Do you think we should go to war in Iraq?? | Page 2 | Golden Skate

Do you think we should go to war in Iraq??

D

DORISPULASKI

Guest
Re: Do you think we should go to war in Iraq??

Strategic Simulation of US / Iraq War

For those who want to see an on line simulation of this war, please click the above button.

Again, I still believe that there is no situation that is so bad that war cannot make it worse.

dpp
 
M

mathman444

Guest
Re: Do you think we should go to war in Iraq??

“They will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks, and study war no more.”

I wish I could convince myself that this is a war about disarming a dangerous foe, or about protecting our strategic interests in a volatile part of the world, or about liberating an oppressed people from the yoke of a megalomaniacal tyrant, or about containing religious fanaticism, or about combating terrorism, or even about oil.

But to me it looks like nothing so much as the Hatfields and the McCoys. Saddam made a monkey out of Bush’s old man, simply by outlasting him, and now Junior wants revenge.

Is this worth the deaths of a hundred thousand innocent people? Is it worth the enmity of hundreds of millions?

Mathman
 
Y

yelyoh

Guest
War In Iraq????

Just because Bush hasn't gotten Osama Ben he has to find an easier target and that would be Sadam. Besides that, there's all that oil. Bush Baby should stand up and take a look around; people aint buyin' it.
 
T

thvudragon

Guest
Re: Do you think we should go to war in Iraq??

I say yes to war. Saddam is one thing, evil. The whole point of this war is to oust Saddam, and give his people freedom. This is just as much a humanitarian mission as it is a war to protect the US. I say any country that wants to oust a leader that uses his own people as human shields, more power to them.

TV
 
A

Aloft02

Guest
Mass destruction and killing.....

No, and I'm not calling it "war" anymore. That's simply too sanitized a word for what is being plotted by my government right now. It's mass destruction and killing. Let's call it what it is. The word war historically implies a nobler cause.

What makes it even more repugnant, in my opinion, is that this planned mass destruction and killing is based on protecting oil investment interests and seeking revenge for George I's errors and ommissions. It's flawed cowboy/caveman style thinking and the more Bush bangs his fist on a podium in a bomber jacket 'talkin' tough' the more I will protest. Yes, there is a great deal of evil afoot, and some of the (to borrow from my president) "evil-doers" wave the Bible to justify it and some wave the Koran. It's all the same. Mass destruction and killing.

Bomb my state first please, Mr. Bush - we need the money you'll give us in your wisdom afterwards to help our floundering schools, repair roads and bridges, protect our border crossings, assist the working poor and hungry children, provide a break to the elderly choosing between a warm meal and a bottle of prescription pills. Shame on our government for dismantling valuable social programs in the interest of giving tax breaks to the rich. Shame on our government for embarassing our country in the eyes of the world by even suggesting the use of nuclear weapons and any type of "pre-emptive defense". Stop this insanity now. (Rant over.)
 
T

thvudragon

Guest
Re: Mass destruction and killing.....

Would you rather have Saddam killing and abusing his own people? Gasing and using them as his own human shields? How does keeping Saddam in power benefit anyone? It certainly doesn't benefit the people of Iraq who have suffered for many years under this tyrant.
 
G

Grgranny

Guest
Re: Mass destruction and killing.....

Wouldn't it be great if we could get rid of the evil ones without a war. I'm not saying this in a hateful way. I hope you will just take it as an old woman's opinion. I can't see how killing masses of people is ever a good thing. Remember, I am 73 years old and have seen plenty of wars and killing is just not my opinion of solving anything so complex. On top of that, we end up paying for the damage done to others when it does happen. I think we are in economic problems enough already. I remember when I was young and thought war was the only way to go but having seen so much makes you think differently. When you're old, you will see it differently. I do wish we could get rid of the evil ones too, but I just cannot see killing masses of people to stopping it. After all, we would have masses of people being killed too. I also think that all the other countries, and there are many, that hate America so much will just hate us more. Hopefully, someone might think of a better way but doesn't look like that will ever happen either.
 
M

mike79

Guest
Re: Mass destruction and killing.....

A lot of those dying in Iraq are dying because of the sanctions that are still in place against Iraq.

It is not America's place to police the world. The US government has yet to comprehend why so many countries in this world hate them.

Hussein is a terrible dictator, to be sure. But what about the situation in North Korea? How about the economy? Forget those insignificant things and let's just try to prop up the dropping approval rating that Dubya has by starting another war. After all that's usually the only thing that war is good for.

Why is it that all of these world leaders (Bush, Sharon, Arafat) all have to hold these major grudges? Sharon and Arafat just hate each other to death and will keep fighting each other no matter what the case is. And then Jr. has to fight the guy who tried to kill his daddy.

I don't even want to get started on Blair. That guy is so far up Bush's rear end it's ridiculous. I've always thought that Canada was always following whatever the US did but Blair has us beat. At least Chretien finally had the guts to step up and say that we would wait for UN approval of any attack against Iraq.

Finally, where is the proof? Is Iraq making weapons of mass destruction? Maybe so, but before there is any proof given to the world regarding these weapons Bush would rather go play war. I've got a feeling that this war will be even more censored then the last Gulf war.

Bush elected president=Worst thing to happen to the world in a long time.
 
P

Princess Leppard 625

Guest
Re: Mass destruction and killing.....

<span style="color:purple;font-family:georgia;font-size:x-small;">There are so many bad leaders all over the world who torture and abuse their citizens. No one here is arguing that Saddam is a bad man. He's evil. But if we start ousting bad leaders, we are going to have to hit Africa and start ousting all the dictators there (Zimbabwe, Nigeria, Liberia...), not to mention some countries in Central America, and, oh, hey! Let's not forget China and North Korea! Where does it stop?

If there is a way to oust Saddam without further destroying Iraq, I am all for it. But a full out invasion will prove that we are the big guys, and yes, we'll win easily. Then what? There is NO PLAN for what to do after we win. Do we stay and occupy? Do we leave and let a bunch of factions fight it out for leadership, like in the former Yugoslavia? Gee, that worked so well there...

Thanks for letting me rant. I do respect everyone's opinion, thanks for letting me vent mine.

Peace.

Laura :) </span>
 
H

heyang

Guest
Re: Mass destruction and killing.....

I think Aloft's point is that there are a lot of problems in the country that need attention and why have we given ourselves the role of rescuer.

The economy is bad and the anticipated military action has further stalled it. People are unwilling to invest due to the uncertainty. We have homeless people on our streets. States are going bankrupt. Availability of quality education is not equal through out the country. It's a lot harder to afford a house in certain areas of the country (although I hear it's worse in Europe).

Yes, we stand for freedom. Yes - Saddam is a despot and suppresses his opponents. Beyond the moral issues (which do not justify sending our men in to be killed - why not just provide weapons to his enemies?), why do we care?

Iraq is important because of its strategic location. The US does not get most of its oil from this region. Our allies are more reliant upon this area of the world for oil. The effect of more expensive oil would devastate the world economy. I heard on the news that if the military effort goes on and elevates the price of oil for several months that the economy will slide into a recession.

In this instance, I believe a more covert process is needed. Arm his enemies. Help overthrow Saddam from within - less risk to our men. Harder to point the figure at America. Who am I kidding? We don't have the best track record of picking out the best team. We supported the Shah of Iran who turned out to be a despot and his people overthrew him. After much confusion, that country ended up with the Ayotollah Khomeni who disliked the US. We didn't target him and just let him die of old age. Who's there now? Oh, yeah - Quaddafi who seems neutralized.

Anyway, my point is that killing Saddam is not a long term answer. Let's say we get him. What next? How many years and how much money must be invested into this area to put a government in place that is acceptable to the Western powers that be? How many men will be sent over for peace keeping efforts (in addition, how many of our military personnel and their families are being affected by the war preparations now?) I haven't heard our leaders say what the post-game plan is. Do they have a new leader to support for Iraq? Is it going to be colonized by the UN? Won't this cause further unrest in the area?

thvudragon: What are the exact benefits (beyond saving the people of Iraq)? Why haven't the people of Iraq attempted to overthrow him? (The French overthrew their king, the communists got rid of Chinese royalty - if they can do it, why can't they get rid of Saddam from within?) Can you understand how this could be detrimental to the US, too? What are the long term benefits to the US and its allies? What is the plan for after Saddam is deposed? If I understood or knew the answers to these questions, I might understand why this war will be waged. Please try to explain to me. Thanks.
 
M

mike79

Guest
Re: Mass destruction and killing.....

Hi Grgranny

I totally agree with your post. I really hope there is that better way you talked about.
 
M

maxell1313

Guest
Re: Mass destruction and killing.....

I voted yes for several reasons, the main one being that Saddam is a horrible, horrible excuse for a human being and needs to go. No, I don't want to see our ground troops go in and risk their own lives and no, I don't want to see innocent civilians hurt or killed (contrary to popular belief). Personally, I think we should get rid of that executive order that says our country can't assassinate heads of state. I mean, I understand the reasoning behind why it was drafted to begin with, but I would much rather send in a small, elite group of soldiers, armed to the teeth, and let them go after Saddam and his pals. Less risk of mass destruction.

Secondly, it's not like we're "rushing" in to anything. We've been dealing with this for over a year. We've gone to the U.N. and stated our case. We've made the point that the Security Council drafted a resolution that Iraq HAD to follow to the letter, they haven't done that, and the resolution stated that actions would follow if Iraq didn't agree. By now, Saddam and Osama are probably cozied up somewhere in the deepest, most fortified bunker known to man, and able to withstand a few nuclear weapons dropped on their heads. Kind of like cockroaches.

So now that we've found weapons that Iraq isn't supposed to have, and we've shown they've been up to things they had no business doing, is the U.N. going to stick their heads in the ground and pretend nothing's wrong? What good is a Security Council if they're not going to back up what they say? They're not doing a real great job of it by looking at the Middle East, Africa, the Balkans, etc. There is NO REASON for chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons to exist in Iraq, in the Middle East, or anywhere on the globe for that matter. And would we rather get Saddam now, or wait until he's launched weapons toward Israel or some other country?

IMO, this has nothing to do with oil and everything to do with getting rid of people who want no part of peace and global harmony. Another reason why I could bi**h-slap the French. For a country that claims they want peace, they're certainly insistant on keeping Saddam in power in Iraq. But that's another rant....

These terrorist guys don't want to talk, they don't want to negotiate, and they don't want to cooperate. They just want to fight. So I say, we give them something to gnaw on for a while.
 
D

DORISPULASKI

Guest
Re: Mass destruction and killing.....

Grgranny, I certainly agree with you. Now that I am older, I understand how war does not solve anything. When I was younger, I was dumber.

For those who feel a strike against Iraq is a strike against the terrorists, remember:

Saudi nationals are supplying a lot of the money for the terrorists, not Iraq. Saudi nationals set up many of the madrasas that teach hatred of the US. If you want to do something to prevent terrorism, I suggest that you not buy their oil. British Petroleum, Hess, and Sunoco do not buy oil from the Middle East. I suggest that you buy your gas there.
If enough Americans stop buying Saudi oil, they will have less money to give to terrorists.

dpp
 
J

Joesitz

Guest
Re: Mass destruction and killing.....

Hi Granny - Definitely a good and rational post. The idea of resolving differences other than through war. Not easy but should be looked into. It's possible in this pseudo conflict.

How many other tyrants should we go to war against? None, if there is no profit awaiting the victor. And make no mistake about it, there are many many tyrants in this world.

And the question of Why is America so Hated? Let's deal with that and change world-wide opiniion.

Joe
 
G

Grgranny

Guest
Re: Mass destruction and killing.....

1. For every terrorist that we get rid of, there are many more behind them.
2. Most of these evil people are such cowards they hide in places where there are a lot of children, etc. You would probably have to kill many children and innocent people to get rid of them only to have more come up and be just as evil.
3. I have always thought that there are a number of reasons for America to be hated. One is jealousy. One is they cannot control us. One is they fear what they don't know, that Americans as a whole are decent law abiding people but they only hear about the ones in power, etc. I know there are a lot of people in this country that are not those but which one's do we hear about? The bad guys.
4. They also are raised to hate Americans. Look how long it has taken us to accept other nationalities and colors of people. And we still are having trouble with it. It gets better but it is slow.
Suppose I better quit before you start calling me RGranny!:lol:
 
H

heyang

Guest
Re: Mass destruction and killing.....

You can compare the rise of these despots to Hitler, too.

After WWI, the people of Germany had to pay renumerations. They were defeated and felt downtrodden. Then along comes Hitler giving them someone to blame - the Jews.

The same can be said for the Middle East. The colonization of these countries by various nations led to an erosion of their way of life. Many countries took what they wanted and left the colony worse off. Americans tend to think our way is the best way and that's the way every country should live. We send people to help, but also undercut the old values with our ideas of education and values. This causes fear in people and allows the rise of a despot hiding behind religious idealisms to target the US as the enemy.

Under the US supported Shah of Iran, many women became educated. When he turned out to be a despot, some of these women willingly resumed wearing their burquas as a sign of rebellion against the Shah. From various articles, we are supporters of Saudi royalty who are not benign leaders either. The royal family has made itself useful to western countries and thus have our support. We've turned a blind eye to their behaviors because we've gotten what we want.

Whatever comes next, it must be realized that we cannot impose ALL of our rules upon a culture that is centuries older than ours. This country is supposed to be religiously tolerant and we have to do the same while country building.
 
M

MaryMotorMouth

Guest
Re: Mass destruction and killing.....

Maxelle-

I completely agree. I don't think the best idea is to wait longer than the 12 years we already have waited.

I also wish there was a solution other than war for disarming him, as many, many others have suggested.

I see lots of "no war" opinions, however I see very few volunteering alternative solutions. May I ask how you [who don't feel war is justified but diasarming is] propose we accomplish that? Perhaps France, and Germany have the answers? And will protect the allies while we wait for their "peaceful" solution?

Also, I am truly amazed by the amount of cynicism towards our government. I didn't realize there were so many people who felt that everything our government does is for alterior motives and everything they tell the American people is a lie to cover up some conspiracy. Sure, I question some of the bonehead decisions made, but in general, I believe every administration I've witnessed DOES have the best intests of our country at heart.

I can't imagine living with the kind of paranoia that EVERY intention the government has is a deceiptful one. Count me in as a citizen who believes GWB and his administration are doing what they believe is necessary to keep my family and my country SAFE and FREE.

This is one time when I can accept the fact that the administration is a tad more qualified then me to make that decision. Because believe it or not, the average citizen doesn't know all the "facts".
 
T

thvudragon

Guest
Re: Do you think we should go to war in Iraq??

I'm sure everyon here has heard of WWII. The whole world practiced the policy of appeasement towards Hitler to avoid war and look what happened. Hitler raged a bloody war that claimed millions of innocent lives and lasted almost 6 years. If the US practiced the policy of appeasement when Saddam invaded Kuwait, what would have happened? Would he have kept going? Who knows. Should we simply sit back and let Saddam go about his business? I think the answer is NO.

Since the implementation of economic sanctions on Iraq, Saddam has illegally sold billions of dollars worth of oil. What did Saddam do with that money? Did he educate, shelter, or feed his people? No, he built himself over 20 palaces instead.

TV
 
H

heyang

Guest
10 worst living dictators

Just got around to looking at the Sunday paper. In the Parade Magazine insert, there's an article on the 10 Worst Living Dictators.

1. Kim Jong Il of No Korea. Admits to developing nuclear weapons.
2. King Fahd and Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia. Using a cell phone on an airplane earns 20 lashes. Rule by decree. No elections at any level. 15 students at a girls school in Mecca were allowed to die in a fire becaus the relibious police prevented the girls from excaping because they hadn't put on their headdresses and denied male rescuers access because they are not allowed to mix with females. This is the government the US supports.
3. Saddam Hussein of Iraq. In power since 1979. Tortured and murdered political opponents. 1988: poison gased 5000 Kurds. 'After the gulf war, Saddam was considered over the hill as a global-scale dictator until President George W Bush began to PROMOTE his status as a threat to world peace.'
4. Charles Taylor of Liberia. 1989 invaded Liberia as head of rebel army leading to 7 yr civil war. 1997 elected president in hopes of ending fighting. Within 3 yrs, civil war returned. According to Amnesty Int'l, Taylor's army is responsible for the torture, forced labor and forced recruitment of cilivians as well as the use of rape as a war tactic to instill terror.
5 Than Shwe of Burma. There is no rule of law, only the dictate of the military junta. Widespread use of forced labor "a contemporary form of slavery.'. World's largest number of child soldiers - recruits as young as 11. In 1990 an election was allowed, but the military canceled the results and no election since then.
6. Teodoro Obiang Nguema of Equatorial Guinea. Overthrew his dictatorial uncle for power. Country was a forgotten dictatorship until oil was discovered in 1995. Since then, the US oil companies have poured $5 billion into the country raising GDP to $4676/person - average citizen takes home barely $2/day. Rest goes to Obiang who controls all branches of the gov't and continues to arrest and torture political opponents.
7. Saparmurad Niyazov of Turkmenistan. Renamed January after himself and September after Rukhnama (Book of the Soul) that summarizes his philosophy. Shut down the arts.
8. Muammar Al-Qaddafi of Libya. State owns all media, crticism of gov't policy is forbidden, political trials are secret and torture is common.
9. Fidel Castro of Cuba.imprisons his opponents. Cuba boasts an excellent system of free medical and dental care.
10. Alexander Lukashenko of Belarus. Europe's last dictator.

The criteria for the list was the suppression of those freedoms and rights that Americans take fore granted. Freedom of speech and religion, freedom to choose electd representatives and to disagree with their government and the right to a fair trial. Extra points to those who torture prisoners and/or execute political opponents, cause their citizens to starve or to suffer malnutrition and who interfere violently in the politics of countries other than their own.

So, if the Saudi leadership is #2 and has funded terrorism, why aren't they on our 'hit' list?
 
Top