past couple of decades (or lives in Iraq and is in constant fear of getting lined up and shot).

The majority of the U.N. is against the war, and I can see the logic behind their reasoning, too.  Of course, you have to count that the Iraqi government has a lot of debt owed to France and Russia, who (QUITE COINCIDENTALLY I ASSURE YOU HAHA) happen to be two of the war's strongest opponents.  Naturally, we can't say that they're a bunch of liars and hypocrites (read: Bush wants Iraq for oil, duh).  Still, it's fairly obvious that conflict was bound to happen sometime or another, as it's pretty much a fact that Saddam does have weapons of mass destruction, and would use them on the U.S. in a heartbeat if he thought he could get away with it.  It's also very true that Saddam supports terrorism against the U.S. wholeheartedly, both publicly and privately.

I guess the only safe conclusion I can draw from this whole mess is that there are ulterior motives to absolutely every  aspect of this war, and we should always keep that in mind.  As with most situations of this sort, there's no distinct 100% good or 100% bad to any decision the respective governments could make.  I guess I'll just have to sit back for twenty years and see what the 20/20 hindsight of historical retrospection has to say.



--------------------

"I always have a quotation for everything - it saves original thinking."
~Dorothy L. Sayers

"The truly remarkable thing about television is that it allows several million people to laugh at the same joke and still feel lonely."
~T.S. Eliot

"Defeat is not defeat unless accepted as reality - in your own mind!"
~ Bruce Lee

France has said that they will support Allied action in Iraq if Saddam decides to use any chemical or biological weapons in battle, so enough with the Freedom toast bullshit.  I'm very tired of all the anti-French sentiment circling the country right now, because they have no reason to go to battle with Iraq.  Sure, French history precedes them, but they've got a very high and GROWING Arab population, and it would be an extremely stupid decision by Chirac if he decided to attack a country with people that may very well be seeking solace in his own within the next couple of weeks.

I've always been against this war, as Tiddles already stated, it just seems like the timing is off.  All I really remember about the start of the "discussions" regarding Iraq was waking up one morning and suddenly we're all supposed to be angry with them and support any Bush action against them.  And they refused to tell us WHY.  All we're supposed to be are good, obedient citizens and believe whatever Bush tells us, but I don't buy it right now, and I still don't buy it even now that Saddam didn't obey his ridiculous 48-hour warning.  I think it'd be funny if Chretien or someone came out with a warning like that for Bush just to show him how ridiculous he's being.  Sure, Saddam is a bad guy, but there's actually evidence that he wasn't behind the Kurdish massacres in the first place.

I just think we should give peace a chance.  But apparently that's not an option, as the police are arresting people who express that opinion.



--------------------

Hey, put the cellphone down for a while
In the night there is something wild
Can you hear it breathing?
And hey, put the laptop down for a while
In the night there is something wild
I feel it, it's leaving me

Neal, if you dont like the anti-french feelings in the US be glad you dont live in the UK..
a tabloid paper here call Jaques Chorac 'Le Worm'..
we seem to have ahted the french for years..
thers an endless stream of anti-french gags out there..

and  then of course, theres me! the most anti-french thing there is.

I note the 'french will support if the iraqis use Biochemicla wepaons part..' one of the best images i saw today was of a british female news correspondent in kuwait panicking to put on a gas mask during an air raid warning.. then a British troop runs by.. i could just imaging him yelling
'sorry, sir, false alarm, i just burnt the corn flakes!'
'you burnt the what? oh for goodness sake! boil the milk before you put the flakes in!'

--------------------

"Only the dead have seen the end of their quotes being misattributed to Plato."
-George Santayana

"The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here..."
-Abraham Lincoln, prior to the discovery of Irony.

Quote (Alexandr @ 20 Mar 2003, 19:57)

Saddam has to go.  I don't think anyone will disagree with that.  The way he treats his people can only be described as purely evil.  Even if he doesn't have weapons of mass destruction, he's still guilty of countless other horrible crimes.  So, regarding the human element of this conflict, I have to support whatever removes Saddam from power.  In truth, I think it should have been done during the Gulf War. However, I am very suspicious of of the real motivation behid this 'war' (I hesitate to call it a war; 'slaughter' seems like a more accurate term).  I don't really think oil factors into it very much at all.  Rather I think that President Bush has been swept away in his own political maneuvering.   Things kept escalating until, finally, we arrived at this point.  We've got America and Britain launching an unsanctioned attack on a nation that poses no threat to the United States or any of its rich allies.  This is going on against the will of the majority of citizens in America, England, and the other nations of this coalition, and might well cause more unrest in that unstable region of the world.

Alexandr You are correct these paragraphs prove why the war needs to be UN backed. With the UN in command it will be them who are in charge and they will have the task of dealing with Iraq when the war is over. The oil raises too many questions as to the real motivations of George Bush. While I still believe even though the methods of the coalition are wrong. That their purpose to rid the world of Saddam is noble one. Unfourtunatly there is no altruism in war. To win a war you have to be oppourtunistic and given an oppourtunity both sides will sieze whatever chances they get.

To be perfectly honest, I'm a little scared. The Air Force recruiter sent me a letter a couple days ago saying that with the threat against Iraq, additional armed forces will be needed. And I have a chance (roughly, a 35-40% chance) of being recruited early to training and sent off to the persian gulf on an aircraft carrier. And that's what scares me.
I don't want to go through life knowing that I didn't graduate. I don't want to go thousands of miles away and live on a carrier for months on end. I dread walking through the door after school, finding a message on the answer machine saying that I'm going to be sent to the Air Force academy for a briefing on Iraq.
After reading the letter over and over again, I realized that I signed up for the Air Force for a reason... It's not about what I want to happen to me. I signed up to defend this country from whatever or whomever wants to mess with us. And if I do get that fateful call, I'll accept it and go stick a nuke in Saddam's face personally!
...
All of my peace-love-harmony people in my class all hate me because I'm actually backing President Bush 100%. People make me really upset sometimes... I'm sorry for the way I feel. I have the right to an opinion. And my opinion is Bush is right... something has to be done and the UN is doing nothing but bullshit. You can't wait for Saddam to start using his weapons before you do something about it. By then, hundreds will die.
It also really upsets me when this girl won't stop bugging me on how I'm throwing my life away to a corrupt democracy by going into the Air Force. Everyday, I hear the same damn thing. "You know that those politicians will use the Air Force as just another tool for the it's imperialistic fascism against a defenseless third world nation. You'll be just another pawn under the wing of the communistic... oops.. i mean "democratic" government".... GOD DAMNIT, she pisses me off so bad. EVeryone has one of those  people in their lives.. the kind of people you wish you had 10 good minutes alone with them in fistacuffs and give them a good old fashioned beat down. If she doesn't like the American government MOVE TO CANADA! See if I care!
...

sorry about my profanity.. when i speak my mind, a couple swears seem to come out...

Edit

it's just been brought to my attention that this applies for recruits 18 and over... and I'm 17 until August. So, I've "escaped a bullet" per se. But still, if asked, there would be no hesitance in my mind.

--------------------

Air force... if you ever join the militant wing, join the Air force

Army = jockos
Navy = seasick nerds
Marines = show offs
PeaceCorp = hippies

AF is the way to go

Last night I went out to eat with my sister and friend Beka,they resturant had a TV going. When they said we had gone to war my heart stoped and I started to pray. I can't believe we are at war ..sigh its so scary.

--------------------

Things have not changed
You have changed

Henery David Thoreau

Quote (mookie99 @ 20 Mar 2003, 18:03)

I'm sorry for the way I feel. I have the right to an opinion. And my opinion is Bush is right... something has to be done and the UN is doing nothing but bullshit.

You should never apologize for having an opinion.  Opinions can't be wrong, they can only be misintentioned.  But I understand how I would feel in your situation -- you made a decision to fight for your country and to fight for something you believe in.  More power to you.  I may not support the war, but there's no way I won't support the troops.

EDIT: This really makes me sound like a jerk.  I'm not trying to say that your opinion is misintentioned.  I'm just merely saying that that's the only thing that can be weird about opinions in general.



--------------------

Hey, put the cellphone down for a while
In the night there is something wild
Can you hear it breathing?
And hey, put the laptop down for a while
In the night there is something wild
I feel it, it's leaving me

Well being in college and a social studies major I suppose I should apply my opionion.

First of all, France the only reason they oppose us is cause they have contracts with Iraq for oil. Also, in WWII we decided not to support free France till the end of the war and they have hated us for that ever since.

And as it pertains to Iraq. I support war and we need to go in there and take Saddam out. All the anti-war supporters keep saying that innocent Iraqi lives will be lost. Well my response to that is...DUH. In any war in any time innocent lives have been lost. It is sad when many anti-war supporters use that as their main stance, well then I guess we should have never fought England in the Revolutionary since many innocent lives were lost. Saddam needs to be taken out and after him North Korea

--------------------

War is for the participants a test of character; it makes bad men worse and good men better. - Joshua Chamberlain

U sir R a n00b >:-( - Cactuar

Well, as probably everyone here knows, I am the resident hawk.  I am totally for this war. I think it should have never had to happen if we would've had the will to do the right thing in 1991 and remove Saddam.  It should have also happened in 1998 when Saddam kicked out the inspectors.  No matter.  War is here, and it needed to happen.

This war is for the defense of America, and the free world.  It is not for oil, it is not because Bush wants to win an election, it is not because we are a bunch of war mongers.  It is because the regime in Iraq chose to make weapons of mass destruction when the U.N. told it not to.  It is because Saddam obviously doesn't like America or the west and would do anything he could to harm us.  It is because Saddam chooses to harbor and deal with terrorists, which has been proven on several occasions.  And, last but not least, it is because it is the right thing to do.  The Iraqi people deserve better.  They deserve the right to choose their own leaders.  They deserve the right to use their vast economic resources to better their own lives, not build horrible weapons or gaudy presidential palaces.

But America has more chemical and biological weapons than Iraq!  True, but do we use them on our own people?  Would we give them to terrorists?  Would we ever use them except under absolutely dire circumstances?  Do our people starve and live in poverty because of all the money we spend on these weapons?  No.

Anyone who thinks this war is for oil is totally ignorant.  If we wanted Iraqi oil fields, we would have taken them back in '91.  Furthermore, lets weigh the cost of waging this war - $90 billion - versus us buying $90 billion worth of oil from any OPEC country - probably not a very good deal.  I'm sure whatever oil we will get from Iraq in the future will pale in comparison to the amount of money we are spending to free her oppressed people.

And yes, the Iraqi people are oppressed.  I don't think anyone here can know how completely awful it must be to live in a country with a dictator like Saddam Hussein.  If you are against the war, that is fine, it is your opinion.  Just know that if you were protesting against the state in Bagdhad right now you would have a gun in your mouth.  All I know is if I was an Iraqi citizen, I would be ecstatic with joy right now because I would finally be free from a horrible tyrant.  I would pray every day for the United States and her allies to free me.

It is quite clear that we do not have UN approval for this war.  Tell me this:  what has the UN ever accomplished?  They've bungled numerous conflicts ever since their inception.  Saddam wouldn't even be in power if it weren't for the weak UN mandate that tied our hands from going into Baghdad in 1991.  The UN failed miserably in Somalia.  Rwanda was a complete disaster.  Bosnia is still a war zone.  To me, the United Nations is becoming utterly worthless, just a symbol of pointless bickering.  The UN chose to condemn Saddam and demand that he be disarmed, but that was YEARS ago in 1997.  He obviously hasn't been disarmed since.  Why do you think Saddam kicked the weapons inspectors out in 1998?  Of course he was going to build more weapons, why else would he?  And does anyone in the UN besides Britain, Spain, and the US have any guts to do anything about it?  Doesn't look like it.  The only reason Saddam was even halfway complying was because we had deployed forces to the area, and even still it was not nearly what the UN had originally stated that they wanted in resolution 1441:  Immediate, total, unconditional disarmament.  But of course, why don't we just give him 5 more years, right?  Then maybe when Kim Il-Jong in North Korea is ordered to destroy his nukes by the UN he will be able to bluff and dodge the UN for 5 more years.  Would someone please tell me the point here?  You cannot deal with people like Saddam Hussein.  The man has no rational function whatsoever.

As for the French, they are free to form their own opinion on the matter, but I am absolutely disgusted at the fact that they would go as far to veto a resolution authorizing force.  It's a sad truth, but force is the only way to deal with Saddam.  Appeasement has not worked for the last 7 or so years.  If the French don't like us going to war, then that's just dandy.  If the French are going to try and stop us from going to war, then that is wrong.  I wonder how many American lives were lost liberating France in the 40s?  I wonder how many BILLIONS of dollars the US has spent defending France in the last 60 years from the communists.  They certainly didn't complain about us defending them.  But to defend ourselves from potential terrorist acts?  Dear god, no!  Germany is even worse.  The current chancellor of Germany got elected simply because he does not like America.  His main campaign tool was Anti-Americanism.  The people in Germany seem oblivious enough to not notice the 13% unemployment rate and the massive economic slide occurring in their own country because they are far too busy trying to prevent us from defending ourselves.  What total bullshit.

Not many of you agree with me, which is okay, I'm used to it.  I have some pretty hawkish views that are uncommon for our age group around here.  Hell, most of the world doesn't agree with me.  But I will close with this little quote from Howard Cosell:  

"That which is right is not always popular and that which is popular is not necessarily right."

Our president may not be doing the popular thing right now, but he is doing the right thing.  I pray for the safety of all coalition forces.  May this war be quick and decisive.  God bless America.



--------------------

"Hit hard, hit first, hit often."

--Adm. William "Bull" Halsey, USN

But what makes us the judge of who deserves what? What makes the Iraqi people more deserving than the Rwandan people? They underwent much worse all through the nineties. We sat by and watched that happen. Now we have a social concious all of a sudden? I don't buy it.

Like Alexandr said, no one questions Sadaam's evilness. But how are we better than him when we bomb their country back to the stone age? (we WILL kill innocent women and children, don't be naive) Just because we're going to stay around and build a democracy when we're done (that'll be great...for the survivors, at least.) And what do we do when we're done? Are we going to go invade EVERY country with any civil rights violations? Where the hell do we begin? I think we need to be clean our own house (The "Education" president, who's letting the state of Oregon go without five weeks of school) before we point our fingers at the world.

--------------------

Hip-Hop QOTW:

"Yeah, where I'ma start it at, look I'ma part of that
Downtown Philly where it's realer than a heart attack
It wasn't really that ill until the start of crack
Now it's a body caught every night on the Almanac"

"Game Theory"
The Roots

But like I said - this war is about American national defense.  If Saddam is harboring terrorists, creating horrible weapons, and could supply terrorists with these weapons to harm Americans, than our government has the right and the obligation to rid itself of those dangers.  As for Rwanda, I think our government is learning a lesson from Rwanda to be a better "policeman" in the world - after all, it is mostly the UN's fault that nothing got done in Rwanda.  If we would have said screw the UN like we are now then that horrible tragedy could have been avoided.

As for the civilian casualties, that is the absolute worst thing about this and any war.  Noone wants them to happen except Saddam (he has used human shields before), and our military is doing everything it can to prevent them.  Civilian casualties are tragic, but war is not the cleanest thing in the world, that's why it was not our first resort in dealing with this problem.  But before we assess the number of civilian casualties in Iraq, let's assess in the next few years how many civilians Saddam will kill arbitrarily because they oppose him, or how many of his civilians will starve because Saddam wants a new presidential palace.  Furthermore, American lives will be saved because this war will prevent future terrorist acts.  Looking at that, the number of civilian casualties that will be avoided by this war outweigh the number that will be caused by it.

--------------------

"Hit hard, hit first, hit often."

--Adm. William "Bull" Halsey, USN

I don't know what I think about us getting in to it. I don't know all the particulars and what's true and not true about the situation. I don't however, think it's about oil. 70% of our oil comes from here in the United States. However, there's a little problem going on with that oil. Even though there are oil refineries in California we still have to pay $2.00+/gal but that's beside the point and has nothing to do with the war on Iraq. I just wanted to rant about that.

Anyway, I'm just worried about what this war will mean. As far as I know Saddam hasn't mounted much of a defense against our attack. Specifically, no chemical weapon defense. This makes me wonder, were there chemical weapons there in the first place? If there weren't, was it right that we went to war? Or, even worse, is he saving them for when we think we've won to unleash all over the United States? Or have they been transported to a neighboring Middle Eastern country to be deployed on us? Also, what do the other countries really think of this? Is it enough of an act to band together and want to take down the United States? Hopefully not because I would think that import and export would be too important for that. Just some revolving questions in my head.

--------------------

Elena Indurain

Currently Playing: Suikoden II

We'll we've now initiated the "Shock and Awe" tactics on Baghdad and the rest of Iraq. Many explosions and a lot of fire, but nothing compared to that of the Persian Gulf War..yet.

Quote

Also, what do the other countries really think of this? Is it enough of an act to band together and want to take down the United States?

Well, to put things in perspective:

Milatarily, in the Persian Gulf War Iraq had the 4th strongest milatary in the world compared to the USA which is 1st. The war lasted a month. There is a very big difference in military strength in the world so much so that basically the USA and our pal Tony Blair and the British could take on most of the world in a head on war, barring terrorist attacks. The only major threat would of course be Russia, because even though the Soviet Union broke up and their economy went down the toilet, they still have enough nukes to blow the world to hell so and so times over.

Besides the point, that would most likely never happen, so let me get back to the point at hand. Gerad raises some excellent points, and I agree on many of them. Sadaam is a tyrant to his people. He does and will continue to arbitrarily kill his own people. He must be dealt with, and if the UN refuses to comply with it's own resolutions and standards, then somebody has to step up and take an initiative. The way things stand, the UN is a weak and merely political organization. UN stands for un. Unprepared, Unfound, and most of all Un-unified. It will most likely crumble just as the League of Nations did after WWI. When an organization can't even follow its own standards, then it has no reason for setting them.

However, I also find it somewhat unnerving that Bush woke up one day and told America that it's finally time to take down Sadaam. No wonder there are all these protests, Bush isn't open enough with us. Did you see the one in Chicago? Wow.

While I may not agree with the timing of the war or it's motives 100%, I am by all means backing the troops. I have friends that are over there right now and some of my friend's older brothers are over there as well.

Also, I know the kind of people your talking about Mookie. I can't stand them either. You can't say anything to them that they'll accept. Some of the most close minded people I've ever met...they think they're always right and everything is a lie, everything is corrupt, America is the most hypocritical nation in the history of the world, blah blah blah.  Shut the hell up, just because I don't agree with you or listen to your "truth" bullshit, doesn't mean i'm a lost follower or whatever it is.

--------------------

The clouds ran away, opened up the sky
And one by one I watched every constellation die
And there I was frozen, standing in my backyard
Face to face, eye to eye, staring at the last star
I should've known, walked all the way home
To find that she wasn't here, I'm still all alone

-Atmosphere "Always Coming Back Home to You"

Quote (Gerad @ 21 Mar 2003, 09:48)

Furthermore, American lives will be saved because this war will prevent future terrorist acts.

I fail to see how this war is going to prevent future terrorist attacks. Remember, any chemical weopon research facility built in the middle east is American made,, and Afghanistan and Iraq aren't the only ones. We supported all these people during the cold war, now it's coming back to bite us. I think this is more likely to cause anti-American backlash. All the groups that hate America are going to hate them even more after this, and some of the groups sitting on the fence aren't going to look too kindly on this.

We do agree on one thing, though. As long as we're in Iraq, we need to get rid of Sadaam. IF I thought this war was only about civil rights, then perhaps I could be...well, not FOR it, I am a pacifist, but not as strongly against it as I am. But I do think Sadaam needs to go.

--------------------

Hip-Hop QOTW:

"Yeah, where I'ma start it at, look I'ma part of that
Downtown Philly where it's realer than a heart attack
It wasn't really that ill until the start of crack
Now it's a body caught every night on the Almanac"

"Game Theory"
The Roots

This is a complicated issue, and anyone who says they are completely on one side of the issue is extremely ignorant towards it.

I am a pacifist by religion. I see war as a quick solution that does not truly solve the problem, and diplomacy is the only true answer. But, in this case, not going to war is the greater sin.
Hussein is a psycho. Any one who doesn't belive me, pull up info from Desert Storm, and look at the pictures of "interrogated" POWs. The process to get them that way is MUCH worse than you would think, and many were personally done by Hussein. Then there are the things he does to his own citizens.
Hussein lost Desert Storm. Isn't the loser of a war supposed to comply with the winner's demands? Just by not allowing inspectors in violates the resolutions. When you do something like that, what is the world supposed to think? After 12 years of non-compliance to the resolutions, war is long-overdue. There is no diplomacy left.

Those of you who want to protest the war, fine. But, some of the anti-war demonstrations I've seen on the news have been getting as violent than the actual war itself.
To the "allied" protesters:
Think about this simply,
USA has guns, Hussein has guns
USA has bombs, Hussein has bombs
USA has nukes, Hussein may have nukes (Obstructed inspections leaves this possibility open)
Who is more likely to use them on you?
To the American protesters:
DO NOT LET THIS BECOME ANOTHER VIETNAM!!!
Part of the reason we lost Vietnam was because a small minority of Americans started to wildly protest, and others joined in and followed like sheep. This disenhearted the population and military, preventing them from turning the war around. Granted, there are differences between our situation & Vietnam's (Like Vietnam had less of a chance than Iraq does now) but this can still happen again.
DO NOT LET US LOSE THIS WAR, WE CANNOT AFFORD IT!!!

--------------------

"I had to write four novels before they let me write comic books."
-Brad Meltzer

I'd have to side with Gerad on this issue. I believe the US has good intentions going into Iraq. This is about doing what's right, blah blah blah. Now that the war has started it's pretty futile to talk about whether or not we should be there, right now our troops need support, not descent. Shifting gears, I think that due to recent events, the execution of POWs and the fake surrenders, the coalition forces should maybe be a little more quick to use force. If the humanitarian part of this mission is putting soldiers in harm, I think it should be seriously considered that the gloves come off. If troops do not obviously surrender i.e. trow all weapons away and lie on the ground, then shoot them. Don't get me wrong, I think that non-combatants should not be targeted, but I think the current plans are hurting the troops.

--------------------

What would Zorro do?-Homer Simpson

I certainly don't consider myself ill-informed for not wanting to turn to violence over this, but it's not as though anything can be done about it now and it's not as though I expected protestors would ever make any difference.

I could say a lot about it but right now I only have the energy to say that I hate Republicans.  They make me ill.  Sorry to any of you who are Republicans, I probably wouldn't hate you personally, just as a collective body.

--------------------

With every mistake we must surely be learning
Still my guitar gently weeps