R
RED DOG45
Guest
Do you think we should go to war in Iraq??
This is a more serious topic but I want to see what people here think...
This is a more serious topic but I want to see what people here think...
G
Grgranny
Guest
Re: Do you think we should go to war in Iraq??
Not right now. Maybe eventually. I don't think wars solve much any more. I would just make a lot of other countries hate us more and there are enough of them now. I just can't see how killing solves anything.
Not right now. Maybe eventually. I don't think wars solve much any more. I would just make a lot of other countries hate us more and there are enough of them now. I just can't see how killing solves anything.
S
sk8ing lady2001
Guest
Re: Do you think we should go to war in Iraq??
Make peace, not war.
Make peace, not war.
S
Show 42
Guest
Re: Do you think we should go to war in Iraq??
I have an 18 year old son.......need I say more!
42
I have an 18 year old son.......need I say more!
42
P
Princess Leppard 625
Guest
Re: Do you think we should go to war in Iraq??
<span style="color
urple;font-family:georgia;font-size:x-small;">If we do find weapons, then fine. But Iraq is already a mess of a country, the people are starving, they have no medication to take care of the sick, and what are we going to do? Bomb them? Yeah, that looks good.
And, meanwhile, North Korea is making nuclear bombs...
Laura</span>
<span style="color
urple;font-family:georgia;font-size:x-small;">If we do find weapons, then fine. But Iraq is already a mess of a country, the people are starving, they have no medication to take care of the sick, and what are we going to do? Bomb them? Yeah, that looks good. And, meanwhile, North Korea is making nuclear bombs...
Laura</span>
H
HamiltonBrowningFan
Guest
Re: Do you think we should go to war in Iraq??
I said yes
and before you say I'm too young to understand I have a friend 6 months older than I am and she is over in S. Korea... and she's said that there's no reason for us not to...
Saddam should have been taken out a long time ago.
now I'm leaving this discussion because I don't want to get yelled at :lol:
and they HAVE found illegal weapons... no nuclear ones *YET* but they have found missiles that are long range... longer than what's legal... it was reported on the news last night
I said yes
and before you say I'm too young to understand I have a friend 6 months older than I am and she is over in S. Korea... and she's said that there's no reason for us not to...
Saddam should have been taken out a long time ago.
now I'm leaving this discussion because I don't want to get yelled at :lol:
and they HAVE found illegal weapons... no nuclear ones *YET* but they have found missiles that are long range... longer than what's legal... it was reported on the news last night
G
Grgranny
Guest
Re: Do you think we should go to war in Iraq??
Not mad at you for your opinion at all. I understand. I just remember what war was like. I was a child during World War One. I know there is no way to reason with those kind of people. Wish they would have got rid of those evil ones years ago without a war.
Not mad at you for your opinion at all. I understand. I just remember what war was like. I was a child during World War One. I know there is no way to reason with those kind of people. Wish they would have got rid of those evil ones years ago without a war.
H
heyang
Guest
Re: Do you think we should go to war in Iraq??
I said unsure. My problem with the current situation is that it seems short sighted - what is our definitive long term goal? - when will we leave?
Ok, we go in and bomb the place even further into the dark ages. It's citzenry suffers (not all of these people are terrorists). We occupy for however long, until whatever goal is reached (capturing/killing Saddam is not a goal - if not him, there could be some other even more extreme looney tune.) So, we occupy until when?
If we don't go to war, what happens? US looks like it's backed off. Political posturing. Will it make the population safer? Or will it encourage the wackos to give it another try?
This area of the world has been prized for it's oil and strategic location. Isn't it time to develop alternatives to oil which will reduce the importance of this region to the world and the world's economy? Since Carter, there hasn't been a single administration which has supported such an endeavor with conviction.
Generally, I believe that there will be war. I hope it does not hit the homefront. I hope it is brief because the economy cannot endure a long one. I hope Saddam is captured - he must not be made a matyr. I hope Osama is located - dead or alive - again he must not be made a matyr. I hope our leadership has a viable goal in mind which will not mean UN occupation for many years.
I said unsure. My problem with the current situation is that it seems short sighted - what is our definitive long term goal? - when will we leave?
Ok, we go in and bomb the place even further into the dark ages. It's citzenry suffers (not all of these people are terrorists). We occupy for however long, until whatever goal is reached (capturing/killing Saddam is not a goal - if not him, there could be some other even more extreme looney tune.) So, we occupy until when?
If we don't go to war, what happens? US looks like it's backed off. Political posturing. Will it make the population safer? Or will it encourage the wackos to give it another try?
This area of the world has been prized for it's oil and strategic location. Isn't it time to develop alternatives to oil which will reduce the importance of this region to the world and the world's economy? Since Carter, there hasn't been a single administration which has supported such an endeavor with conviction.
Generally, I believe that there will be war. I hope it does not hit the homefront. I hope it is brief because the economy cannot endure a long one. I hope Saddam is captured - he must not be made a matyr. I hope Osama is located - dead or alive - again he must not be made a matyr. I hope our leadership has a viable goal in mind which will not mean UN occupation for many years.
K
Kara Bear
Guest
Re: Do you think we should go to war in Iraq??
i think anyone who answered yes to this question should watch the movie "Bowling for Columbine." It might change their view a bit.
i think anyone who answered yes to this question should watch the movie "Bowling for Columbine." It might change their view a bit.
J
Joesitz
Guest
Re: Do you think we should go to war in Iraq??
Much of this is a diversion from the economy. Aside from that I can't see 100,000 Americans dying for a non proven reason. I also can't see a million innocent Iraqis dying. No one country attacked the US.
Everyone including the countries in the Middle East want to see Saddam go but not by international war. They could do it the old fashioned way of creating unrest in a country provoking coup d'etat.
Joe
Much of this is a diversion from the economy. Aside from that I can't see 100,000 Americans dying for a non proven reason. I also can't see a million innocent Iraqis dying. No one country attacked the US.
Everyone including the countries in the Middle East want to see Saddam go but not by international war. They could do it the old fashioned way of creating unrest in a country provoking coup d'etat.
Joe
M
moonpie85
Guest
war what is it good for - absolutely nothing
"Thou shalt not kill"
I know some here are religious and some are not. I am a woman of faith and the above says it for me. I believe we are all part of God (however one perceives God-he/she has many names and personifications) when we kill one another we kill part of ourselves.
I hope and pray this war does not come to pass.
I am very suspicious of W's motivations.
Peace and Happy Valentine's Day
Moonpie
"Thou shalt not kill"
I know some here are religious and some are not. I am a woman of faith and the above says it for me. I believe we are all part of God (however one perceives God-he/she has many names and personifications) when we kill one another we kill part of ourselves.
I hope and pray this war does not come to pass.
I am very suspicious of W's motivations.
Peace and Happy Valentine's Day
Moonpie
R
RED DOG45
Guest
Re: war what is it good for - absolutely nothing
I should throw in my 2 cents as well...I think we should <strong>NOT</strong> go to war in Iraq at the moment...I don't think that Iraq poses an immediate threat to the US, however I'm all for disarming Saddam Hussein. I know he has done this for many years but this might be the first time he has been under intense scrutiny to disarm. I personally would give it more time (I think GWB is WAY too impatient), allow the UN to grant a second resolution, see how things work out, and if Saddam still doesn't disarm, then war should only be a last resort. I still don't want there to be a war, but if we have to, I guess we have to...
I should throw in my 2 cents as well...I think we should <strong>NOT</strong> go to war in Iraq at the moment...I don't think that Iraq poses an immediate threat to the US, however I'm all for disarming Saddam Hussein. I know he has done this for many years but this might be the first time he has been under intense scrutiny to disarm. I personally would give it more time (I think GWB is WAY too impatient), allow the UN to grant a second resolution, see how things work out, and if Saddam still doesn't disarm, then war should only be a last resort. I still don't want there to be a war, but if we have to, I guess we have to...
P
Ptichka
Guest
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"> there's no reason for us not to...</blockquote>
I think this is exactly missing the point. The case never has to be made against the war, only for it. (BTW, I'm not yelling at you for your opinion, only expressing mine.)
My big problem is that I do not trust this administration anymore. While I believe that Sadam probably does have weapons, it makes no sense to me that he would have any conenction to Al Queda. I mean, Sadam and Osama are the worst of enemies; I interpreted Osama's last message as more like, "Let's first kill the Americans, and only then Sadam".
I also find it disconcerting that we hear so little about casualties. We do hear somewhat about possible US ones, and occasionally a word or two is mentioned about Iraqi civilian ones. Well, what about Iraqi combatants? They are human too, you know.
Finally, I find it extremely offensive when W. talks about "liberating Iraq". We may have good reasons to go to war with Sadam (though I don't think we do), but it is hypocritical at best to pretend we are doing it "for their good". And, BTW, can you spell O-I-L?
One last word. I think this is an issue on which Clinton made a huge misake while he was in office. When Iraq kicked out the inspectors, he should have pressed there and then, not give Sadam the impression he can get away with it. Also, I do not really have a problem with Bush's unilateralism -- I think US should do whatever it thinks is right, regardless of what the rest of the world thinks. This, however, is not to say that I agree with the Bush policy on Iraq at all.
<blockquote style="padding-left:0.5em; margin-left:0; margin-right:0; margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0; border-left:solid 2"> there's no reason for us not to...</blockquote>
I think this is exactly missing the point. The case never has to be made against the war, only for it. (BTW, I'm not yelling at you for your opinion, only expressing mine.)
My big problem is that I do not trust this administration anymore. While I believe that Sadam probably does have weapons, it makes no sense to me that he would have any conenction to Al Queda. I mean, Sadam and Osama are the worst of enemies; I interpreted Osama's last message as more like, "Let's first kill the Americans, and only then Sadam".
I also find it disconcerting that we hear so little about casualties. We do hear somewhat about possible US ones, and occasionally a word or two is mentioned about Iraqi civilian ones. Well, what about Iraqi combatants? They are human too, you know.
Finally, I find it extremely offensive when W. talks about "liberating Iraq". We may have good reasons to go to war with Sadam (though I don't think we do), but it is hypocritical at best to pretend we are doing it "for their good". And, BTW, can you spell O-I-L?
One last word. I think this is an issue on which Clinton made a huge misake while he was in office. When Iraq kicked out the inspectors, he should have pressed there and then, not give Sadam the impression he can get away with it. Also, I do not really have a problem with Bush's unilateralism -- I think US should do whatever it thinks is right, regardless of what the rest of the world thinks. This, however, is not to say that I agree with the Bush policy on Iraq at all.
J
JOHIO2
Guest
Re: Do you think we should go to war in Iraq??
War? I said unsure. Because I AM unsure. War is not a good solution, but sometimes unavoidable. Necessary to protect or assist others. But war, now, against Iraq?
I was against the war in Viet Nam. I haven't become any fonder of war. I just don't see that this is necessary for our protection, although it might be necessary for the protection of Israel. But the Israelis depend on themselves, since the world has such a dismal record of supporting them. War with North Korea mostly concerns our ally, Japan. The N.Koreans are not a realistic threat to the US.
Assist others? Which others would we be assisting? Going to war in Afghanistan has not solved much. The Taliban was deposed, but they only held power in part of the country anyway. Outside of Kabul, "power" is dispersed among warlords. Who was assisted there? The warlords?
I don't think the administration has a realistic sense of what war with Iraq would be like. And I am absolutely sure that they have no clue about how to manage the after-effects. They aren't doing such a good job in Afghanistan, and we at least have allies and some measure of world support there. (OK, a very small measure. The world really hasn't done much to tame the warlords or help rebuild the civilization and infrastructure there. At least they sent some troops and some food and medicine.)
I also have a mother's perspective on this. My son is on active duty because of this war on terrorism. While he is presently safely stationed in the US, a war could definitely place him in harm's way. I feel stressed myself. I can only imagine how those who have loved ones in or on the way to the Mideast feel.
I intend to attend some antiwar rallies and peace prayer activities this weekend. Please pray for a peaceful resolution.
War? I said unsure. Because I AM unsure. War is not a good solution, but sometimes unavoidable. Necessary to protect or assist others. But war, now, against Iraq?
I was against the war in Viet Nam. I haven't become any fonder of war. I just don't see that this is necessary for our protection, although it might be necessary for the protection of Israel. But the Israelis depend on themselves, since the world has such a dismal record of supporting them. War with North Korea mostly concerns our ally, Japan. The N.Koreans are not a realistic threat to the US.
Assist others? Which others would we be assisting? Going to war in Afghanistan has not solved much. The Taliban was deposed, but they only held power in part of the country anyway. Outside of Kabul, "power" is dispersed among warlords. Who was assisted there? The warlords?
I don't think the administration has a realistic sense of what war with Iraq would be like. And I am absolutely sure that they have no clue about how to manage the after-effects. They aren't doing such a good job in Afghanistan, and we at least have allies and some measure of world support there. (OK, a very small measure. The world really hasn't done much to tame the warlords or help rebuild the civilization and infrastructure there. At least they sent some troops and some food and medicine.)
I also have a mother's perspective on this. My son is on active duty because of this war on terrorism. While he is presently safely stationed in the US, a war could definitely place him in harm's way. I feel stressed myself. I can only imagine how those who have loved ones in or on the way to the Mideast feel.
I intend to attend some antiwar rallies and peace prayer activities this weekend. Please pray for a peaceful resolution.
P
Ptichka
Guest
Re: Do you think we should go to war in Iraq??
Nice post, Jo.
I, too, am very sceptical of "after-the-war". However, I do think there is a potential of doing things better than they were done in Afghanistan. Below is my list of reasons:
1. Central Government Iraq already has a central government, whereas in Afghanistan we were trying to create something that was never there.
2. $$$ Iraq has a lot of wealth in oil; therefore, it is in US's economic interest to help them build a stable society.
3. Pre-existing society Iraq is a country with a decent level of education even now, and it was at a much higher level before the sanctions. Therefore, similar to point #1, there is something there to rebuild. This is in stark contrast to Afghanistan, which has been at war for longer than anybody can remember.
In short, Afghanistan was perhaps the toughest place in the Middle East to rebuild. While Iraq is not the easiest, it is near the top of the list. In other words, I am not sure anything could have been done in Afghanistan; in Iraq, it is I think possible, provided there is a will, patience, and international support. Whether or not we will have that is a million dollar question (actually, a multi-billion dollar one).
Nice post, Jo.
I, too, am very sceptical of "after-the-war". However, I do think there is a potential of doing things better than they were done in Afghanistan. Below is my list of reasons:
1. Central Government Iraq already has a central government, whereas in Afghanistan we were trying to create something that was never there.
2. $$$ Iraq has a lot of wealth in oil; therefore, it is in US's economic interest to help them build a stable society.
3. Pre-existing society Iraq is a country with a decent level of education even now, and it was at a much higher level before the sanctions. Therefore, similar to point #1, there is something there to rebuild. This is in stark contrast to Afghanistan, which has been at war for longer than anybody can remember.
In short, Afghanistan was perhaps the toughest place in the Middle East to rebuild. While Iraq is not the easiest, it is near the top of the list. In other words, I am not sure anything could have been done in Afghanistan; in Iraq, it is I think possible, provided there is a will, patience, and international support. Whether or not we will have that is a million dollar question (actually, a multi-billion dollar one).
E
eliza88
Guest
Re: Do you think we should go to war in Iraq??
War is ugly. (that's why I watch skating
I do not want to go to war.
This administration makes me nervous...
eliza88
War is ugly. (that's why I watch skating
I do not want to go to war. This administration makes me nervous...
eliza88
J
JOHIO2
Guest
Re: Do you think we should go to war in Iraq??
Hi Ptichka,
Points about rebuilding well put. Afghanistan wasn't the best example of "after," but it is the most recent one.
The Balkans are probably a better example of what I believe would happen in Iraq. Rebuilding has been slow in the Balkans. Yugoslavia was a tighly run country until the breakup. Then all the old animosity resurfaced. Serb vs Croat. Christian vs Muslim. And on and on. Peacekeepers are still there and still needed there. In fact, some of my son's Army Reserve Unit are currently over there. Don't remember whether they are in Bosnia or Macedonia.
Totalitarian governments can hold a "country" together for a long time. That's why the Romans are remembered for their empire. It's an imposed order, but the weaknesses are there waiting to re-emerge and split the "country."
I believe Iraq would be just as hard to rebuild as a society. The Kurdish minority is not the only one there and I think liberating them from Saddam is only the beginning of a new struggle for a Kurdish State. After all, Iraq was basically a British invention, when they and Russia were the big players earlier in the 20th century.
No wonder Turkey is so afraid. Their Kurdish minority could believe it has more in common with the Iraqi Kurds than the current Turkish government. I find NATO's refusal to pledge support for Turkey most telling on how our European allies view this region's current situation.
As John Kennedy said about economists, there is always an "other hand." Oh that this all could be as easy as the Bushies want to make it! Iraqis would probably be glad to be rid of Saddam. Then, they would be even happier to get rid of us and get back to their squabbling. Sad but true.
It's no fun being the other hand proponent. Shades of Jeremiah!
Hi Ptichka,
Points about rebuilding well put. Afghanistan wasn't the best example of "after," but it is the most recent one.
The Balkans are probably a better example of what I believe would happen in Iraq. Rebuilding has been slow in the Balkans. Yugoslavia was a tighly run country until the breakup. Then all the old animosity resurfaced. Serb vs Croat. Christian vs Muslim. And on and on. Peacekeepers are still there and still needed there. In fact, some of my son's Army Reserve Unit are currently over there. Don't remember whether they are in Bosnia or Macedonia.
Totalitarian governments can hold a "country" together for a long time. That's why the Romans are remembered for their empire. It's an imposed order, but the weaknesses are there waiting to re-emerge and split the "country."
I believe Iraq would be just as hard to rebuild as a society. The Kurdish minority is not the only one there and I think liberating them from Saddam is only the beginning of a new struggle for a Kurdish State. After all, Iraq was basically a British invention, when they and Russia were the big players earlier in the 20th century.
No wonder Turkey is so afraid. Their Kurdish minority could believe it has more in common with the Iraqi Kurds than the current Turkish government. I find NATO's refusal to pledge support for Turkey most telling on how our European allies view this region's current situation.
As John Kennedy said about economists, there is always an "other hand." Oh that this all could be as easy as the Bushies want to make it! Iraqis would probably be glad to be rid of Saddam. Then, they would be even happier to get rid of us and get back to their squabbling. Sad but true.
It's no fun being the other hand proponent. Shades of Jeremiah!
R
RED DOG45
Guest
3 articles concerning issue
<strong> Iraq Bans Weapons Of Mass Destruction </strong>
story.news.yahoo.com/news...&ncid=1480
<strong> Powell Presses Allies To Threaten Iraq </strong>
story.news.yahoo.com/news...&ncid=1480
<strong> Major Powers Insist On Iraq Inspections </strong>
story.news.yahoo.com/news...&ncid=1480
<strong> Iraq Bans Weapons Of Mass Destruction </strong>
story.news.yahoo.com/news...&ncid=1480
<strong> Powell Presses Allies To Threaten Iraq </strong>
story.news.yahoo.com/news...&ncid=1480
<strong> Major Powers Insist On Iraq Inspections </strong>
story.news.yahoo.com/news...&ncid=1480
D
DORISPULASKI
Guest
Re: 3 articles concerning issue
I voted no on the war. Mostly because there is no situation so bad that a war will not make it worse in every respect.
But I agree with nearly everyone that Saddam Hussein is a conscienceless sociopath, who if he does not have weapons of mass destruction, is trying to get them.
And if we go to war, I am sure that he will move into the middle of a pediatric hospital so that if we try to kill him, we will kill about 1000 sick kids at the same time.
And as much as the Islamic world hates us now, they will hate us more.
And there will be that many more recruits for al Qaeda, no matter that they hate Saddam as a secular rather than religious leader. We will have even more September 11 style
disasters.
And we will have to commit soldiers and dollars to rebuild Iraq for years, when we haven't finished rebuilding Afghanistan (and look where not rebuilding Afghanistan got us the last time we didn't do it-right where we were with Osama and the Taliban there). The debt ceiling, which we have raised twice since Bush took office will have to be raised several time smores.
There is blame enough to go round on U.S. Middle East policy. Both Republican and Democratic administrations have fouled up there. I think the oil gets in their eyes.
But let's be clear--I am clueless about how to fix things there either, so if I were president, I would do no better, just different.
But what worries me most, is that while we are chasing Saddam that N. Korea is going to drop an atom bomb on either Alaska or Seattle.
dpp
I voted no on the war. Mostly because there is no situation so bad that a war will not make it worse in every respect.
But I agree with nearly everyone that Saddam Hussein is a conscienceless sociopath, who if he does not have weapons of mass destruction, is trying to get them.
And if we go to war, I am sure that he will move into the middle of a pediatric hospital so that if we try to kill him, we will kill about 1000 sick kids at the same time.
And as much as the Islamic world hates us now, they will hate us more.
And there will be that many more recruits for al Qaeda, no matter that they hate Saddam as a secular rather than religious leader. We will have even more September 11 style
disasters.
And we will have to commit soldiers and dollars to rebuild Iraq for years, when we haven't finished rebuilding Afghanistan (and look where not rebuilding Afghanistan got us the last time we didn't do it-right where we were with Osama and the Taliban there). The debt ceiling, which we have raised twice since Bush took office will have to be raised several time smores.
There is blame enough to go round on U.S. Middle East policy. Both Republican and Democratic administrations have fouled up there. I think the oil gets in their eyes.
But let's be clear--I am clueless about how to fix things there either, so if I were president, I would do no better, just different.
But what worries me most, is that while we are chasing Saddam that N. Korea is going to drop an atom bomb on either Alaska or Seattle.
dpp
J
Joesitz
Guest
Re: Do you think we should go to war in Iraq??
Ptitchka - Good post. There is no good reason for going to war, and the subject of not going to war which does contain 100 reasons is not even addressed.
How many other countries have weapons of mass destruction and we do not care about (at the moment)? What about our own stockpile of mass destruction weapons?
This has a lot to do with, imo, of the power of oil (W's business). Saddam, if he had succeeded in taking Kuwait would have had barrels the size of Saudi Arabia.
It does take your mind off the economy,though. Could that be the point?
As for alerts, what's the difference between green and red? Extra duck tape? Too many are calling Wolf here in NYC.
Joe
Ptitchka - Good post. There is no good reason for going to war, and the subject of not going to war which does contain 100 reasons is not even addressed.
How many other countries have weapons of mass destruction and we do not care about (at the moment)? What about our own stockpile of mass destruction weapons?
This has a lot to do with, imo, of the power of oil (W's business). Saddam, if he had succeeded in taking Kuwait would have had barrels the size of Saudi Arabia.
It does take your mind off the economy,though. Could that be the point?
As for alerts, what's the difference between green and red? Extra duck tape? Too many are calling Wolf here in NYC.
Joe
Similar threads
