Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

War with Iraq?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • War with Iraq?

    We just held a forum today at our school about the war on Iraq (actually I helped organize it:P). There were a lot of speakers from all backgrounds and it was quite interesting to hear what people had to say.

    Even within the Arab community here, there is a large split about what should be done. On the one hand we had the president of the arabic student's society (I think that was it) who said every single iraqi he knew and every single person he knew was against the war and said it was about the US being imperialistic. He told us about how Arabs should sort out their own problems. A few other speakers wholeheartedly agreed with him.

    Then we had others such as those with Kurdish and Shiite relatives, and the Afghani and the Kuwaiti speaker who all said that Saddam needs to be taken care of.

    We also had a few bleeding heart conservatives and an Israeli speaker to back that up.

    Meanwhile there were some serious anti-war people who even advertised a few anti-war demonstrations while doing their speech against American imperialism and American lies. As well we had the president of the Canadian Bolsheivek Alliance or whatever it was called who talked about Marxist ideals and how Americans sucked.

    Finally we had our guest speakers who were academics. One talked about how any military action would be against interational law. Another said intervention with UN approval should happen and is necessary. Finall the last talked about the humanitarian issues and how the world must do something, even if not war, but stop Saddam. He said how his own friends who were in the anti-war camp were ignorant because they had no solution to the fact that Saddam has commited endless crimes against humanity and the anti-war people don't really acknolwedge this or at least don't give any real solutions.

    The most interesting thing that was said was that the 60+ countries in the world that just ratified and made the International Criminal Court a reality haven't even bothered to actually use it, in inditing Saddam Hussein. Yes that includes France and Germany.

    My personal take on it is quite simple. The war isn't about oil. It isn't about humanitarian reasons. It isn't about installing democracy, and it isn't about removing Saddam from power.

    The war is simply this. Imagine September 11th... no not the one we just had, but September 11th, 2005. You wake up to hear that New York has just been destroyed by a terrorist nuclear bomb. 5 million people are dead, many more missing.

    That's why there's going to be a war. Presented with the fact that America is quite vulnerable after 9/11, with the fact that Saddam is near completion of making his weapons, of Saddam's self stated intentions of destroying America, and Saddam's close ties with terrorist groups around the world... the Americans must do something. For President Bush, the one who's father started two wars during his administration, the choice is clear. Saddam must be wiped out. Remember first and foremost, Bush is accountable to the American people. If anything goes wrong under his watch he'll be the one that let NYC blow up in a nuclear fireball.

    Are there any other choices but war? Perhaps. But will they succeed? Probably not.

    I live only 1 1/2 hour from the American border. Anything that goes on down there will affect my own life quite a bit. As much as I care about pain and suffering around the world. As much as I don't want needless deaths, whether it be civilians or even soldiers who are just doing their job... something needs to be done to stop Saddam. And hell, if it also ends up improving the lives of tens of millions of Iraqis, all the better.

    -Epi
    Epinephrine's History of Trench Wars:
    www.geocities.com/epinephrine.rm

    My anime blog:
    www.animeslice.com

  • #2
    Do you think this is going to stop if Saddam is beaten? War is never a solution. All the countries with bad relations toward US are getting paranoid about them being maybe the next target. US is moving troops around turning goverments into puppets. When Mid-East is in their pocket just like South Africa, Far East will be next in the menu. Maybe US has some unfinished business with North-Korea and Vietnam?

    Bush senior had a vision about US and him being leaders of the world. Junior is trying to make it happen now? Is he planning to pull a "Hitler" to all muslims with Israel's aid starting from Palestinians. Another good example of a superpower with madman as a leader was Soviet Union after Lenin's death.

    If Saddam is such a pain in the ass, why did US help him revolt against the previous goverment?
    Last edited by Eeks; 02-07-2003, 07:11 AM.
    Originally posted by Diakka
    Lets stop being lil bitches

    Comment


    • #3
      On the britsquad forums there's a link to a plan in the 1920s, an invasion on Canada which was part of Britian in them times (or so I'm told), US could still be planning invasion of all countries for when it is needed, it seems US wishes to become an empire, but all Empires die off.....

      Comment


      • #4
        No wonder the Kurds are for the war. Their state is partially annexed by Iraq.
        gravy_: They should do great gran tourismo
        gravy_: Electric granny chariots
        gravy_: round the nurburgring

        XBL: VodkaSurprise

        Comment


        • #5
          I don't even need to read any of the responses.

          NO WAR IN IRAQ!

          Gimmie a reason.
          Mayo Inc. - We should change god's name to "Tod"... see if there's any followers. - Mattey

          Comment


          • #6
            You know nuclear missiles have a max distance they can be fired at. Saddam can't launch a missile in Iraq and let it land in NYC. He'd actually have to get closer, now, nuclear missiles ain't something you put in your pocket and walks to the bombing site with.

            Checmical wepons is another thing though...

            BTW, this war ain't about Saddam and foreign politics, it's about Bush trying to blame someone else for his own shortcomings.

            Comment


            • #7
              Ok after reading Epi's post I'll now post a serious reply.

              There are a few stereotypes that seem to go with anti-war people (at least where I lve). One is that we are PRO SADDAM. This is most certainly NOT TRUE. Saddam is a horrible tyrant and should be removed from power. How? Diplomatically. As to how you get an insane dictator to give up his power.. well that's where my arguement is lacking because I don't see how you could aside from murdering him. That's the thing though. IF he has weapons of mass destruction (which according to former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter Iraq has niether weapons of mass destruction or the capability to produce them) what's to say he hasn't already ordered his supposed mobile weapon stations to launch all his warhead to the united states as his final order? There's no doubt in my mind that he would do this. He murders his own people of course if he's going down he's bringing others with him.

              A lot of people think Saddam and Al Qaida are connected somehow. To my knowledge this is not true. Terrorists aren't just anti-american theyre often anti-government and no matter how fucked up Iraq is, its a government. Aside from that Osama and Saddam aren't the best of friends anyways.

              As for the whole 'not a war for oil' standpoint: there's another country with with confirmed weapons of mass destruction development programs which has even threatened the US. It's North Korea. You know why the US isn't threatening North Korea? Because it doesn't have the largest untapped oil field reserves in the world. Iraq does. It's clear to me that bush wants this oil.

              Some of the more well informed people I've discussed this issue with say Iraq has violated too many UN Resolutions. Well once again we look to another country who has nuclear warheads, the largest stockpile in the middle east, but yet we don't threaten to invade them? They've also violated 18 UN Resolutions. I'm of course referring to Israel. Now just because I say that doesn't mean I think we should invade Israel, that's ridiculous, but using violated resolutions to justify war is clearly and unfair way to judge Iraq.

              To me it seems pretty clear that there are two reasons, at least definite reasons, that GWB wants to invade. One is to get his hands on the oil. The other happened 10 years ago, when his father squared off with Saddam. I'm sure he's carrying some personal vandetta against Saddam in his father's name.

              I have chosen to be against the war, this is an incredibly serious issue that everyone should exam. Find out the facts for yourself and then form your decision. Then if you want war, let people know. If you don't, than do everything in your power to stop it. I know I am.
              Mayo Inc. - We should change god's name to "Tod"... see if there's any followers. - Mattey

              Comment


              • #8
                I hope the CIA doesn't show up at my doorstep with a swat team after this, but in all honesty I must say that I think the real problem here is that the war mongers got to be in power in the first place. It is arbitrary.... but from my gut feeling, as horrible as it is to say, I think the best thing the global community could benefit from would be witnessing those two individuals taken down. If Dubya and 'Insane' were publicly 'dethroned', everything that they stood for would be instantly more questionable and maybe even discredited more than it is now. But this is just a crazy fantasy that probably would only be a short term solution, if that. But yeah war is never the answer. Like Volcs stated in a sig one time, 'Fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity.'
                Will Thom Yorke ever cheer up? - ZeUs!!!

                Comment


                • #9
                  I wonder how the current US administration will be viewed in a couple of hundred years?

                  Bring back Clinton! We don't care if you fuck other women as long as you don't fuck other countries!

                  As odd as it sounds but that affair thing probably made him more popular abroad British politians coming out the closet. French Presidents having extra-marital children. Italian politians involved in the mafia. Really, getting a blowjob from your secretary seems quite mundane but a step in the right direction.
                  gravy_: They should do great gran tourismo
                  gravy_: Electric granny chariots
                  gravy_: round the nurburgring

                  XBL: VodkaSurprise

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: War with Iraq?

                    Originally posted by Epinephrine
                    My personal take on it is quite simple. The war isn't about oil. It isn't about humanitarian reasons. It isn't about installing democracy, and it isn't about removing Saddam from power.

                    The war is simply this. Imagine September 11th... no not the one we just had, but September 11th, 2005. You wake up to hear that New York has just been destroyed by a terrorist nuclear bomb. 5 million people are dead, many more missing.

                    ....something needs to be done to stop Saddam. And hell, if it also ends up improving the lives of tens of millions of Iraqis, all the better.

                    -Epi
                    man Epi.. i've never seen you make such an idiotic post =(

                    linking Saddam to 9/11 acts?

                    considering war against Iraq beneficial to its people?

                    i'm shocked.. you always seemed to be the source of reason o_O
                    Everything is funny as long as it's happening to someone else.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Re: War with Iraq?

                      Originally posted by dare
                      man Epi.. i've never seen you make such an idiotic post =(

                      linking Saddam to 9/11 acts?

                      considering war against Iraq beneficial to its people?

                      i'm shocked.. you always seemed to be the source of reason o_O
                      Read what I said again. I didn't link Saddam to September 11, 2001.

                      I said Saddam is developing nuclear weapons. Anyone who doesn't believe that is a moron. I said Saddam has professed to destroy the United States (matter of the public record). I said Saddam has links to international terrorists, again this is quite in the open.

                      Saddam is quite old, he's 64 I believe. He's quite paranoid. And he really hates the US. What do you think he'll do once he gets nukes?

                      An easy solution would be to overthrow him from the inside. Saudi Arabia had a plan to overthrow Saddam from the inside, but as we all know they were probably not serious about it. I don't care how Saddam is removed. If you read my post I never said WE MUST GO TO WAR. I said something needs to be done.

                      There is danger on inaction. If you listen to France and Germany who want to extend inaction indefinately, how many more Iraqi civilians do you think will die thanks to the genocidal and dictorial rule by Saddam? And no, realistically I can never see the sanctions being lifted from Iraq until Saddam is out of power. That is not an option no matter how much you oppose them.

                      -Epi

                      -Epi
                      Epinephrine's History of Trench Wars:
                      www.geocities.com/epinephrine.rm

                      My anime blog:
                      www.animeslice.com

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Mayo Inc.
                        Ok after reading Epi's post I'll now post a serious reply.

                        There are a few stereotypes that seem to go with anti-war people (at least where I lve). One is that we are PRO SADDAM. This is most certainly NOT TRUE. Saddam is a horrible tyrant and should be removed from power. How? Diplomatically. As to how you get an insane dictator to give up his power.. well that's where my arguement is lacking because I don't see how you could aside from murdering him. That's the thing though. IF he has weapons of mass destruction (which according to former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter Iraq has niether weapons of mass destruction or the capability to produce them) what's to say he hasn't already ordered his supposed mobile weapon stations to launch all his warhead to the united states as his final order? There's no doubt in my mind that he would do this. He murders his own people of course if he's going down he's bringing others with him.

                        A lot of people think Saddam and Al Qaida are connected somehow. To my knowledge this is not true. Terrorists aren't just anti-american theyre often anti-government and no matter how fucked up Iraq is, its a government. Aside from that Osama and Saddam aren't the best of friends anyways.

                        As for the whole 'not a war for oil' standpoint: there's another country with with confirmed weapons of mass destruction development programs which has even threatened the US. It's North Korea. You know why the US isn't threatening North Korea? Because it doesn't have the largest untapped oil field reserves in the world. Iraq does. It's clear to me that bush wants this oil.

                        Some of the more well informed people I've discussed this issue with say Iraq has violated too many UN Resolutions. Well once again we look to another country who has nuclear warheads, the largest stockpile in the middle east, but yet we don't threaten to invade them? They've also violated 18 UN Resolutions. I'm of course referring to Israel. Now just because I say that doesn't mean I think we should invade Israel, that's ridiculous, but using violated resolutions to justify war is clearly and unfair way to judge Iraq.

                        To me it seems pretty clear that there are two reasons, at least definite reasons, that GWB wants to invade. One is to get his hands on the oil. The other happened 10 years ago, when his father squared off with Saddam. I'm sure he's carrying some personal vandetta against Saddam in his father's name.

                        I have chosen to be against the war, this is an incredibly serious issue that everyone should exam. Find out the facts for yourself and then form your decision. Then if you want war, let people know. If you don't, than do everything in your power to stop it. I know I am.
                        The anti-war people are not Pro Saddam persay, but they give no solutions. Their only solution is no war. But then what? It's the same as the anti-globalization people. They say no globalization. But then they don't produce an alternative plan.

                        Look, it's obvious Saddam can't fire missles at the US. But it's also obvious that Saddam funds many terrorist groups. Maybe not al Queda but Saddam certain gives a ton of money to other terrorists in the middle east, and I doubt he'll have trouble finding ones willing to smuggle in a nuclear bomb into the US a la the movie "The Sum of All Fears".

                        Why not North Korea? Because:
                        1) North Korea has one of the world's largest standing armies.
                        2) North Korea has a ton of missles and artillery aimed at Seoul, South Korea, which is only 80 miles from the demilitarized zone. In any suggestion of conflict, they'll launch a full scale attack and destroy the city and surrounding area of 10 million people.
                        3) North Korea doesn't have any proven ties with terrorist networks.
                        4) Iraq is much easier to beat down in a war.

                        Personally I don't like war. I don't like pointless killing, and I certainly would never want to be involved in a war. But when you have millions of Kurds and Shiite Iraqis who are living in a state which has had a policy (since 1960) of genocide against these people. When you have millions starving because Iraq continues to fund it's military programs with the money that it gets from the oil for food programme, and when you have millions drinking contaminated water because Iraq contaminated it's own water sources and isn't willing to clean it up cause only Shiites are affected.. you have problems.

                        Is war the only way to solve this? Personally I wish that Saddam would just get a heart attack and die and save us all a lot of trouble. But next to that, we've seen the sanctions have done nothing and we've seen that if we don't deal with dangerous regimes (look at north korea) they can get too strong to deal with eventually.


                        My personal best course of action is as follows. The US provides the UN inspectors with more direct information about Iraq's programs. The UN finds these programs. Then the UN authorizes an intervention. I don't want unilateral American intervention, I want the world to get involved so that after the Americans get bored and leave (like Afghanistan) the world can help Iraq get back on it's feet. That and with the world involved America can't simply just take all of Iraq's oil and so on.

                        -Epi
                        Last edited by Epinephrine; 02-07-2003, 01:29 PM.
                        Epinephrine's History of Trench Wars:
                        www.geocities.com/epinephrine.rm

                        My anime blog:
                        www.animeslice.com

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Mayo Inc.
                          As for the whole 'not a war for oil' standpoint: there's another country with with confirmed weapons of mass destruction development programs which has even threatened the US. It's North Korea. You know why the US isn't threatening North Korea? Because it doesn't have the largest untapped oil field reserves in the world. Iraq does. It's clear to me that bush wants this oil.
                          North Korea already has the bomb, attacking them would be suicide.

                          Originally posted by Mayo Inc.
                          Some of the more well informed people I've discussed this issue with say Iraq has violated too many UN Resolutions. Well once again we look to another country who has nuclear warheads, the largest stockpile in the middle east, but yet we don't threaten to invade them? They've also violated 18 UN Resolutions. I'm of course referring to Israel. Now just because I say that doesn't mean I think we should invade Israel, that's ridiculous, but using violated resolutions to justify war is clearly and unfair way to judge Iraq.
                          Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought America created Israel? They're our ally at least, maybe not during election times, because the voters don't favor America but they're our allies.

                          Originally posted by Mayo Inc.
                          To me it seems pretty clear that there are two reasons, at least definite reasons, that GWB wants to invade. One is to get his hands on the oil. The other happened 10 years ago, when his father squared off with Saddam. I'm sure he's carrying some personal vandetta against Saddam in his father's name.
                          I don't agree with you when you say Bush has a vendetta against Saddam, but the oil may definitely be one thing propelling America towards war. Another issue is the economy. If Bush takes our eyes off the economy much longer maybe we won't think so badly of him. The economy makes or breaks an election, just look at Bush Sr...
                          I'd rather be SubSpacing.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: War with Iraq?

                            Originally posted by Epinephrine
                            My personal take on it is quite simple. The war isn't about oil. It isn't about humanitarian reasons. It isn't about installing democracy, and it isn't about removing Saddam from power.

                            The war is simply this. Imagine September 11th... no not the one we just had, but September 11th, 2005. You wake up to hear that New York has just been destroyed by a terrorist nuclear bomb. 5 million people are dead, many more missing.

                            That's why there's going to be a war. Presented with the fact that America is quite vulnerable after 9/11, with the fact that Saddam is near completion of making his weapons, of Saddam's self stated intentions of destroying America, and Saddam's close ties with terrorist groups around the world... the Americans must do something. For President Bush, the one who's father started two wars during his administration, the choice is clear. Saddam must be wiped out. Remember first and foremost, Bush is accountable to the American people. If anything goes wrong under his watch he'll be the one that let NYC blow up in a nuclear fireball.

                            Are there any other choices but war? Perhaps. But will they succeed? Probably not.

                            I live only 1 1/2 hour from the American border. Anything that goes on down there will affect my own life quite a bit. As much as I care about pain and suffering around the world. As much as I don't want needless deaths, whether it be civilians or even soldiers who are just doing their job... something needs to be done to stop Saddam. And hell, if it also ends up improving the lives of tens of millions of Iraqis, all the better.

                            -Epi
                            I am English and I agree with you.

                            -RR

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              yes a point of the war will to protect oil. what happens if we dont have oil? The world fucking stops. you can't drive anywhere. we cant produce stuff, we cant travel long distances fast. all your fun life will end.

                              yes, maybe fuel cells, elctricity, or other shit might work for cars. but manufacturing will be ruined if we have no oil. the power needed to compress and pump is very large in plants. if you cant run these pumps you cant make stuff. oil is a vital item in our economy.( by our i mean developed nations). Electricity and other alternative forms of power won't be enough to power our production needs.
                              To all the virgins, Thanks for nothing
                              brookus> my grandmother died when she heard people were using numbers in their names in online games.. it was too much for her little heart

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X