JayhawkJumper 0 #1 March 24, 2003 Ok, this isn't some kind of anti-war thread at all, but could someone inform me on the updated reasons we are in Iraq. It just seems to me like there are a lot of good reasons to be over there, but those reasons are in other countries as well. It can't be because of 9/11 because that was Osama, and even though Iraq may be harboring terrorists, so are other countries, it can't be because of oil because we are going to give it back to the people, it can't be because of weapons because North Korea and Israel violated the UN treaty and developed Nukes, and Sadam hasn't yet, and it can't be because of human rights because there are a lot of other human rights violators just as bad or worse than Sadam. I honestly think that removing Sadam will be beneficial for their country and the region so I support the war, but my question is, why them and why now? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #2 March 24, 2003 I see you're a newbie. For more discussion on this subject than you would ever want to hear, please scroll down and read all 5 zillion threads on this very topic. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CrazyIvan 0 #3 March 24, 2003 Quote scroll down and read all 5 zillion threads on this very topic. A-hem...actually is 6 zillion __________________________________________ Blue Skies and May the Force be with you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,416 #4 March 24, 2003 I'd recommend Kenneth Pollack's book "the threatening storm - the case for war with Iraq" for a good overview. It makes a convincing case for the need to remove his power one way or another; much of the remaining argument centers around how to do that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gemini 0 #5 March 24, 2003 Uh, if it is such a good overview Bill, how come you're not convinced? Blue skies, Jim Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,416 #6 March 24, 2003 >Uh, if it is such a good overview Bill, how come you're not convinced? I am convinced he has to be disarmed one way or another. I disagree that a war against Iraq is the best way to do that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rgoper 0 #7 March 24, 2003 we're there because we can be. we're the world's foremost "super power" and we're currently "flexing our muscles" at our troops expense. our allies included. we're at war because we're egotistical, and we were "slapped in the face" on 09/11. we're at war because Wyatt Earp, and Doc Hiliday are maniacal twisted nonsenseacle imbiciles. we're at war because we can be, it's our right. take this post with a grain of salt. if your new here, my views on this have already been stated, i dissagreed before we struck and i am in difference of opinion even now. this war will be just the one, of many to follow because of our intrusion into iraq. we will regret this, time will prove my point. now, as a result of the UN not being in consensus, we have french dissliking americans, vice-versa. there is no "quick fix" now. many more will die, there is no "safe havens" any longer. nothing that has happened or will happen from this point forward surprises me in the slightest. Quoteyou take a mortal man and put him in control watch him become a god watch people's heads a roll Dave Mustaine--Richard-- "We Will Not Be Shaken By Thugs, And Terroist" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
goose491 0 #8 March 25, 2003 Quotewe're there because we can be. we're the world's foremost "super power" and we're currently "flexing our muscles" at our troops expense. our allies included. we're at war because we're egotistical, and we were "slapped in the face" on 09/11. we're at war because Wyatt Earp, and Doc Hiliday are maniacal twisted nonsenseacle imbiciles. we're at war because we can be, it's our right. take this post with a grain of salt. if your new here, my views on this have already been stated, i dissagreed before we struck and i am in difference of opinion even now. this war will be just the one, of many to follow because of our intrusion into iraq. we will regret this, time will prove my point. now, as a result of the UN not being in consensus, we have french dissliking americans, vice-versa. there is no "quick fix" now. many more will die, there is no "safe havens" any longer. nothing that has happened or will happen from this point forward surprises me in the slightest. Quoteyou take a mortal man and put him in control watch him become a god watch people's heads a roll Dave Mustaine Amen. Kill a man, your a murderer. Kill many, and you're a Conqueror. Kill 'em all.... you're a god. My Karma ran over my Dogma!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bodypilot90 0 #9 March 25, 2003 Quotewe're there because we can be. we're the world's foremost "super power" and we're currently "flexing our muscles" at our troops expense. our allies included. we're at war because we're egotistical, and we were "slapped in the face" on 09/11. bullshirt........... 1) we are there because after 12 years and 18 resolutions the UN refuses to enforce it's own resolutions. 2) we are there because the french, the russians are selling componets to make WMD http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/13/opinion/13SAFI.html The French connection — brokering the deal among the Chinese producer, the Syrian land transporter and the Iraqi buyer — is no great secret to the world's arms merchants. French intelligence has long been aware of it. The requirement for a French export license as well as U.N. sanctions approval may have been averted by disguising it as a direct offshore sale from China to Syria. I'm also told that a contract was signed last April in Paris for five tons of 99 percent unsymmetric dimethylhydrazine, another advanced missile fuel, which is produced by France's Société Nationale des Poudre et Explosifs. In addition, Iraqi attempts to buy an oxidizer for solid propellant missiles, ammonium perchlorate, were successful, at least on paper. Both chemicals, like HTPB, require explicit approval by the U.N. Sanctions Committee before they can be sold to Iraq. 3) we are there because of a 9-11 link http://www.observer.co.uk/focus/story/0,6903,591439,00.html http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/gunning/interviews/khodada.html 4)We are there to liberate Iraq, The Iraqi People Want to Know When Mr Bush Will Get Tough http://hrw.org/reports/world/iraq-pubs.php http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/media/rubin/rubingettough.htm Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jannu 0 #10 March 25, 2003 Hmmm.... it seems there are millions (billions?) of people wondering this around the globe. It´s funny that George and Tony close their eyes in front of these huge demonstrations all over.. I'm sorry for you americans (and probably brits too) that like someone already posted, it's not safe for you anymore anywhere in the world. You better not tell anyone your from the States if you travel.. Too bad since I got family in States also that I like to see... but because of your not-so-clever 'leader' Bush, I am afraid that someone will attempt to terrorize transatlantic flights and all that shit... ahh It also bugs me A LOT that rebuilding Iraq, will be done with my tax money. Of course we will have to help the civilians (and everyone else living there..) to get back on track with their lives after some xxx decided that 'let's bomb their infrastructure, homes, hospitals schools bridges etc..'. I know it's very inhuman what I'm feeling, but for some crazy reason it kinda feels good to hear from news that there is big resistance against Us & Uk troops. Just too bad the media isn't allowed to show you US people the pictures of the corpses and POWs in tv... I'm sure though that propaganda pics of dead/captured iraqis are shown in you tellies... Mr. Bush could shove the Geneva convention where the sun don't shine. What about the people captured from Afganistan`??? Shown in tv, in very bad conditions etc... what about the Geneva convention? We get this stuff on tv here in Scandinavia. hmm... that was some mindflow, just been watching BBC news all morning... somehow biased news I think... Of course, I do not believe everything said from the Iraqi side either! I haven't been able to see CNN news, I'd like to know their opinion on things... I could imagine FOX news to be really patriotic (war-crazed). So good night United States, hope you are sleeping well when you know your troops are killing more and more civilians. Today I will start the season, it's +10C sky is clear. Blue Skies, BD. And sorry for my bad spelling and grammar, I guess you get my point. Take care, let's all just hope this is over soon and your leaders (George and Tony) will soon realize there is no way to stop people hating you by killing their countrymen. AND!!! For you suggesting to attack France and Russia... get real. It might be that your troops won't manage to get over even the (poor) iraqi troops. Huh huh.... Greetings from Finland, Jan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skreamer 1 #11 March 25, 2003 Lets not forget about that bloodthirsty Paul Potts. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,635 #12 March 25, 2003 Quote I'm also told that a contract was signed last April in Paris for five tons of 99 percent unsymmetric dimethylhydrazine, another advanced missile fuel, which is produced by France's Société Nationale des Poudre et Explosifs. Not very "advanced", it's been available for decades. Quote In addition, Iraqi attempts to buy an oxidizer for solid propellant missiles, ammonium perchlorate, were successful, at least on paper. That's so advanced it's used in model rockets made of cardboard. I have some AP model rocket motors in my garage.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wildblue 4 #13 March 25, 2003 Quote1) we are there because after 12 years and 18 resolutions the UN refuses to enforce it's own resolutions. So the UN's a joke... not a good reason. Quotewe are there because the french, the russians are selling componets to make WMD If they are, it's on their heads, shame on them. I'm sure you'll find some "Made in America" parts in there too. Quotewe are there because of a 9-11 link Possible link, not well defined. He trained terrorists. So do we, we just call them Freedom Fighters. QuoteWe are there to liberate Iraq, The Iraqi People Want to Know When Mr Bush Will Get Tough Then why are there farmers in the fields shooting down Apaches? Why do the troops continue to fight? Surely they have family members who want to be "liberated" I'm sorry, but we are there being a bully. We're forcing a country to our way or thinking. I really don'tr understand how so many Americans just bury our head in the sand, and refuse to admit maybe we're doing something wrong. When a better part of the world seems to think we are, and many other Americans seem to think we are... have you been watching the news? Have you seen the massive anti-war protests all over the world? These aren't just your average, everyday protests. People in Egypt (aren't they supposed to be our friends?) showing support for Iraq http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/middleeast/view/35502/1/.html 200,000 (yes, 5 zeros) people in New York the other day protesting - shouldn't they be the most supportive? I mean, 9-11 affected them more than anyone! 20,000 - 30,000 in Germany ... oh that's right, they're stupid like the french and in this for money. Nevermind, we'll just boycott them too. Before too long I'll have to enjoy Freedom chocolate cake. 10,000 - 20,000 people a day, for multiple days in a row in Chicago are protesting. I suppose they're all insane or blind, right? Or Anti-American. I love this country, I love the freedom we have here, I love the quality of life we enjoy here - I hate what we do with our power, I hate that our government feels the need to have a massive military and be the world's policeman, I hate the fact that America is hated all over the world because or how much we impose our will and how arrogant we are.it's like incest - you're substituting convenience for quality Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #14 March 25, 2003 QuoteLets not forget about that bloodthirsty Paul Potts. I caught that too....hoping it was tongue in cheek. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,416 #15 March 25, 2003 >we are there because after 12 years and 18 resolutions the UN >refuses to enforce it's own resolutions. So do you think that countries should be compelled to obey UN resolutions? Careful with your answer. >we are there because the french, the russians are selling componets to make WMD US companies sold chemical weapons precursors, biological weapons cultures, and nuclear weapons triggers. The US government has sold him stripped-down military helicopters and provided him with military intelligence in the past. Can't see that as a reason to invade, somehow. >We are there to liberate Iraq, The Iraqi People Want to Know >When Mr Bush Will Get Tough You are seriously saying that the Iraqi people want more bombing, more US troops, more killing? That's really a reach. From MSNBC: ------------ The mood on the streets remains somber and sullen. Stores are mostly closed, and those that are open have run out of duct tape, gasoline, and aluminum foil (which is wrapped around computers to shield them from e-bombs). People seem sad, resigned, sometimes resistant, mostly fearful. There is universal opposition to the war: George W. Bush's name is spit with venom. Yesterday, a soldier saw me on the street and shouted, "George Bush, I fucked your mother. We will win this war because you are here. You are a human shield. We are all human shields and the world is with us." Still, Iraq's celebrated hospitality remains, even in wartime. I have been greeted with kisses and hugs as often as I have with people pointing fingers at me and yelling pow-pow. http://slate.msn.com/id/2080432/entry/2080434/ From a doctor in an Nasiriya: ----------------------- Mr. Ali that said he had no love for the Iraqi president but that the American's failure to discriminate between enemy fighters and Iraqi civilians had turned him decisively against the American invasion. "I saw how the Americans bombed our civilians with my own eyes," Mr. Mustafa said, and he held up a bloodied sleeve to show how he had dragged them into the ambulances. "You want to overthrow Saddam Hussein's regime?" Mr. Mustafa asked. "Go to Baghdad. What are you doing here? What are you doing in our cities?" http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/24/international/worldspecial/24CND-BATT.html I understand the desire to make this war "right", to list dozens of reasons why everything about our actions are good, and everything about Iraqi actions are bad. In reality we're invading because we want to end a regime that threatens the stability of an area where we need stability. Trying to come up with a dozen reasons to invade, and changing those reasons all the time, makes it appear that we don't really _have_ a good reason. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
beowulf 1 #16 March 25, 2003 War can not be waged without civilian casualties. As hard as I can look, I still have not found any suggestion for disarming Saddam with out going to war. Expecting UN Arms inspectors to eventually find something and the destroy those weapons is unrealistic. Saddam will do what ever it takes to keep those weapons. War will kill people on both sides and people in the middle. There truely are no "rules of war". The reality is Saddam will do what ever it takes to make this a long and bloody war. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JackC 0 #17 March 25, 2003 It seems that certain members of the Bush administration had descided on a war in Iraq long before they were even elected. http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqletter1998.htm Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lindsey 0 #18 March 25, 2003 I really believe that if we spent as much effort and money on reaching a peaceful solution as we are spending on this war, the war would not be necessary. Call me whatever you want, but I just can't believe that this was unavoidable.... Lindsey-- A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest #19 March 25, 2003 Quote It´s funny that George and Tony close their eyes in front of these huge demonstrations all over.. It was the same thing in 1982 when Reagan put Pershing IIs in Germany. There were HUGE protests in major European cities - they were wrong then as well. Funniest part was the demonstrations at Bitburg - the German protestors were shouting "Ami (American) go home", and US airmen were yelling back "I'll go! Send me!" "The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,133 #20 March 25, 2003 Quote There were HUGE protests in major European cities - they were wrong then as well Its a shame that a good discussion seemingly always has te be followed by a line regarding right or wrong Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #21 March 25, 2003 QuoteIt seems that certain members of the Bush administration had descided on a war in Iraq long before they were even elected. http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqletter1998.htm That's pretty enlightening...and disturbing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
beowulf 1 #22 March 25, 2003 Peace in this world is only bought with blood. Ironic but true Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,416 #23 March 25, 2003 >War can not be waged without civilian casualties. As hard as I can > look, I still have not found any suggestion for disarming Saddam > with out going to war. Expecting UN Arms inspectors to eventually > find something and the destroy those weapons is unrealistic. Unrealistic? Unlikely perhaps, but it's worked before. War may have been inevitable, but I think we should have pursued inspections at least until the inspectors, not our president, decided they could not succeed - and then gotten UN approval before attacking. If we had done that we would not be seeing much of the world uniting against the war. >There truely are no "rules of war". The reality is Saddam will do what > ever it takes to make this a long and bloody war. I agree. Recently I've seen outrage and shock by some of the more pro-war members of this board concerning what was done to POW's, and I have to ask myself what they expected. Hussein is an evil and ruthless dictator who has never followed any international laws that he didn't absolutely have to, and he sure doesn't have to now. This is just the beginning. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skreamer 1 #24 March 25, 2003 QuotePeace in this world is only bought with blood. Ironic but true In 1992 white South Africans (myself included) voted by a two thirds majority to get rid of apartheid. Peace was achieved (with both Mandela and De Klerk being awarded the Nobel peace prize). South Africa might have its problems with crime and HIV today but it does have a working democracy. Now imagine if the international community had decided that the only way to end 44 years of apartheid was by military force rather than sanctions... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vmsfreaky1 0 #25 March 25, 2003 Forgive me for spelling it right out, did he mean Pol Pot? that nasty man from cambodia? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
