War on Iraq

[Haivart]

You're right. He's set on it and a war will probably happen; but I can, and will, still hope; if only to stay sane.

[thomas]

Weapons of Mass Destruction 404

=> http://www.coxar.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk

[Haivart]

Wonderful!

[Iron Chef]

Well, i'll weigh in with my .02 cents on the subject at hand...

Speaking for myself, it would appear that "Dubya" is indeed intent on steering this nation towards a more proactive appraoch to dealing with Hussein and not above ruling out military aggression. In many of his speeches to date, he has reiterated his constant rhetoric of "All other options have been exhausted... Saddam has time and again failed to comply with weapons inspectors... we can't leave the safety of American lives in the hands of Hussein and rely on his restraint... etc."

Granted, I have long considered myself an independent although I suppose that my sociopolitical views tend to fall in line more with the Democrats as opposed to the Republicans. And while I did not vote for Dubya, he did seem to earn a measure of respect in my eyes with the way he successfully handled the 9/11 tragedy. It should also be noted that for the most part I tend to disagree with many of George Jr.'s approaches since taking office, specifically his adopted environment policies but that is the extent of my personal bias and the context from which I frame my opinion.

In my eyes, it would appear America has really opened up a can of worms that it can not possibly hope to contain. This first started with our so-called patriotic attempts to liberate the Afghanis from the Taliban and snuff out terrorist cells in all their manifestations. And from my research re: the Taliban and their oppressive methods, this was a good thing. Personally, and I don't mean to make light of the situation but it strikes me as odd that with all of our so-called superior technologies, satellite and intelligence networks, and military might we have still yet been able to track down and find Bin Laden over a full year later. Yet Osama continues to crank out a new video from his hiding place every few months just to remind us he's still lurking in the shadows illiciting a color-coded nationwide security "threat level" alert every time he does so.

Meanwhile, here in the U.S. all official coverage of "The War on Terrorism" has long since faded and failed to captivate and hold the attention of mainstream America. Indeed, our efforts in this endeavor have become passe' to say the least in terms of coverage and what is reported by the news networks. Instead, post 9/11 has resulted in heightened security measures at all major airports which have significantly affected all the major airlines in terms of diving profits not to mention the inconvenience posed to it's consumer base. Countless stories of who does and who doesn't get checked by authorities, hours spent waiting for clearance, etc. have emerged and thusly affected America's perception of "friendly skies". Curiousity and paranoia have been and continue to be bred and fostered to directly affect the lives of many Arab-Americans or those of Arabian descent throughout the nation.

And now he we are standing on the brink of war with Iraq. Except this time we aren't liberating anyone from themselves or a tyrannical despot, instead we're bringing the war to them... What truly troubles me about all of this is the fact that a growing movement against the war has become more and more outspoken both here and abroad yet their voice continues to be ignored by the current administration. Despite the protests and petitions of many Americans as well as our international brothers and sisters, Dubya continues to infer that he "knows what's best" for America and it's safety. I would suspect that on some level Bush has decided to make this into some sort of personal crusade that continues to snowball and spiral out of control despite dissenting opinion. The fact that bin Laden still remains at large while we decide to tackle another front and deal with Hussein is just poor strategic management in my opinion. On how many fronts can the U.S. deal with it's adversaries before it comes back to bite us in the arse (pardon the expression)? Does Saddam and his regime pose a viable threat to the safety and security of America? Absolutely. Are we currently engaged in the best conceivable path/course of action to deal with this? Probably not.

Bottom line: I vote a resounding "NO" to going to war with Iraq. Thanks for reading.

[thomas]

@ Iraq war: while I agree that Saddam is the prototype of a monstrous dictator I seriously doubt that Iraq poses a global threat. Furthermore, there's no evidence that Iraq is linked to 9/11. Lastly, it s bizarre to think that peace, democracy and stability can be achieved with military force ("Afghanistan").

@ preemptive action: a very dangerous concept.

@ Osama: IMHO there's no real interest in tracking him down, he's more useful as long as he's at large: he's like Pandora's box that can be opened whenever the public gets tired of the "global battle against terrorism". Does he even exist?

Just my two worthless eurocents late at night. ;)

[Iron Chef]

"Furthermore, there's no evidence that Iraq is linked to 9/11."

Absolutely correct, unfortunately here in the U.S. media coverage of one seems to invoke mention of the other at the drop of a hat in some way, shape, or form. This leads to an erroneous inference by most that unless Saddam is dealt with, another 9/11 could be in the works.

"preemptive action: a very dangerous concept"

Agreed. A very slippery slope indeed.

Re: Osama "he's like Pandora's box that can be opened whenever the public gets tired of the "global battle against terrorism".

Lol, again I think you hit the nail on the head. A recent quote by the Democratic Party of Japan President Naoto Kan sums it up nicely...

"I assume Bush is hoping that he will be able to win the presidential election next year if the U.S. keeps engaging in war."

[Vicidian]

Same stance as the other thread. It has to happen and I would rather Bush be our Commander in Cheif then anyone else in this time. He may not be the most intelligent president we've had, but I feel he's a good man. He has both person, nation and worldly motives for this war.

Some good reasons not to fight, but the scale is still tipped amazingly toward war. I don't really care to get in this debate here, so please don't ask me to explain.

[degpiexoxo]

::tearing hair out::
!@#$%^&*()!!!! BUSH!!! !@#$%^&*()!!!!
::sigh::
...and for what...

[maji]

of course "NO". the war was illegal, there were no mass destruction weapons, there were no chemical / biological weapons, the reports which should give an excuse to attack the country were all faked, important documents and treasures were stolen or destroyed because us army didnt protect them but they protect the oils tuff, the iraq is now a complete chaos, no democracy, no peace, it all became worse there thanks to usa. but at least they could test their weapon systems, made a good show on tv and have reasons to pump even more money into their colonizing-army

[Dream Time]

I think the US government just wants the oil.

I dislike US government,I dislike war.

[noyhauser]

I still think its too early to tell if war in Iraq is justified. Everybody who says there is no democracy yet has unreasonable expectations of an american administration in 100 days. I repeat, you cannot expect the United States to remake a nation in 100 days. I did say that I think the Pentagon oversold its ability to affect change in that nation, but that does not mean that they are unable to do so. What the US does need to do is go the UN security council and get a UN resolution that gives the UN major role in rebuilding Iraq. They need to unlock the capabilities of the European Union, because without it they don't have a chance. And if you think the EU won't go in, think again, they will with a UN resolution for reconstruction. It depends on the Administration's ability to swallow their own pride and accept the UN is needed.

I wasn't happy how the war in Iraq was proposed, I think WMD was not a good justification, whether or not he did have them. Its not hard to produce a lot of these toxins anywhere in the world, so Iraq posing a threat to Europe or the United States is a bit of an stretch. But I will still say now there are Chemical and Biological Weapons present in Iraq, maybe not 10,000 liters of anthrax, but they are still there. Maji even the UN says they were there in 1994, you cannot dispute the findings of UNSCOM inspectors. What I don't see Hussain doing is getting rid of all his weapons. Im sure he probably got rid of some of his arsenal to make his weapons more robust, but not all of them. I'm sure they are sitting underground somewhere in the desert, and they may turn up one day in the future. The main problem with the intelligence estimates was that they did not have current information about the Iraqi weapons program. A lot of them were made on estimates. And they did overstate the weapons case.

I have no love for Saddam Hussain, and his overthrow was a definately for the benefit for the world. Let us make no mistake about it, Saddam Hussain was a dictator, one with no benevolence or respect for human values. This is a man who used Chemical weapons against his own people in 1987, and today we see the killing fields around Baghdad where people on the order of tens of thousands were killed. If he was left in power would he of caused more suffering? absolutely. I think that there is some human responsibility to act against people like this. If the US succeeds in rebuilding Iraq into a better state, so much the better for the Iraqi people and the world. But if the US fails and produces a fragmented divided state... then I would not have support for the war. But since that outcome is still in question, I still am reserving judgement.

[maji]

i think as well that a dicator like hussein should be stripped from his power, but there are just some things which are clear for me:
a) there are countries which are more dangerous then iraq was, but usa ignored them. instead they started an illegal war with faked reports, beeing in a "holy mission" believing that its their job to shape the whole world the way they want to.
b) they treat prisoners they took during war like animals and put their prison on a place where the prisoners have no rights at all so they can do what they want with them (too, us government said that would torture prisoners to get information).
c) us government doesnt show reality to us people (or only the "positive" parts) and many just believe the stuff they see on tv.
d) before the war there was a dictator who killed and tortured people. now there is chaos where people a killed and tortured. where is the difference? its not better at all.
e) us governemt already created and destroyed democracies at will in that region whichever fitted best to the trade and economy. who would now dare to belief anything they say now? too, the clan structure and history of iraq shows us that a long-term democracy is nearly impossible in iraq.
f) as said, they protected stuff like the oil while at the same time the museums got razed.

yep, ive to agree i dislike usa. i mean, ive friends in usa and there are nice people, good artists, intelligent people etc etc. but in general i have a strong dislike to the mentality, patriotism and politics and thus im not objective to anything us-related (but whos objective in such matters anyway?).

[noyhauser]

Well I'll answer point by point.

A)There are not many worse than Hussain, and regime change that had regime change possible as well. There is only one worse that I can think about;Kim Jong Il. But he has nuclear weapons so he is untouchable. Secondly don't put it all on the United States for pushing for war. There were others as well. As Peter Mandelson Said in a MAnchester Guardian Article, "If Bush Didn't want to go war, Blair would of pushed him anyways." Had the US waited for more inspections, (which would of not been conclusive in my mind), Chirac would of followed him as well. Really I think Chirac's position had to do with a deal he made with Schroeder. Chirac got support to kill the Franz Fishler's Common Agricultural Policy reforms, while Schroeder would not be left hanging for his anti war campaign promise. If it is true, than that is almost as bad as well.

B) I believe you are reffering to the Guantanamo Camp. No Iraqi citizens were put into Guantanamo. Guantanamo was set up for Al Qaeda operatives. Combatants in the Iraq war were protected by the Geneva convention, rather than Al Qaeda operatives.
C) If you can level that claim at anyone it should be American Networks, not the US government. The US is not some propaganda machine that spews out misinformation. Ithink you should face the reality on this one. Iraq featured the most coverage in the conflict than any war before it. Whatever you say about Embedded reporters, if the US did anything grossly improper, they would of seen it and report it. If you look today, the American government is suffering itself from bad press. The US is making strides in the getting the country back in order. How much of it gets reported? Absolutely none of it. All the news that comes out is "another soldier killed" or "Oil Plant Bombed". The North, with Mosul and Kirkuk has returned to a sense of norlmalcy.
D)That is an extremely Narrow view. Yes I won't deny that the US is having extreme problems with general lawlessness policing, especially in Tikrit and in the "sunni triangle" but to say that only 100 days after is being extremely Unfair. As I mentioned above, there has been progress in the north and the south, and those areas are relatively secure. I think the major reason why people are being lawless is because they know now there is no secret police behind them. Im not making that an excuse but you can't deny that there is more freedom now then there was before. If that continues to increase and more law come in then I would say the war is justified. But If the US fails, then the war would not be justified.
I do think that the US needs to learn some "political correctness" and act more like policemen than the occupation force. They are alienating a lot of the people there by some of the tactics they are using (to search for ex Baathist party members) But I think a lot of that has to do with the US unfamiliarity with peacekeeping. That is why I think the EU and the UN needs to be brought in, which has far more experience in this field.


E) Uhh what democracies has it overthrown the middle east? This is a region with no democracies in its past. (the First was Israel in 1949. ). really if you look into the day of the Truman Administration, the US was the one who pushed the most for decolonialization across the world. I won't deny that the US did do some very bad things, such as the Allyende coup in Argentina and supporting the Iraqi regime in the 1980s, the Reagan policy towards Nicaragua, but given the threat of the USSR, they thought themselves justified (sometimes they arent, sometimes they are)

F ) Completely wrong. The US did not protect oil installations either, Iraqi oil output is far lower than it has ever been because of damage and looting. Notice there have been three bombings of pipelines since then as well. I've seen photos and reports about the condition of them. Notice that the crude oil price is just as high now as it was during the war. If the US did protect the Museums, I think valuable infrastructure like water resources would of been looted then instead.

And you ask who's objective? You can try to be, if you can honestly make an attempt to understand both sides as much as possible, you can come close. Its really easy to bash the US today, there is so much garbage out there anti-US, that has no truth to it.

[Hachiko]

I think choices two and four can be combined. But that's just my humble opinion.

[nikki_the_insane]

The choices of the poll seemed a bit narrow to me. Sure, I think Saddam needed to be stopped, but the way the answer it makes it sound like revenge. I like to think of it as justice. I hate having a war just as much as anyone, but I do believe he needed to be stopped though I wish it didn't have to come to this sort of mess.

There were a lot of reason why we shouldn't have gone to war with them and there is a lot of reasons that we should. President Bush had to pick the latter of the two and because he is our President we need to obey his authority whether we agree with his decision or not. We need to give him respect whether we hate his guts or not. It's the civilized, mature and appropriate thing to do. I know that if I had, just as an example, met Pres. Clinton and I didn't like him at all I would still be kind and respectable to him because he's our President and if he asked me to go get him a glass of water I sure as hell would. (Sorry if my analogy is crued, I don't have the biggest vocab and maybe I'm not that old to comprehend all of this. :P )

[senseiman]

I'm not entirely clear on why Saddam 'needed to be stopped'. What exactly was he doing last March that needed stopping? He didn't have any weapons of mass destruction, he wasn't supporting any terrorists, militarily he wasn't a threat to anybody and it had been well over a decade since the last time he commited any major atrocities against the Kurds or Shi'ites.

I imagine at least half of the people on this board aren't American, myself included, so there isn't really any need for us to obey his authority or anything. I suppose if I met him in person and he asked me for a glass of water I would give it to him because its common courtesy. But this being a message board which Mr. Bush undoubtedly will never read and not a face-to-face meeting with the man I don't think the normal standards of decorum need apply.

[Morfos]

Its nice to see that many people here oppose Bush and his war with Iraq. The internet is filled with Neo-Conservative rhetoric, but not here. I was never a fan of the war. The pre-war pretex was bullshit. I rather have Bush doing it to liberate the Iraqies as the pre-war pretex. But no, Bush had to bring up WMDs which he has disarmed and accusing Saddam of helping the Al-Qeida, even though Saddam is secular, therefor an enemy of the Islamic terrorists. This war in Iraq is giving them an opertunity to try and take over. That is what is happening now. Our troops are dying, civilians are dying. And some of our Republicans want to reinstate the draft. What a bunch of weirdos. Of course Republicans will lash out "that is unpatriotic!"

[whelans]

ABU GHRAIB, WHY ARE THEY FREED?
The other day, six hundred. About one thousand some time before but... why do they suddenly free them? If they were in prison, it is because they had done something. I guess they were dangerous guys who were a thread for the stability of the country, dangerous to honest people or their belongings...

What I mean is... why were they in prison? If they were criminals, they are going to fill the street with dangerous people just because some mindless humiliations... Is it maybe the "eye for eye, tooth for tooth" and once they have paid for their sins they are freed? (Which means they have put into practise the islamic laws I thought they were against...)

If not, this is serious. They keep some thousands in jail with no reason at all. (Well, this is not new as they already have Guantanamo.) They are jailed summarily and kept in prison with no motivation and when scandal gets out of control the sense of guiltiness takes place (I truly believed they couldn't have any) and decide to free them all massively...

My doubt is... Why are they freed? And what is even more important... Why were they jailed?


www.whelans.tk

[senseiman]

I've read that somewhere between 60% and 90% of prisoners detained by the Americans are completely innocent of any crime. The 60% figure comes from the US military, the 90% from the Red Cross.

It seems that whenever the military conducts a raid or some sort of security operation they will usually arrest every military age male in the area. So a lot of innocent people who were simply at the wrong place at the wrong time end up getting arrested. Then they are taken to the prisons where the Military Police interrogate them and try to sort out which ones are rebels and which ones aren't. I imagine that just about everyone claims they are innocent so it probably takes them a while to clear people, which explains why so many innocents are held for such long times.

It really is a shameful way to act. It turns the fundamental principle of American law, "Innocent until proven guilty" on its head. Basically everyone arrested is "guilty until proven innocent", and as it is very difficult to prove you aren't a rebel a lot of people are getting railroaded by the system.

[bossel]

What's worse, if the detainees are tortured (or semi-tortured in a humane way, or whatever the US ministry of defence would call it) they might admit guilt just to be left alone.

[whelans]

But the funny thing is that we do not mind about.They reject to get into ICC because they want inmunity for their soldiers to commit any kind of attrocity and they can not be judged for it. They do not sign Kyoto protocol because they do not want to cut off gas emissions. They've mass destruction weapons, they avoid any action or resolution to come true against the atrocities Israel do to Palestinians, they commit crimes against humanity once and again and we still want to sit by their side in any meeting. Bush is worst than Saddam, because Bush commit more atrocities than this one, and also says it is in the name of freedom!!! Shameful.

[Foxtrot Uniform]

I know this is straying from the subject, but isn't it ironic that the exact place where the first set of written laws were created by Hammurabi in ancient Babylon, the place where civilazation might have started, is now the location of much controversy and the de-evolution of laws and rules, where people are beign killed and tortured for reasons Bush still isn't clear about?

[whelans]

Reasons are crystal clear. Bush junior got his father's frustration with Saddam and took advantage of the 9/11. They had removed the Taliban regime in Afganistan... so... why not Irak? And so they could control the second largest petrol reserve.

whelans.tk