View Poll Results: Do you agree with the war
yes
4
36.36%
no
7
63.64%
dont know
0
0%
Voters: 11. You may not vote on this poll
iraq
All Go!!!!!!!!
03-20-2003, 11:18 AM
#3
Contributing Member
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Not Eugene, Oregon
Posts: 1,234
I'd support a war in Iraq if the reasons that the government was giving were solid... the US is guilty of most of the things they accuse Saddam of and they use those reasons to gain support for a war...
"Iraq is developing weapons of mass destruction."
The United States has massive stockpiles of WMD... the CWC ( Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their
Destruction, or Chemical Weapons Convention ) created the OPCW which was to monitor the chemical weapons of countries... the US agreed to destroy it's chemical weapons stockpiles... the US failed to give the nessecary documents to the organization for the destruction of all chemical weapons it pledged to destroy...
"Iraq will not allow international weapons inspectors free, unimpeded access to sites that may be producing WMD."
The US won't allow unimpeded access to it's facilities...
"If Iraq had WMD, they would supply them to other states."
The US gave Trident and Polaris missiles to the UK... The US supplied the Israelis with 240 kilograms of dimethyl methylphosphonate, a chemical used in the production of the nerve agent sarin... and the US supplied the Iraqi's and Iranians in the Iran-Iraq war for 8 years giving the Iraqi's chemical and biological agents and information pretaining to the development of them...
"Iraq might help terrorists by supporting and/or arming them."
In President Reagan's February 1985 State of the Union Address affirmed, "We must not break faith with those who are risking their lives - on every continent from Afghanistan to Nicaragua - to defy Soviet aggression and secure rights which have been ours from birth. Support for freedom fighters is self-defense." Those "freedom fighters" of course included the Afghan Mujaheddin, with Osama bin Laden amongst their number.
In 1986, the United States was found guilty by the World Court of "unlawful use of violence" (international terrorism) for its actions in Nicaragua. The United States then promptly vetoed a Security Council resolution calling on all states to adhere to international law. ( the only state to be found guilty of international terrorism...! )
"Iraq has not obeyed United Nations resolutions."
Israel are breaking a UN resolution by maintaining occupation forces in the Gaza Strip and West Bank, and Turkey is flouting a resolution demanding that it withdraw from Cyprus. Both are military and financial client states to the United States.
"Saddam Hussein is not a democratically elected leader."
Al Gore won more votes than George W. Bush in the 2000 Presidential Election. Bush only entered office after some controversial decisions on the treatment of votes in Florida, for which his brother Jeb was Governor, and where the head of the electoral college was an avid Bush supporter.
"Iraq is developing weapons of mass destruction."
The United States has massive stockpiles of WMD... the CWC ( Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their
Destruction, or Chemical Weapons Convention ) created the OPCW which was to monitor the chemical weapons of countries... the US agreed to destroy it's chemical weapons stockpiles... the US failed to give the nessecary documents to the organization for the destruction of all chemical weapons it pledged to destroy...
"Iraq will not allow international weapons inspectors free, unimpeded access to sites that may be producing WMD."
The US won't allow unimpeded access to it's facilities...
"If Iraq had WMD, they would supply them to other states."
The US gave Trident and Polaris missiles to the UK... The US supplied the Israelis with 240 kilograms of dimethyl methylphosphonate, a chemical used in the production of the nerve agent sarin... and the US supplied the Iraqi's and Iranians in the Iran-Iraq war for 8 years giving the Iraqi's chemical and biological agents and information pretaining to the development of them...
"Iraq might help terrorists by supporting and/or arming them."
In President Reagan's February 1985 State of the Union Address affirmed, "We must not break faith with those who are risking their lives - on every continent from Afghanistan to Nicaragua - to defy Soviet aggression and secure rights which have been ours from birth. Support for freedom fighters is self-defense." Those "freedom fighters" of course included the Afghan Mujaheddin, with Osama bin Laden amongst their number.
In 1986, the United States was found guilty by the World Court of "unlawful use of violence" (international terrorism) for its actions in Nicaragua. The United States then promptly vetoed a Security Council resolution calling on all states to adhere to international law. ( the only state to be found guilty of international terrorism...! )
"Iraq has not obeyed United Nations resolutions."
Israel are breaking a UN resolution by maintaining occupation forces in the Gaza Strip and West Bank, and Turkey is flouting a resolution demanding that it withdraw from Cyprus. Both are military and financial client states to the United States.
"Saddam Hussein is not a democratically elected leader."
Al Gore won more votes than George W. Bush in the 2000 Presidential Election. Bush only entered office after some controversial decisions on the treatment of votes in Florida, for which his brother Jeb was Governor, and where the head of the electoral college was an avid Bush supporter.
03-20-2003, 11:57 AM
#4
Contributing Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: AUSTIN BABY
Posts: 692
Originally posted by Catharsis
I'd support a war in Iraq if the reasons that the government was giving were solid... the US is guilty of most of the things they accuse Saddam of and they use those reasons to gain support for a war...
I'd support a war in Iraq if the reasons that the government was giving were solid... the US is guilty of most of the things they accuse Saddam of and they use those reasons to gain support for a war...
you my dog
03-20-2003, 02:30 PM
#6
Contributing Member
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 2,603
kinda hard to agree with a war that will profit a few select people and cost many their lives. i'm thinkin we should be concentrating on our ever-expanding budget deficit and morbid unemployment rate. 
03-20-2003, 02:53 PM
#7
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 37
Couldnt agree more with what Catharsis has said ... If any this war is only going to make it clear to the world , how hypocritical the policies of the US are ..
And worse still , we might end up in a slightly bipolar world than what existed before this war ( might be good , as unilateralism might not have a chance in such a scenario !!) .. If China , Russia , France and Germany want to get together , they can form an equally powerful block militarily as well as economically (in terms of trade flows) ..
And it is interesting to see how we are seeing little to none about the anti war protests in the main channels which are still hell bent on portraying this as a just war .. There hasn't even been a single opinion poll by any of the channels as to what the majority of people feel about this war .. A situation like this exposes how much of control the government exercises over the main stream media .. And hey we are talking of a democracy here with all kinds of freedom !!! Go figure ..
I personally feel sorry for all the people made to fight this war under the pretext of protecting the American citizen and his society whereas all they are probably going to end up is helping the Oil barrons make more billions ...
peace ..
And worse still , we might end up in a slightly bipolar world than what existed before this war ( might be good , as unilateralism might not have a chance in such a scenario !!) .. If China , Russia , France and Germany want to get together , they can form an equally powerful block militarily as well as economically (in terms of trade flows) ..
And it is interesting to see how we are seeing little to none about the anti war protests in the main channels which are still hell bent on portraying this as a just war .. There hasn't even been a single opinion poll by any of the channels as to what the majority of people feel about this war .. A situation like this exposes how much of control the government exercises over the main stream media .. And hey we are talking of a democracy here with all kinds of freedom !!! Go figure ..
I personally feel sorry for all the people made to fight this war under the pretext of protecting the American citizen and his society whereas all they are probably going to end up is helping the Oil barrons make more billions ...
peace ..
Last edited by 240fan; 03-20-2003 at 02:56 PM.
03-20-2003, 03:01 PM
#8
Contributing Member
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Not Eugene, Oregon
Posts: 1,234
This isn't about protecting the american people,
Bush officials have invested too much time and money and their reputations into this campaign ( for the past decade )...
I'm pissed off at the show of diplomacy which seemingly was only a front to further a US push to war... If war was not sanctioned the US would strike... If war was sanctioned the US would strike... come on, there was no choice for the rest of the world so how is that a show of good faith on the part of the American government... This Bush administrations lack of diplomatic skills have alienated them from the rest of the world and only created further resentment of Americans thoughout much of the world... How can people be expected to trust Americans to bring democracy to Iraq when they disregard all international democratic processes...? People look to history for example... I hear from the right "Well look at Germany and Japan after World War 2"... I prefer to look at more recent examples in history such as Afganistan, Haiti and Panama... all of these seen as failures in the international community... and how can Iraq be expected to have freedom when your own freedoms are being stripped in the name of protecting your freedoms...?
I said before that this has been in the works for a long time... I've never elaborated unil now... 2 current senior US officials after the Gulf War wanted ( publicly ) Saddam out of power... they were Dick Cheney ( Vice President ) and Paul Wolfowitz ( Deputy for Secretary of Defence )... Cheney and Wolfowitz wrote a draft called 'Defence Planning Guidance' for the years 1994-1999... This document, designed to halt the creation of a new american rival, outlines the events that have taken place since 9/11... The main point of this draft was "the use of pre-emptive military force that should include the right and ability to strike first against any threat from chemical or biological weapons, and 'punishment' of any such threat 'through a variety of means'."
The document was leaked and it was dismissed ( in the last year of Bush Sr.'s Admin ) as a 'low level document' and after Clinton's election Cheney and Wolfowitz released a final version of this blueprint to Clinton outlining that the US must 'act independently, if necessary'... During Clinton's Admin. Cheney worked for Halliburton and Wolfowitz returned to Chicago University... Wolfowitz and Richard Pearle ( Bush's defence advisor ) became close and worked to push the "Defence Planning Guidance" though the Clinton admin... In 1998 a letter written to the President and the Speaker of the House urged them to adopt the policies outlined in their blueprint... signed by Wolfowitz, Pearle, Richard Armitage ( Deputy Secretary of State ) ( among others ).. the letter maintained the US 'should establish and maintain a strong US military presence in the region, and be prepared to use that force to protect our vital interests in the Gulf - and, if necessary, to help remove Saddam from power.'... Wolfowitz then went to the House National Security Committee, and criticising the Clinton administration for not having the sense of purpose to 'liberate ourselves, our friends and allies in the region, and the Iraqi people themselves, from the menace of Saddam Hussein'...
This has ALL been said before Bush even got into office... It's the same thing but different excuses "he's disregarded the UN", "He's denied the food his people need", "He has terrorist connections", "We need to protect American interests", "We need to protect American lives", "We need security in the Middle East"... it got old years ago... This is not a plan created in the wake of 9/11 to make sure it doesn't happen again but a plan from the end of the Gulf War...public opinion has been twisted into patriotism after the 9/11 attacks to further a plan created a decade before it happened and this administration has effectively manipulated your patriotic nature to further the ambitions of the government officials...
Bush officials have invested too much time and money and their reputations into this campaign ( for the past decade )...
I'm pissed off at the show of diplomacy which seemingly was only a front to further a US push to war... If war was not sanctioned the US would strike... If war was sanctioned the US would strike... come on, there was no choice for the rest of the world so how is that a show of good faith on the part of the American government... This Bush administrations lack of diplomatic skills have alienated them from the rest of the world and only created further resentment of Americans thoughout much of the world... How can people be expected to trust Americans to bring democracy to Iraq when they disregard all international democratic processes...? People look to history for example... I hear from the right "Well look at Germany and Japan after World War 2"... I prefer to look at more recent examples in history such as Afganistan, Haiti and Panama... all of these seen as failures in the international community... and how can Iraq be expected to have freedom when your own freedoms are being stripped in the name of protecting your freedoms...?
I said before that this has been in the works for a long time... I've never elaborated unil now... 2 current senior US officials after the Gulf War wanted ( publicly ) Saddam out of power... they were Dick Cheney ( Vice President ) and Paul Wolfowitz ( Deputy for Secretary of Defence )... Cheney and Wolfowitz wrote a draft called 'Defence Planning Guidance' for the years 1994-1999... This document, designed to halt the creation of a new american rival, outlines the events that have taken place since 9/11... The main point of this draft was "the use of pre-emptive military force that should include the right and ability to strike first against any threat from chemical or biological weapons, and 'punishment' of any such threat 'through a variety of means'."
The document was leaked and it was dismissed ( in the last year of Bush Sr.'s Admin ) as a 'low level document' and after Clinton's election Cheney and Wolfowitz released a final version of this blueprint to Clinton outlining that the US must 'act independently, if necessary'... During Clinton's Admin. Cheney worked for Halliburton and Wolfowitz returned to Chicago University... Wolfowitz and Richard Pearle ( Bush's defence advisor ) became close and worked to push the "Defence Planning Guidance" though the Clinton admin... In 1998 a letter written to the President and the Speaker of the House urged them to adopt the policies outlined in their blueprint... signed by Wolfowitz, Pearle, Richard Armitage ( Deputy Secretary of State ) ( among others ).. the letter maintained the US 'should establish and maintain a strong US military presence in the region, and be prepared to use that force to protect our vital interests in the Gulf - and, if necessary, to help remove Saddam from power.'... Wolfowitz then went to the House National Security Committee, and criticising the Clinton administration for not having the sense of purpose to 'liberate ourselves, our friends and allies in the region, and the Iraqi people themselves, from the menace of Saddam Hussein'...
This has ALL been said before Bush even got into office... It's the same thing but different excuses "he's disregarded the UN", "He's denied the food his people need", "He has terrorist connections", "We need to protect American interests", "We need to protect American lives", "We need security in the Middle East"... it got old years ago... This is not a plan created in the wake of 9/11 to make sure it doesn't happen again but a plan from the end of the Gulf War...public opinion has been twisted into patriotism after the 9/11 attacks to further a plan created a decade before it happened and this administration has effectively manipulated your patriotic nature to further the ambitions of the government officials...
03-20-2003, 11:14 PM
#9
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Pensacola, Florida
Posts: 125
considering im going into the army after this school year I hope we dont go to war, altho i doubt im gonna go into infantry its still gonna suck to get sent overseas , especially since north korea poses more of an immediate threat that iraq anyway, if he wanted to kill us all he would have done it already damit 
, especially since north korea poses more of an immediate threat that iraq anyway, if he wanted to kill us all he would have done it already damit
03-21-2003, 06:48 PM
#10
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Washington
Posts: 36
Exactly, North Korea has been test firing missles that can hit Hawaii and Alaska, they even test fire a missle over Japan in 98. They also have 2 or 3 Nuclear weapons. WHAT IF THEY NUKE JAPAN! WHERE WILL I GET MY RB CLIP FROM!
03-27-2003, 10:11 PM
#11
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: texas
Posts: 40
Catharsis all though you make very good points and are very well informed there are just some things i have to disagree on. Everybody is stating why we should not support the war, but we now have men dieing in the desert. Everyday these men are forced to kill children in which a military dictator, not an elected figure, is using them as decoys and shields. It is everybodies god given right to speak out against the war, but people in Iraq do not have this privelage.
For saying anything or even gesturing signs of happiness towards the coalition these civilians are killed.
A military dictator such as Sadam cannot be compared to any ELECTED figure. He does not run Iraq by passing bills are speaking to branches of government, but by fear alone.
He has used these weapons of mass destruction on his own people. Is the U.S. guilty of this too, i think not.
We as a nation have made manny mistakes, such as pulling out of the first gulf war after removing the invading soldiers out of Kuwait jus as a civilian uprising began against Sadam. We did not help these civilians, instead we left them to face it alone and they were killed and tortured.
Many people say why are we doing this now? If not now then when. I know it just came up quickly but we are in it now, so we should express why we do or don't support the war. But we should not concentrate souly on this, now is the time to hope fo a safe return of our soldiers and casualties when not reach further horrifying numbers.
For saying anything or even gesturing signs of happiness towards the coalition these civilians are killed.
A military dictator such as Sadam cannot be compared to any ELECTED figure. He does not run Iraq by passing bills are speaking to branches of government, but by fear alone.
He has used these weapons of mass destruction on his own people. Is the U.S. guilty of this too, i think not.
We as a nation have made manny mistakes, such as pulling out of the first gulf war after removing the invading soldiers out of Kuwait jus as a civilian uprising began against Sadam. We did not help these civilians, instead we left them to face it alone and they were killed and tortured.
Many people say why are we doing this now? If not now then when. I know it just came up quickly but we are in it now, so we should express why we do or don't support the war. But we should not concentrate souly on this, now is the time to hope fo a safe return of our soldiers and casualties when not reach further horrifying numbers.
Last edited by amplesx; 03-27-2003 at 10:14 PM.
03-27-2003, 10:17 PM
#12
Contributing Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: AUSTIN BABY
Posts: 692
i would agree with this war, but only if our government was telling us the truth. this war is about oil and money and protecting american intrests (oil and money) but the government is trying to masqurade as if they gave a damn about the iraqi people.
if this war was REALLY about overthrowing Saddam BECAUSE he was an ***......then i would agree
if this war was REALLY about overthrowing Saddam BECAUSE he was an ***......then i would agree
