Are we going to war?

frogus · Post by **frogus** » Sun Jan 19, 2003 4:05 am

I am not going to war...I am going to London.

fable · Post by **fable** » Sun Jan 19, 2003 4:35 pm

Bump!

Dottie · Post by **Dottie** » Tue Jan 21, 2003 7:02 pm

I have a question to the ones who are pro war on this forum. How could a nation like US motivate a war with a nation because it may possess chemical or nuclear weaponry, without being horribly hypocritical? To me it seem even more absurd after the nation in question have agreed to let in inspectors to ensure they have no such weapons and so far the inspections have shown no evidence at all...

Is there no need for some kind of moral consistency even in politics? Or do you actually want the ethics of the world be guided by who has got the largest army?

Or does the fact that a small part of the US population actually wanted Dubyah to be in charge make any action he may undertake (even in another nation where no one voted for him) morally correct?

Dottie · Post by **Dottie** » Tue Jan 21, 2003 7:12 pm

Also, regarding the superior western millitary I think this is something that ironically will work to our disadvantage. If someone feels seriously wronged and in addition have to face a foe that is practically invincible that would make him rather desperate. And desperation in this situation would imo lead from a war with the western millitary to a war against the western population...

RandomThug · Post by **RandomThug** » Tue Jan 21, 2003 8:21 pm

First off.

Dottie the reason why it is not hypocritcal for us to question if Iraq has weapons of mass destruction is the fact of thier prior USE of such weapons, thier previus INTENT which was slightly less of moral. Even though we do hold weapons of mass destruction (US) we are not even in the same leauge with the reasons behind having them. We have power we want to keep it safe from attack, he wants power so he will use it to attack others.

Now that we have that foundation to work with you have to consider the facts of recent events. We were attacked, first time on american soil since pearl harbor. First time actually Stateside. Now if your an American then you have seen a few american movies.. lets use rambo for example. Americans PRIDE themselves in being the best, it is the AMERICAN DREAM to have as much nice stuff for you and your family, to provide efficiently yet hold dear still your free time etc. etc. We were kinda ruffled by the attack.

So you look to the man (who btw wasnt selected by a few americans, HALF of america voted for him...) *Those who voted* to do something about it. We all did, we all looked up and saw him speaking with the firemen.. we didnt call him a fool then no we said "Bring us peace"

Which means war.

Because in this world there is no peace without war, for thier is no growth without death and thier is no one thing that is perfect.

He went after osama and everyone was freakin happy. So now this guy has the world watching him making sure he gets his guy.

In an essence he failed, I believe we killed the bastard but who's gonna go get his teeth to id?

America isn't in the wrong to question his reasons and due to the fact that the UN isn't saying "Hey SCREW OFF US" there saying "Iraq isnt corroperating 100% " thats basically the normal response other countries give the US when they want us to kick ass..

As in the first gulf war when china didnt protest our move in the UN (sure in thier country they said we were horrible but thier policitions didnt make a vote against us)

Everyone wants to get a regime change in there, the guys a killer for christs sake he is a horrible man who has done horrible things who is still in power of innocent people....

Were doing the world a damn FAVOR.

And Secondly.

There is already a war with the Western population, they didnt attack two buildings in a military base.

THe people already hate us, they think were satan, they are all told what to believe...
You guys think the media is horrible here? At least we get a voice.

Man is a beast an animal. Do not confuse ourselves with gods, man will always want more and more. Some men are wicked enough to do horrible things to achieve it (see Saddam pre gulf war). They must be stopped, hence the ineviability of WAR.

Thank you,

RandomThug · Post by **RandomThug** » Tue Jan 21, 2003 8:24 pm

btw if it wasnt a democratic clinton presidental regime for the last 8 years this would have happened a long time ago, dont just blame it on 9/11 Bush Jr. isnt the only one still pissed at iraq.

Scayde · Post by **Scayde** » Tue Jan 21, 2003 8:45 pm

Thug.I would have said much...but you said it too well ..BRAVO

fable · Post by **fable** » Tue Jan 21, 2003 9:05 pm

Originally posted by RandomThug
btw if it wasnt a democratic clinton presidental regime for the last 8 years this would have happened a long time ago, dont just blame it on 9/11 Bush Jr. isnt the only one still pissed at iraq.

Before Bush started to realize the capital that could be made off a puppet regime tha provided cheap Iraqi oil, who else was--not annoyed at Iraq, but willing to invade the nation and topple its rulers? Because that's what we're talking about.

Nobody was. In fact, quite a few nations, such as France and Russia, were eyeing the advantages of economic development in Iraq, and eager to scale back restrictions. A lot of people were annoyed at Hussien. But annoyance does not equal war.

RandomThug · Post by **RandomThug** » Tue Jan 21, 2003 9:26 pm

Annoyance may not equal war but in the times of today you have to agree that Annoyances of the past (Osoma) can be threatning killers of the future.

Nightmare · Post by **Nightmare** » Tue Jan 21, 2003 9:32 pm

Originally posted by RandomThug
Dottie the reason why it is not hypocritcal for us to question if Iraq has weapons of mass destruction is the fact of thier prior USE of such weapons, thier previus INTENT which was slightly less of moral. Even though we do hold weapons of mass destruction (US) we are not even in the same leauge with the reasons behind having them. We have power we want to keep it safe from attack, he wants power so he will use it to attack others.

Saddam wants weapons for probably one reason: to safe guard himself from a US attack.

Also, which is the only country to ever use Nuclear weapons against another?

Originally posted by RandomThug
Now that we have that foundation to work with you have to consider the facts of recent events. We were attacked, first time on american soil since pearl harbor. First time actually Stateside. Now if your an American then you have seen a few american movies.. lets use rambo for example. Americans PRIDE themselves in being the best, it is the AMERICAN DREAM to have as much nice stuff for you and your family, to provide efficiently yet hold dear still your free time etc. etc. We were kinda ruffled by the attack.

There is no connection (not even any evidence of one) of Iraq to the events of 9/11 or Al Qaeda. Bush said himself after 9/11 that Iraq didn't have anything to do with the WTC attacks. (I believe thats true, not confirmed though)

Originally posted by RandomThug
THe people already hate us, they think were satan, they are all told what to believe...
You guys think the media is horrible here? At least we get a voice.

An attack on Iraq will likely generate more hatred towards the US, rather then lessen it. What's Bush's plan, to kill off everyone who could hate the US instead of trying to fix why they don't like the US?

Anyways, Iraq has no WMDs (at least none found so far by the UN inspectors). If he were to be assassinated, I could probably care less, but I don't want people to be buying into Bush's lies. The war in Iraq is about oil; Iraq is sitting on 20% of the world's oil. With it, the US could greatly lessen it's dependance on Saudi Arabia (weren't almost all of the 9/11 hijackers Saudis?). Obviously, no country likes to be dependent on another. Also, if the US could then care less about S.A., they would have a much easier time with the rest of the middle east. Hey, if they don't need to rely on Saudi Arabia anymore, why not just attack them too? The same rhetoric they used for Afghanistan and that they are using for Iraq right now could easily be used for Saudi Arabia as well. Along with Iran, too.

Terrorism? The US could care less. Isn't Syria is a terrorist state? North Korea HAS nuclear arms. And North Korea is more then willing to use them (unlike Iraq even if Saddam had them, since Saddam enjoys being alive). Kim Jong Il could care less if his country burns.

China has been in illegal control of Tibet for 50 years. No one cares. The standard of living in inner-China is horrible, too.

Russia continues its domance/war with Chechnya. No one cares about that, either, since they've been branded terrorists (nevermind that they're nation is being invaded).

All I'm saying is that I wish Bush would at least tell us the truth. And perhaps, just maybe, get some morality back into politics. (Although, that has never really existed, has it?)

Hmmm...reminds me of what I've been saying lately. "Help everyone...kill the humans."

RandomThug · Post by **RandomThug** » Tue Jan 21, 2003 9:47 pm

Alright gaxx first off you seemingly have forgotten Saddams Previous actions in life, and base your argument against the war because you dont like the spin bush is giving the war. Never mind the fact you dont care if he dies?!?

Second off I did not link Iraq to al queda I meerly stated that in the times we live in it is not a safe bet to let those who have shown intent to do horrible things, who have killed innocent people and forcing us to send our troops to die LIVE. Or at least RULE.

Sure he isn't the biggest threat atm but he still is one and BTW N. Korea has been threatning war forever, this isn't new and it isn't a factor in scaring the US government. We are more then prepared to deal with N. Korea going off on its so called "Promises".

And about the Nuke comment. If your refering to the Atom bombs then your wrong, because those weapons saved lives. I wont even go into that...

Bush HAS to act, we cant lay down and stop. We failed with afghanistan. IF we stop there and give in terrorists will see weakness and if I am not mistaken that isa bad thing to have during war times, and YES these are times of war.

Iraq has no weapons we havent found... It probably could be easy to hide stuff in a country that big when were sending how many guys in to search? Anyhow it is of slight importance to me if or if not he has the weapons, it is a regime change were after.

About the oil, of course its about oil too. Oil=Money. If you were toever say anything done by anyone (governments) with other countries (make peace, fight war, trade) Wasnt about money I'd call ya nutz.

You claim we might as well invade SA as well.. based on our actions in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Unfortunetly you forget again we have prevous problems with both those countries, both have shown intent on hurting us. They both have done horrific things... and are war countries (badterm but still) S.A. is not a country we could just got to war with.. (as well as your other comments on russia etc)

We do care but we cant just go to war with everyone, wanna know why we are so pumped to go to war with Iraq? Cause it willcause a regime change easier than with diplomacy (See Saddams need to be in power)

Countries Like N.K. and S. A. are places we need to used diplomacy...

Its not all a game of Risk, you dont just say "Well they helped out the kuwatians... why not tibet?"

Bush may have a spin on the war, when hasn't there been a spin?

Seriusly.

War is hell, hell that is necisary. You claim you dont care if we kill him you just dont want us buying his spin? Your not in this argument, your on another level of hating the media and not the war.

Skooter327 · Post by **Skooter327** » Tue Jan 21, 2003 10:03 pm

Originally posted by RandomThug
And about the Nuke comment. If your refering to the Atom bombs then your wrong, because those weapons saved lives. I wont even go into that...

...but I will....

Originally posted by Gaxx_Firkraag
Also, which is the only country to ever use Nuclear weapons against another?

The war in Iraq is about oil...
Hey, if they don't need to rely on Saudi Arabia anymore, why not just attack them too? The same rhetoric they used for Afghanistan and that they are using for Iraq right now could easily be used for Saudi Arabia as well. Along with Iran, too.

First, let us not forget the reasons that the U.S. used nuclear weapons on Japan (almost 50 years ago, now):

1) To end roughly 3 years of war with that country--which would have fought us to the very end--saving coutless American lives at the cost of the enemy's. (Ethical in a war setting)

2) To determine the effects of such an attack, because nothing like it had been done before. Several nations were working on nuclear weapons at the time, and the world needed to know the effects.

Also, keep in mind that a a slippery slope such as that greatly weakens any argument.

Nightmare · Post by **Nightmare** » Tue Jan 21, 2003 10:55 pm

You raise good points, Thug...and I must concede some of them, as I'm a terrible debator. I don't really argee with any of your points, but I'm terrible at this...so let me try.

About the Nukes comment, I was only refering to the fact that the US has used WMDs before...and Saddam's gasing of the Kurds was kinda of like dropping the nukes on Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Perhaps the nukes saved lives, but that argument could be used by Saddam if he had WMDs. His civilians and his army wouldn't be attacked if he had an nuclear bomb. Wouldn't that save lives, as well?

Also, global politics like this is really one big game (at least to the politicians).

Why is it that most of the retired US generals are against a war? And why are the ones without military experience pressing for one? (this was brought up a while ago in another topic)

Yes, N. Korea has been threatening forever, but they still have nukes to back it up. Saddam sure hasn't been threatening.

Also, something I didn't say before about the oil...the US could limit it's dependance on Saudi Arabia by cutting back on its oil usage (and hell, cut back on the pollution and sign the friggin' Kyoto accord...but this is another argument). The US could STOP using SUVs (as an example).

You are right about the problems the US has had with Iraq (although, the US kind of gave birth to that problem, since they supplied Saddam with all the chemical and biological weapons, and even placed him in power). Still though, if the US is going to police the world (such as in Latin America they change democratically elected gouvernments), they aught to at least maintain some consistancy, no?

If the US attacks Iraq with giving a good reason (regime change is not enough...many middle east countries would love to see a regime change in America, but do you think that is enough reason?), I will fail to see who is the so-called "terrorist state": Iraq or America.

Maybe I shouldn't be in this discussion. Maybe I haven't a clue what I'm talking about. *shrugs* I honestly don't care.

This is my view on things, and I'm sticking to it. I'll likely never convince you of my view...as I will never likely see yours. To each their own.

Dottie · Post by **Dottie** » Wed Jan 22, 2003 12:52 am

Originally posted by RandomThug

Dottie the reason why it is not hypocritcal for us to question if Iraq has weapons of mass destruction is the fact of thier prior USE of such weapons, thier previus INTENT which was slightly less of moral. Even though we do hold weapons of mass destruction (US) we are not even in the same leauge with the reasons behind having them.

If you want to claim that the US holds such weapons for a more moral purpose that iraq then please prove it. The one time in history nuclear weapons have been used it was used against civilian targets twice to save the lifes of american soldiers fighting in a war they in wich they were already certain of victory. In what purpose will iraq use such weapons that are more imoral, and what evidence of their intent do you have?

We have power we want to keep it safe from attack, he wants power so he will use it to attack others.

Are you arguing that because you have more and better conventional weapons you will use nuclear weapons more responsibly?

Now that we have that foundation to work with you have to consider the facts of recent events. We were attacked, first time on american soil since pearl harbor. First time actually Stateside. Now if your an American then you have seen a few american movies.. lets use rambo for example. Americans PRIDE themselves in being the best, it is the AMERICAN DREAM to have as much nice stuff for you and your family, to provide efficiently yet hold dear still your free time etc. etc. We were kinda ruffled by the attack.

So is this a reason for war then? I asked about consistency in foreign politics and moral not a sob story. Do you claim you have a casus belli against the world because american lifes were taken on american soil? Or because of your pride? in that case what about the countless nations that have been damaged through USA intervention and sponsored rebellions etc? does this apply to them to?

-------------------------------------

The rest of your post is not about consistency wich was what I asked for, but rather a pro war speech. but i will answer a few points anyway.

Less than half of US population voted, and of those who voted about half voted for Bush. thats <25% wich I would call few in a society that claims to be democratic... but this is entirely beside the point.

Because in this world there is no peace without war, for thier is no growth without death and thier is no one thing that is perfect.

Very beautifull. how does it connect?

In an essence he failed, I believe we killed the bastard but who's gonna go get his teeth to id?

You belive Osama is dead, and still you try to use 9/11 as an excuse to attack iraq? why?

America isn't in the wrong to question his reasons and due to the fact that the UN isn't saying "Hey SCREW OFF US" there saying "Iraq isnt corroperating 100% " thats basically the normal response other countries give the US when they want us to kick ass..

quoted from BBC:

The EU has made it plain that it does not want a war, our correspondent says, but there are clear divisions in its ranks.

France and Germany are unlikely to back US policy while Britain is taking a tougher line.

Russia is also insisting that any attack on Iraq must have the backing of the UN Security Council, while the US has reserved the right to wage war if the UN fails to force Iraq to surrender any weapons of mass destruction.

To me it sounds like you want to kick ass, not anyone else.

Everyone wants to get a regime change in there, the guys a killer for christs sake he is a horrible man who has done horrible things who is still in power of innocent people....

Yes, but like I said, sending in another nations army have rarely proved a good way to solve social problems.

THe people already hate us, they think were satan, they are all told what to believe...

Do you honestly belive that they think you are satan because they are told to? Isnt it possible there can be a few other factors that contribute to that image? I will let you guess what im thinking of...

RandomThug · Post by **RandomThug** » Wed Jan 22, 2003 1:10 am

to dottie:

First off we have never used weapons of mass destruction for intentions EVIL. Saddam has, you people seem to forget so EASILY that is not JUST american soldiers lives tha t were saved throug ou bombing japan but LIMITLESS amoun ts of JAPANESE soldiers that would have died. The citizens who died were about a 1/3 of the soldiers that would have, dont act like we acted in vein.. its ridicules to use that example, we saved lives damnit even the guy WHO HIT THE BUTTON TO DROP THE BOMBS visists japan and gets thanks , saw it on History cyhannel BAM

about your use of responsible use of weapons.

If your claiming America is as evil or ready t o use our weapons as evily as saddam has and said wanted to, your obviusly joking. I wont even comment on that fact since we have had the neccisary weapons for YEARs to take over a LoT of people and havent...

Now onto your supposed "Moral Sob Story"

Why do you fight?
Why would you fight?

Those ountries we hav ehurt? How about the countries that have so muc h cause we give, how about the people we help. HOW ABOUT THE SOLDIERS WE SEND OUT TO DIE FOR OTHER PEOPLES CAUSES. Whens the last time ANYONE sent thier foriegn troops to american soil to help us in our times ofneed? ? ? ? ? ? ? Whens the last time we helped others... come now...

Now about my other posts..

You ask how my "beautiful" line connects. Without death thier cant be life, dont argue that point your being perposteruus.

War is ALWAYS inevitable, man will never be superduper happy hippy boy. There will always be men like Saddam, men who want power and dont care.

You cant make a comment like "How does it connect" and even assume you broke down my statement.

I NEVER USED 9/11 as an excuse. Its a DAMN good reason for us to be suspect. and if you are to assume that if Osoma is dead Alqueda is too, then you dont know half your talking about..

btw do you think if saddam had those weapons he would be SHY to sell them to terrorists? I mean really he is a good guy right...
...
..

My point about the BBC quote you used, CHINA did the samething all the way through the gulf war.. but when theVOTES came in, they abstainded. OF COURSE the euro news is going to say thier against it, but watch as no one makes us stop or challenges us. All the y have to do is make a voice.. but they wont. Cause they want us too, read my post again its the same story.

btw about sending ina forieng army, YOU FIND A better way to get a regime change in iraq, then email the pres.

Anyhow...

Dont assume America is the devil, we haveand WILL do more for a lot of countries than ANYONE will do for us.

War is inevitable, believing anything else is futile. Man cant be perfect and man will seek out power. Dont act like you know more because in reality we know so little compared to our government...

(I am loaded off my ass so if i offend you, screw off)(

Tamerlane · Post by **Tamerlane** » Wed Jan 22, 2003 1:15 am

Saddam is not exactly a threat to anyone other then his own people and many would say that he would use such weapons against his people like he has in the past. However I don't believe a regime change will fix things. Instead it could go down the path which Yugoslavia is experiencing. Minority groups attempting to settle old scores no doubt backed by the likes of influental groups from Iran and Turkey amongst others.

I see more negatives coming out of a suppose regime change then good. My bigest worry is that Bush could destroy the entire purpose of the U.N relegating it to something similar to the League Of Nations. He is setting a dangerous mandate, no doubt about that. I will support a war in Iraq but only if it is backed by the U.N.

EDIT- Play nice boys, I would hate to see either of you two get banned.

fable · Post by **fable** » Wed Jan 22, 2003 5:47 am

Guys, watch the flames. Everybody is entitled to present their views. Arguments are fine, but stay focused on issues, instead of the person you're talking to. Now that we've got an issue thread which is gaining attention, let's keep it all sociable, okay?

Dottie · Post by **Dottie** » Wed Jan 22, 2003 6:11 am

@Random Thug:

I think you missunderstand me, I do not want to prove the US evil, that is irrelevant imo. I want to know if you think other nations foreign policies should be guided by the same principle that guide yours, and if so, would you consider their actions morally correct? Would it be fine if they used the same kind of reasons you do now to start wars etc?

You yourself say they (the iraq population) view the US a satan, and obviously you hold about the same opinion of their government, cant you see a connection here? Or see that with that way of solving problems moral becomes dependant on who's got the biggest gun...

Regarding nations you have helped/hurt, again I dont feel a need to prove you evil, I just want to point out that a worldwide application of your aggressive politics could be turned against the US very easily.

-------------------------------------

You ask how my "beautiful" line connects. Without death thier cant be life, dont argue that point your being perposteruus.

War is ALWAYS inevitable, man will never be superduper happy hippy boy. There will always be men like Saddam, men who want power and dont care.

You cant make a comment like "How does it connect" and even assume you broke down my statement.

I wasnt trying to break your argument, I just didnt get it. You are saying war is an inevitable part of human life? that may or may not be true, but its not an argument to start a specific war... or anything at all.

I NEVER USED 9/11 as an excuse.

Sorry, it sounded like that. But if that is the case then lets just drop the whole 9/11 thing then.

btw do you think if saddam had those weapons he would be SHY to sell them to terrorists? I mean really he is a good guy right...

I dont think he would do that no, but anyway, Should this be the basis of war, even when considering there is still no evidence of that he even possess any weapons? And selling weapons to suspect organizations isnt something Sadam has monopoly on...

CHINA did the samething all the way through the gulf war.. but when theVOTES came in, they abstainded. OF COURSE the euro news is going to say thier against it, but watch as no one makes us stop or challenges us.

First, If you are certain of this then there should be no problem waiting untill UN gives its blessing.

Second, even if they do that does still not make the politics consistant if you consider that the UN isnt really a completely unbiased obeserver. And the statement "someone asked me to" doesnt free you from all moral responsiblilities.

btw about sending ina forieng army, YOU FIND A better way to get a regime change in iraq, then email the pres.

There is no better alternative so we have to use one that doesnt work? ... But actually options are available if its really the social issues that concern you.

Nightmare · Post by **Nightmare** » Wed Jan 22, 2003 9:13 pm

Originally posted by RandomThug
Those ountries we hav ehurt? How about the countries that have so muc h cause we give, how about the people we help. HOW ABOUT THE SOLDIERS WE SEND OUT TO DIE FOR OTHER PEOPLES CAUSES. Whens the last time ANYONE sent thier foriegn troops to american soil to help us in our times ofneed? ? ? ? ? ? ? Whens the last time we helped others... come now...

Simply put, America only enters a conflict if they can gain something from it. My experience is a bit limited, but how many countries in Latin America and South America have had democratically elected gouvernments overthrown by protests, instigated by political pressure from the US, and usually riots instigated by the CIA?

And when would have America needed the aid of foreign troups? Can you give an example?

Mr Sleep · Post by **Mr Sleep** » Thu Jan 23, 2003 6:41 am

Originally posted by RandomThug
First off we have never used weapons of mass destruction for intentions EVIL. Saddam has, you people seem to forget so EASILY that is not JUST american soldiers lives tha t were saved throug ou bombing japan but LIMITLESS amoun ts of JAPANESE soldiers that would have died. The citizens who died were about a 1/3 of the soldiers that would have, dont act like we acted in vein.. its ridicules to use that example, we saved lives damnit even the guy WHO HIT THE BUTTON TO DROP THE BOMBS visists japan and gets thanks , saw it on History cyhannel BAM

I have made my thoughts about Nuclear weapons quite clear in previous debates, anyone who has been following the debates over the last few months will see my disdain and hate for their use, even as a detterent.

Perhaps Nuclear Weapons did save lives in the long run, it is difficult to say for certain, one thing is fact, soldiers sign up with the knowledge that they might die, innocent civilians are just that, innocent. They do not conciously place themselves in a position where they will die, so yes it saved soldiers lives but at the expense of people who weren't going to cause harm to America anyway. There is a lot of history surrounding the whole America Japan conflict that i won't go into here for it is a long winded and very inflammatory conversation. Safe to say something else died that day more than just people, hope.

While the normal world wars were being fought then it was a case of an army invading meaning that one could put up some kind of defence, even if somewhat futile. Now we have nuclear weapons in the hands of lunatics and our method of defence is just the fact that their country would get nuked too, hardly reassuring is it. At the moment the world is living in blind faith that no ne is mad enough to set off any nuclear weapons. I think that is quite scary really.