Zeus01 From United States of America, joined May 2001, 744 posts, RR: 2 Posted (10 years 9 months 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 812 times:
After reading many of the threads regarding to the war situation, I feel it is imperitve to perhaps shed a reasonable ray of light into those whom don't support disarming Iraq.
I've read all the excuse by now on why Bush is wrong. I've read that its all about oil, its a family grudge, Bush is just plain unintelligent, etc. etc. However, if we look at scientific studies, we can see that only about 30-40% of the population is accuartly informed on current events (meaning only so many people keep up with current events and actually take the time to research them). So, if we look at what many people on this forum are saying, perhaps we should consider exactly how educated these remarks truly are. Although all opinions have thier merit, it doesn't mean that all of them are well founded. Unfortunantly, I think that is what we see so often on the anti-war posts.
Here is what I personally have peiced together concerning what this war is NOT about-
-its not about oil. People don't understand that we arn't just going to walk in their and sieze their oil. It is going to be property of the Iraqi's. Sure, the French will suffer when they lose their billion dollar oil deals with Saddam, but eventually the ENTIRE world, not just the US, will prosper from it.
-its not a family grudge. Can you honestly justify Bush's entire cabinet going after Saddam just because Bush is ticked? I don't think so.
-its not about revenge for 9-11. Bush made that clear. Thats what we invaded Afganistan for. It is however partially about stopping future terrorist attacks. You can't deny the fact that their is terrorist training camps in Iraq or that Saddam doesn't support terrorsit in one way or another.
And from what I've figured, here is what it is about:
-ousting a oppressive dictator whom subjects his people to terrible things and keeps them seperated from the rest of the world
-ensuring the protection of the Iraqi people's human rights which are currently being violated according the U.N.
-disarmerment of Iraq's chemical and biological weapons ( if you don't think he has them, then just wait. I think you'll soon be proved long)
-prevention of another country developing capabilities of attacking out country with NBC weapons.
-preventing Saddam from gassing his opposition again. (Its not revenge, its prevetion)
Now I'm sure there are some hidden agenda's in the Bush plan, but, we also know that ever administration, right wing or left, has hidden agendas.
I also think it is important that we take a look at history for some guidence in this situation, something we seem to have forgotten about. Does any here remeber how Britain kept giving into Hitler? They gave him Austria, the Sudetenland, Czechalslovakia. You simply can't give into a mad man and if you think Saddam really is about peace, im sorry, history says your wrong. Remeber when we were attacked at Pearl Harbor? We gave into the Japanese. We just let them take parts of Asia and waited for their crazy government to attack us. Now you can say well, Saddam isn't attacking anyone, but hasn't he tried it before? Who are you to say he won't try it again? How about Alquieda (sp?)? The WTC in the early 90's, the USS Cole, the Marine barracks in Beruit, the african embassies. What kind of retaliation did Clinton provide? He arrested a few people. BUt he had the nerve to attack Afganistan when he got his neck in a noose.
At least Bush has the courage to confront a few of the world's monsters, and I think thats something everyone should be proud of.
Scootertrash From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 569 posts, RR: 9 Reply 1, posted (10 years 9 months 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 789 times:
I would say that this is not about 9/11, although it is a fact that the rules that we need to operate by fundamentally changed on that day. This is all about preventing the next 9/11, whether it be here or abroad.
I believe the other reasons you gave are also valid. But they are not your reasons. Bush and the rest of the Executive branch have enumerated these points many times.
Like I said, nice post, but get ready to be severely flamed!
Jwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 20 Reply 3, posted (10 years 9 months 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 757 times:
Remember that there are former military people who've seen war that are the president's closests advisors (his father, his secretary of state, possibly others as well).
Combat veterans are the last ones to promote war, they know the consequences. When they advise armed conflict, the reason must be pretty darn good and all the end effect other options worse than loosing young men and women.
Cloudy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 4, posted (10 years 9 months 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 746 times:
Though I support this war, there is one objection voiced by the anti-war people that lends serious thought.
Some oppose the war because it may lead to a broader war in the Middle East involving Iran, Israel, Syria, Turkey, the gulf states, the US, a new Kurdistan, Iraqi Shiites, etc. I doubt that a war with the United States could be any more damaging to the Iraqi people than Saddam's continued rule would be. But a broader war may cause more damage than a properly contained Saddam Hussein would. I think there are good arguments against the possibility of a bigger and broader war. The possibility is miniscule enough that I think it is worth the risk - this time. Mostly, this is because there is probably a greater chance that Saddam would start such a war himself later if he is left in power - especially if he is given the time to form alliances.
Yet the possibility of a broader war is a serious worry, and I am surprised that anti-war people don't often bring this up. Instead they spout innane babble about how "We are doing this for oil" or "Give inspections time to work".
Eventually, there will come a time when an unwise war will be proposed. Yet the peacenicks will have exhausted all there credibility by opposing such obviously neccesary conflicts as this one. They will be so used to not being listened to that they will not bother comming up with arguments that have any real chance of convincing a thinking person (I think they are dangerously close to this already). Since this war and so many before it would have gone off so successfully, Americans will begin to think that war can always be won quickly or easily. We will forget Vietnam. We will forget the human costs and the messy aftermath of even succesfull, neccesary wars like the first Gulf War and Afghanistan. Most importantly, they will forget the lessons of World War I.
World War I was started when a large power thought that a smaller power was supporting terrorism. It used this as a pretext for a war that drew in all the major European powers. Europe at that time did not have much living memory of any long wars in which millions were killed. The experience of the American Civil war was discounted because they thought Europeans could do it better.
Someday, the above-mentioned factors could America could fall into this trap. We will unnecesarily risk starting a World War II scale conflict over some country's alleged support of terrorism. The peacenicks better start doing a better job reaching the public than they have been doing - because someday, they will be right and then we will need them. Let's go to war. We need to get that B*st*!rd. Yet even if we win, let us not let that experience make us forget what war is really like - or have any illusions that we can be sure of containing it.
Amir From Syria, joined Dec 1999, 1254 posts, RR: 12 Reply 5, posted (10 years 9 months 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 746 times:
how many times have you been to the middle east and to Iraq?
....it is however partially about stopping future terrorist attacks. You can't deny the fact that their is terrorist training camps in Iraq or that Saddam doesn't support terrorist in one way or another.
This is US propaganda. Can you tell me what terrorist camps are where in Iraq?
By conducting this War you give all the excuses for future terrorist attacks, iam afraid we will see many of them, and after this i doubt if you will still be proud of your president. Or maybe you will find another enemy country in the region that you deem necessary to invade as to protect your country.
Dazeflight From Germany, joined Jun 1999, 578 posts, RR: 2 Reply 6, posted (10 years 9 months 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 739 times:
"However, if we look at scientific studies, we can see that only about 30-40% of the population is accurately informed on current events (meaning only so many people keep up with current events and actually take the time to research them)."
I guess you're talking about the American public here, these 60-70% are people who base their whole view of the world on the president speeches and the patriotic TV-news of stations like Fox. We can hear such intelligent phrases as "nuke them all" or "How many dead Arabs do I get for my taxmoney?" from them and of course they fully back-up Dubayas actions (consequences? what's that?). I'm not saying the European public is that more informed, but our premiers, cancellors, presidents do not refer to god all the time (yes, those are very reasonable arguments) and our TV stations do show both sides of the medal (Before the writing war from the other side of the pond starts - no, I'm not saying each and every station or magazine does but there's still a choice).
But to say that the people arguing against war in this forum have no idea what they're talking about only shows that your obviously too lazy to actually read und understand their posts. Sure, we had a lot of name-calling during the past weeks (from both sides) and post absolutely disregarding humanity and human life itself (guess from which side), but equally we had a lot of good arguments here. The "If you're not with me you're against me"-attitude shown by quite a number of Americans here does however not help in understanding or at least thinking about those arguments. And one last (and very important) thing: Not one of the European governments opposing Bush's "holy" war wants to keep Saddam in Power, they just want to prevent thousands of people from being killed... (Yes, Saddam had years to comply, etc. we know that! Still - Each and every life saved by a prevented war is worth it.)
People where always arguing that there has to be a threatening scenery for Saddam to comply to the UN-resolutions, the U.S. government however, has virtually always made clear by their actions that they want a war.
Dazeflight From Germany, joined Jun 1999, 578 posts, RR: 2 Reply 8, posted (10 years 9 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 731 times:
a few additions:
"Can you honestly justify Bush's entire cabinet going after Saddam just because Bush is ticked?"
Surely this is not the main reason nor a major reason, but a president who says about his opponent that "this is the guy who wanted to kill my dad" - well, I dunno, doesn't sound like an american president, more like a farmer from Texas, doesn't it?
"At least Bush has the courage to confront a few of the world's monsters, and I think thats something everyone should be proud of."
Yeah, the good vs. the evil, now direct on your TV-screen @ home! I LOVE EWR, make the popcorn ready! Sorry, but it's hard to take you serious with stuff like that popping off your head. I guess you did smoke too many of your belowed cigars or you did too much of that stereotypical guy stuff