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

Re: 10 worst living dictators

Yes, I can agree that Bush may have alterior motives for overthrowing Saddam. But that still doesn't dismiss the fact that Saddam needs to be taken out of power. At least Bush is getting one dictator out of power. I also say he needs to press hard on all the other dictators of the world. We should get them out of power as well. If I had it my way, those ten men would be burning in hell.

TV

Re: Who Should Police Who?

As far as I know it's not the United States' responsibility to police the world and decide who is naughty and who is nice. I thought there was an organization representing earth's nations that decided what sanctions should be placed and where and when.

For those who think Hussein should be removed, who do you think should replace him? Should the government be based on military rule? Religious rule? Consent of the governed? Or some other type of government?

I don't have these answers and quite frankly I don't think our current administration has thought very much about them either.

I've lived through WWII, Korea, Viet Nam, Desert Storm and the multitude of actions where our troops have been sent to keep the peace. But to infer that the current situation is equal in situation to any of them is only trying to make the square facts fit in a round hole. Or an idealized notion of what war is.

Let the United Nations call the shots on this one or let the Iraqi people bring Saddam down. It is not the responsibility of the administration or the American people.

4dk

Re: 10 worst living dictators

If someone can give proof that there is urgent need for the US to invade a country who hasn't attacked them then by all means I would support a war.

Just wondering: Is it just a coincidence that since the Bush administration took office that the possibility for war in not one but several places has increased tremendously?

Bush does seem like a nice guy. He just has no clue on how to run any kind of foreign policy. It's kind of a shoot now ask questions later policy.

I really don't get all of the backlash against France and Germany that's been seen lately. Just because they don't support a war doesn't mean that they're bad people. What's Rumsfield gonna do, nuke 'em?

Re: 10 worst living dictators

Here's why Iraq should not be the priority right now:


www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/as...index.html

Re: Who Should Police Who?

**As far as I know it's not the United States' responsibility to police the world and decide who is naughty and who is nice. I thought there was an organization representing earth's nations that decided what sanctions should be placed and where and when.**

The United States was not a world power before WWII. After WWII, we, along with the other Allied powers, basically got the task of cleaning up what someone else had started. I guess when you get that assignment, you sort of feel like you become the "parent". Considering in the years after, the US became the wealthiest and most powerful nation in the world, I think it was just assumed we were the ones you turned to when you got in trouble. Otherwise, I'm not sure we ever would have gotten involved in Korea, Vietnam, and other world-wide skirmishes. Did we want to assume this role? Personally, I don't think so. Many of our leaders at the time were preaching isolationism like there was no tomorrow, and all of a sudden, there's this huge war, and we're expected to pull most of Europe's tush out of the fire.

Lately, the United Nations is turning into the League of Nations part II. The Security Council is a joke because the world is far less secure than it was 58 years ago. Some could argue this is because of technology and the invention of some awful weaponry, but human nature hasn't changed. Bad people want to take what isn't theirs and good people want to protect the innocent from getting railroaded. The difference is that then, people backed up what they said. If you break the rules, you get punished. Period. End of story.

Nowadays, we've got to negotiate, and coddle, and handle these psychopaths with kid gloves and make sure we don't hurt their feelings, otherwise they might come blow us up. I'm all for trying to work things out peacefully, but there comes a point when it's time to cut the crap and actually STAND BY a deadline. If 'so and so' doesn't meet the requirements of a resolution, you'll get your country taken away from you. THE END.

I don't know how long we (the UN) should hold out to see if Hussein actually catches a clue. My guess is that his elevator never went to the top floor, so IMO, we've already wasted too much time. The citizens of Iraq are starving, the treatment of women is deplorable, and children are being taught that the only people who matter are the ones around them, and anyone with skin a different color or who speak a different language or worship a different religion should die. How charming. Not.

It's kind of like the old riddle...is it worse to have people die now so others might live later, or live and let live now and hope things don't get worse?

Containment not war

We need a Cold War that prevents any possible future agression through trade embargo of materials that could be used for WMD, punishments for countries that try to trade such things with Iraq, etc. while allowing food and medicine in so the common people are not half starved and so sickly they can't work for change from within.

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

Thvudragon wrote:
<blockquote style="padding-left:0.5em; margin-left:0; margin-right:0; margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0; border-left:solid 2">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?</blockquote>

I supported the first Gulf war, precisely because in that case Saddam stepped over the line; actually he stepped over a national border. I believe in WWII, the world should have interfered when Germany invaded Czechoslovakia -- well, when Iraq invaded Kuwait we did just that. At this particular moment, I see no other similarity between the two cases.

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

HTML Comments are not allowed

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

Ptichka, you should also note that after WWI, Germany was not allowed to rearm. That didn't stop Hitler from doing so. He amassed an army and the whole world knew it, but did nothing. They let him go about his business, making weapons that would eventually, devastate Europe. Should we let Saddam sit there until he devastates the Middle East?

TV

There is a 3rd way on Iraq: let's give containment a chance

www.theage.com.au/article...36758.html

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>The problem of Saddam Hussein won't go away. But war could create greater problems, writes Tim Colebatch.

No despot was more despotic than Stalin. Aptly called Saddam Hussein's mentor, he matched the Iraqi dictator in cruelty, created a man-made famine that brought death to millions, invaded and annexed neighbouring lands, and financed uprisings around the world.

Yet the United States and Britain embraced him as an ally in their common war against Hitler. When that ended in the Cold War and the arms race, they rejected the option of bombing Moscow, and adopted a policy of containment.

They forged alliances to protect vulnerable states, ringed the Soviet Union with troops and weapons, and generously poured in foreign aid to lift western Europe to new levels of wealth. And ultimately, the Soviet Union crumbled.

Was this appeasement? No. It was containment: the option that has been the world's usual method of dealing with rogue states for the past 57 years.[/quote]

Bush is planning on targeting civilian infastructure like dams, water treament plants, etc. that will cause at least 100,000 deaths from flooding and illness but will be sending in troops to protect the oil wells and oil refineries. The US military is stocking up on body bags and giving hiring bonus to mortuary workers but doesn't have the $$ to properly train and equip US troops against biological or chemical attacks. During the Gulf War HW Bush promised to have an Iraqi aircraft shot down if the Kurds would rebell then reneged on that promise and the rebels were slaughtered. I don't trust W Bush any more than I trusted his Daddy after that. This isn't about saving Iraqi's from saddam. It is about getting their hands on the oil else the US gov. would be threatening to level Pakistan for harboring al queda cells that have been poping back over the border to Afghanistan to attack US troops still there not to mention the public slave markets where Afghani children are auctioned off to the highest bidder. But then Pakistan isn't sitting on the 2nd largest oil reserve in the world and most definitely has nuclear bombs. In N. Korea the common people have been so starved that people have been reported eating grass while their dictator has big parties and maintains a huge army. But again no oil so no war.

I am an American born and raised and vote every year. I love my country but do not always like what the government does. My sister is in the military and I don't want her or any other people American or Iraqi killed in an unjust greedy war. The world can contain saddam and prevent him for aquiring new weapons, continue to dismantle any that he does have, and let enough food and medicine in that the common people don't suffer. An empowered people is the best way of ensuring dictators do not remain in power.

Re: There is a 3rd way on Iraq: let's give containment a cha

Shallah, they have to deal very carefully with N. Korea because what is happening with that dictator is exactly what they are afraid Saddam will become - a madman with a nuclear weapon at his personal disposal -- N. Korea already has nukes and has threatened to use them to destory Soeul or Tokyo if they are threatened. if Saddam gains nukes, imagine what he will threaten. Now in N. Korea you have a madman who they have to try to reason with. Have you ever tried to reason with an insane person holding a gun to your head? It's not easy and you have to tred very lightly, wouldn't ya say?

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

<blockquote style="padding-left:0.5em; margin-left:0; margin-right:0; margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0; border-left:solid 2">Ptichka, you should also note that after WWI, Germany was not allowed to rearm. That didn't stop Hitler from doing so. He amassed an army and the whole world knew it, but did nothing. They let him go about his business, making weapons that would eventually, devastate Europe. Should we let Saddam sit there until he devastates the Middle East?</blockquote>
You do have a point (and, obviously, there is a parallel between the Versailles agreement and the sanctions that punished civilians far more than they did Saddam). However, it is a question of evaluating risks. I am not saying I would not support war with Iraq under any circumstances; however, I do not believe either the inspectors or the US government have provided credible evidence of Saddam's weapons. All we have heard is that he is not "cooperating fully" with the inspectors, and some allegations of the materials he once had that he cannot account for. Then it becomes a question of balance. Do you believe that this information is enough to cause certain death of thousands of innocents, not to mention the cost to the US taxpayers? I do not. If I see more evidence, I may reevaluate this opinion; I then may or may not come to a different conclusion.

Re:Is this Iraq? or can I voice an opposing opinion?

HMM, my post was mysteriously censored!! -- what my post included was an article that paralleled this discussion of Iraq and US opposition vs. the Cold War and anti-americanism during the cold war which was rampant in some countries who accused the US of being the true aggressor. The article in particular was about Canadian Nationalists against the US during the Cold War who, for instance, compared the US with the devil and accused their government of "selling out" to the USA (sounds familiar to what's going on with Tony Blair!) It could be another(!) nasty case of history repeating itself.

A Russian emigre, Jamie, who has a Ph.D in history from York University in Toronto wrote the article. He was amazed that HISTORIANS in his Toronto university told him he was focusing too much on the past (!) when he brought up Canadian Nationalist's mistakes and blatant anti-americanism during the Cold War.

He said about the Canadian Nationalists, "Like many of their anti-American counterparts throughout the world, they have no choice but to confront the consequences of the American victory in the Cold War. That means that they must accept the disclosures that have surfaced from the Soviet archives and former Soviet officials. In other words, it means they have to accept the indisputable fact that the Americans were the good guys in the Cold War."

He also said, "Revelations from behind the former Iron Curtain have devastated anti-American cliques who made a career out of vociferously espousing the “moral equivalency” thesis regarding the superpower conflict."

-- instead of trusting that their government knew more than they did, they assumed they were just cowtowing to the United States, but documents revealed at the fall of the Soviet Union "devestated" their views.---

He also said, "being a 'proud' Canadian often means that one has to be a strident anti-American. That is why so many Canadian nationalists engaged in Gulag denial during the Cold War – and continue to do so.....What I can’t figure out, however, is why Canadian nationalists spend their time attacking me for my critiques of Canadian nationalism, when they should be focusing on the pernicious lies that Canadian nationalism spawned during the Cold War. Because of their neurotic and pathological need to define themselves in opposition to Americans, many Canadian nationalists demonized the United States, and exonerated the Soviet Union, in the Cold War. They accused the Canadian government, which was allied with the U.S., of having “sold out” to the Americans. Although common sense always instructed otherwise, the historical record now confirms this position to be not only distorted, but unethical. It is now irrefutable that Canadian policies, like American ones, were justified, and that Canada was right in promoting U.S. leadership in defense of the Western world, and in cooperating with the U.S. containment doctrine. What is interesting, however, is that there has yet to be even one apology, even one admission of error, from a Canadian nationalist on this score. I can’t help wondering: where are all the Canadian nationalists who condemned the Canadian government for its pro-American and anti-Soviet stance? Their mistakes have not been brought to public light, nor received any attention in Canadian academic scholarship. Why? Because Canadian nationalists cannot shed their anti-Americanism without losing their entire reason for being. For an entire lifetime, they built their statuses on, and gained incredible material and cultural rewards for, their anti-Americanism. Second thoughts are far too risk-laden and precarious at this stage."

--This would be parallel with the anti-war protesters who are really more anti-USA than anti-war. Their prejudice of the US is so great that they cannot see beyond that and their real motive is to just disagree with the US, spread propaganda about the US, demonize the US and make themselves feel morally superior - has nothing to do with the innocents in Iraq.
--
He went on to say, "In their desperate desire to build for themselves an “identity,” many Canadians began to regard the East–West struggle through the “moral equivalency” lens. This perspective held the United States and the Soviet Union equally responsible for Cold War tensions (if not the U.S. more responsible), and considered no side morally better than the other. These views were later well represented, and nurtured, by Canadian “nationalist” interpretations of the Cold War, the three most popular framers of this tradition being John Warnock, Donald Creighton, and James Minifie. Warnock, Creighton, and Minifie all held the U.S. to be an aggressor. They maintained the “intimidated satellite” theme, which contended that the Soviets did not pose a threat to Canada and that Canadians knew as much, but that the Canadian leadership was pressured by the Americans to accept and contribute to the containment doctrine. We now know that this interpretation is simply absurd. Creighton, one of the most prominent Canadian historians of this century, led the war cry in condemning the Canadian Liberal government for seeking an American alliance and pursuing the policy of continentalism in the mid-1950s. He believed that Canada “sold out” to the United States. Like his ideological allies in Canada, he practiced selective condemnation, censuring American and Canadian leaders for their actions, while remaining profoundly indifferent toward Soviet behavior. In The Forked Road, his highly lauded work on Canada in the 1939-1957 period, Creighton condemned Canada for following American foreign policy. Yet he only glossed over Soviet actions — referring to Eastern European countries only to explain that these “associates” of Moscow decided on their own to reject Marshall Plan aid. If common sense was not enough to suggest that all of this was simply false, the revelations from the Soviet archives have now confirmed it."

Warnock, a Canadian Natinalist made the United States out to be the aggressor in the Cold War. He referring to the US as the “devil” throughout his work. The First chapter “Walking with the Devil” is about Canada’s alliance with the United States. Meanwhile, he made light of Stalin or left Stalin out of the mix entirely.

The writer went on to discuss his time studying in Canada for his Ph.D in history, " I would confront my Canadian nationalist colleagues about these issues. Why, I asked them, were they reluctant to face the errors of Canadian nationalists vis-a-vis the Cold War? Were they not aware of how the documents from the former Soviet archives were discrediting almost everything Canadian nationalists had said about the Cold War? My colleagues’ favorite response was to shrug their shoulders and to dismiss my arguments as being too “hung up” on “the past.” The Cold War “was over,” they told me, and it was silly to chase down “old ghosts.” They informed me that my “obsession” with the Soviet archives was analogous to necrophilia. And these were historians! <span style="text-decoration:underline"><em><strong>It simply flabbergasted me that, in a graduate history department, I would be counseled to “get over” looking into the past......In the end, it is all about the deep-rooted illness in the Canadian nationalist psyche, which demands the veneration and idolization of anti-Americanism above everything else</strong></em></span>. It explains how and why Canadian “historians” can end up discouraging a “preoccupation” with “the past,” and how supposedly intelligent people with Ph.D’s can write books on Canadian Cold War history without even mentioning Joseph Stalin."

He went on to finish, "This is my problem with Canadian nationalism. And it is personal. As a Russian émigré, I am not humored by Gulag denial, just as a Jew wouldn’t be overly excited with Holocaust denial. For years I have lived in a country where “proud” Canadians ignore and downplay some of the greatest horrors of the 20th century – all for the sake of making it clear that “we are not like the Americans.” Well, whether or not we are like the Americans happens not to be one of my biggest concerns. My biggest concern happens to be why and how, in the name of equality and “social justice,” the socialist experiment liquidated more than 100 million people in the 20th century. To deny that reality is a criminal act. And that is why, despite how much Canadian nationalists hate me for it, I long to see Canadian nationalism end up where it belongs – on the ash heap of history. "

THIS reminded me of what is going on to day for many reasons. A) the US being accused of being an aggressor, Bush being called "Hitler" by some B) Tony Blair being called a poodle, being accused of "selling out" to America C) people saying Iraq does not pose a threat to them, as they said of the Soviets in the cold war did not pose a threat, which was discredited after classified information was revelead at the end of the cold war (people apparently did not trust their governements to know what they were doing)

Even Peter Jennings admitted he was brought up to be anti-american and it was "in his blood" but now that he's lived here and worked here for years he considers himself Canadian-American and "america is in his soul"

I just wanted to point out that there are a lot of prejudices in the United States, and this a big reason for many people not backing this war and that is the wrong reason.

Other reasons protesters said they were against the war
1) we don't want to be a terrorist target
2) its going to hurt the economy
and yes (3) (the favorite reason) we want to be different from the USA.
I didn't hear any of the protesters voice any concern for Iraqi people. I doubt they actually care. If they were living in Iraq right now, they'd probably be wondering when the hell somebody was going to come and save them.

I am working on a link as I pressume somebody who is upset about this revelation will try to have it censored again (is this CHina we are living in? or Iraq? I forget). It is amazing to me to hear people complain about wanting TV shows taken off the air because a joke was said that offended them or want a book banned because there is a sentence in it they don't like. I think these people need to go live in IRaq for a spell to really appreciate the true meaning of living in a free society. People are allowed to disagree - without silencing one party completely. It is very disturbing to me to see history completely repeating itself and people not even willing to open their minds to learn from it.

Re: Re:Is this Iraq? or can I voice an opposing opinion?

www.frontpagemagazine.com...=29&Y=2001

if this doesn't work, go to frontpagemagazine.com and under the archives look for June 29, 2001 - for the complete article by Jamie Glazov

Other interesting articles -- all from today -- on Frontpagemagazine.com

"Berlin's new Anti-American Axis"
"Marching for the Enemy"
"Hussein's a 'Grave Danger' Iraqi Scientists say"

why not have a read?

Re: Re:Is this Iraq? or can I voice an opposing opinion?

www.frontpagemag.com/Arti...sp?ID=5226

another excellent article -- Dec 27 2002 - "Leftist Lies about the War" by Preson McConkie --

Re: Re:Is this Iraq? or can I voice an opposing opinion?

Many of you have good points. I too think Bush wants Iraq for oil, but I support the effort because it is to get Saddam out of power. This also brings about the question, Do the ends justify the means? I'm going to ponder this question for awhile. I never really thought of it.

TV

Re: Re:Is this Iraq? or can I voice an opposing opinion?

It is also interesting to note, that Russia and France will lose the most money if Saddam is taken out of power. They have the most lucrative oil deals with Iraq at the moment and they don't want to lose them.

Now, I am not for a war - I don't want to see millions, thousands or even hundreds of innocent people killed, but this psychopath has to be maintained somehow, if not stopped completely - one way or the other - and the UN seems incapable of doing the job and nobody else seems to want to get their hands dirty.

The biggest sin is the sin of omission - to do nothing.
in retrospect, think of all the people (and countries who waited too long) who sat by and did nothing as jews were slowly but surely turned to animals -first the anti-jew propoganda campaign - which was going on for years before WWII in Germany, then slowly ripping them of certain rights and dignities -- then taking them from their homes - carted out of their villages - this all happened while regular working 'decent' folk sat by, went on with their lives and did absolutely NOTHING , either because they were afraid to get involved, because it had "nothing" to do with them or perhaps they were happy about it -- there was and still is a large amount of anti-semitism in Europe -- a lot of envy for a group of people who seemed to being doing "too" well for themselves - some of them were probably more than happy to get rid of the Jews.

Re: Re:Is this Iraq? or can I voice an opposing opinion?

No - because I don't think the current administration has any idea on what to do with post-war Iraq.

1. Iraq is an ethnically and religiously divided country with Kurds in the North and Shiite in the South. It will not be easy for any government to maintain the unity.

2. Any "peace-keeping" force entirely made up of "Western" nations will not be welcome in Iraq. You would need to include Arab countries to make it acceptable for the people in Iraq, and I don't think they will be willing to do that.

3. Starting a war will help Al Qaeda and its ilk to recruit more people into their operations.

If they have the money to start a war, they should use it to rebuild Afghanistan. That would be far more effective in preventing future terrorist attacks.

The UN is not doing nothing

they are over there right now dismantling any illegal weapons or anything that could be used to make them. This is not exactly "doing nothing". This is removing the viper's fangs.

Jules guess who is frothing at the mouth to get oil deals once Bush takes out Hussein? US Oil companies are already meeting with US officials on rebuilding any damaged wells & refineries. America imports more oil than most european nations so we should be mad at ourselves for supporting saddam I guess.

You will have to forgive my moral qualms over the US military plans to bomb dams, water treatment plants and the like against the Geneva Convention which will result in thousands dead from flooding and illness. This is not counting the collateral damage of sending in 300 bombs to level Bagdad in the first two days alone. I don't want military personal like my sister getting their hands dirty with children's blood. Doubly so when Saddam will be safe and sound out of reach a la Dick Cheny and the shadow congress and who will probably be offered exile to get him out of the way since they don't have a clue where the man is. Look at the wonderful job they have done tracking down bin laden & his daddy in law mullah omar who are still frothing for American blood.

You know the horribly ironic thing was Bush Sr. had a clean shot at taking Hussein out. Encouraged the people of Iraq to rise up and over throw him, promised to keep Iraqi military planes & choppers out of the air to even the odds. They were within 1 day of Bagdad when Bush broke his promise and let the Iraqi choppers massacre the Shiites & Kurds fighting against Hussein. All those soldiers on both sides already dead and he left Hussein in power. Nice move.

Broken promises
How the United States failed the Iraqi resistance
Saif Ataya suffered his own personal holocaust under U.S. policy gone awry
sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...177123.DTL

A few links ya'll might find of interest:

Americans Against Bombing
A Conservative/Libertarian coalition opposed to .the bombing & hypocrisy which brings retaliation from enemies that we ourselves create, turning our free Republic into a military empire
www.againstbombing.org/
Veterans For Common Sense
Veterans for Common Sense seeks to inject the element of Common Sense into debates over war and national security. In an age when the majority of public servants have never served in uniform, the perspective of war veterans must play a key role in the public debate over national security issues in order to preserve the liberty veterans have fought and died preserving.
www.veteransforcommonsense.org/
Ten Reasons Why Many Gulf War Veterans Oppose Re-Invading Iraq
www.veteransforcommonsens...e.asp?id=2
September 11th families for peaceful tomorrows
An advocacy organisation founded by family members of September 11 victims, seeking effective non-violent responses to terrorism.
www.peacefultomorrows.org/

Re: Re:Is this Iraq? or can I voice an opposing opinion?

<blockquote style="padding-left:0.5em; margin-left:0; margin-right:0; margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0; border-left:solid 2">It is also interesting to note, that Russia and France will lose the most money if Saddam is taken out of power. They have the most lucrative oil deals with Iraq at the moment and they don't want to lose them.</blockquote>
Excellent point. Over the last two weeks, I have been thoroughly disgusted by the rhetoric coming out of both Washington and Paris. Bush talking about "New Europe" and "Old Europe", and how France is no longer relevant... Chirac telling the Eastern European countries that they have missed "A great opportunity to shut up"... And I can't get rid of a nagging feeling that on both sides it's all about oil! It's sad that none of those politicians care about the thousands of lives, they just care about $$$! Well, also Chirac I bet cares about his next elections, and being friendly with the increasing Arab minority in France won't hurt any. At the same time as Bush cares about his next elections, and with the economy being where it is a foreign policy boost can really cary the day.