It's the Official "Talk About the War" Thread!!!

[DoTheFandango]

I hate bush
Dispise him
But i actually thought that was a halfway decent speech.
Its hard not to agree that Saddam is a Madman, he must be stopped before it is too late. No, nothing has yet happened but isnt it wise to stop something before it starts?! He (Saddam) has done enough, and hasnt been taken outta power yet. its time to take a(nother) stand

[Exiled Soul]

I bet people despise you too. Though it takes either some courage or stupidity to be a high-profile dumbass. I wonder when Bushs assassination will happen and he'll just be another power hungry dead president, oh wait, aren't they all that way?

[DoTheFandango]

Of course people hate me!
I DON'T CARE!

[Mantra-Slider]

yeah conc

Its just that its suppose to be parlamentarism where the goverment is doing what the people want them to do... If the american people isnt behind Bush he shouldnt be allowed to act this way.

And about the fighters in the war It is hard to me to understand what those people are actually going through and how their lives will be affected for the rest of their lifetime. I havent really thought about that cos well I get the feeling that when there were an option already to prevent this war and they "are stupid enough" to go into it... I know this is bad and I apologice. I guess they all need some thoughts cos well Im pretty sure the soldiers of both sides are afraid and neither of them wants this war.
Amazing how easy it is to decide the destiny for some some guys by sitting behind a desk giving orders :/

[Zerzera]

They go as heroes and come back as killers. If they come back...

[ZeUs!!]

I think this just about sums it up

I caught the end of the news last night and old Bushy was addressing his nation, and the only clip they showed was:

Originally posted by George Bush
... any Iraqis who use weapons of mass destruction or destroy oil wells will be tried and punished under a (I forgot what they call it, the think Milosevic went through in The Hague)

Edit:

Lets have a go at disecting chris' post:

All of it was originally posted by Mantra-Slider
Despite president Bushs speech about a "wide coalition" against Iraq, it is only USA, Great Britain and Australia who is that coalition. Spain also, who sensing an American victory want some cheap oil
Despite all rhetoric USA is one lonely superpower. If it "goes well" in the war USA can however triumph those who had doubts.

Oh so true. The British soldiers are sad that they have travelled all that way and are not even going to see any action. Surely isnt not getting shot a good thing?

Still USA, according to many international (peoples)law experts (and the majority of the members of the UN security council), is now putting themself in deep troubles. According to international (peoples)law this war they might start is actually illegal.
A fast war with few people killed might save USA from the moral dilemma, but they might still risk to lose the world opinion - even if they win the war (which they really should, they are way superior)

Although there isnt much jungle in Iraq so I dont fancy any guerrila tactics, surely we can draw some comparisons form the Vietnam conflict? A backward, primative country that took on the world's biggest army and beat it. I dont think they are too worried about it being illegal, no one's going to stop them.

The meaning of "the war goes well" does not only include that Saddam will dissapear and an invasion of iraq. That also include solving the problems that occurs after the actual war.
Iraque has to build up itself both political and economical. In the long run the rest of the middleeast will be unstable. To handle such problems there will be a need for alliances. and money. the pre war expenses have already driven the american budget to its limit.

America does not have to worry about financing the war. If they win they will be quids in due to the oil. The real issue like Chris said is finding a puppet ruler who doesnt grow a brain, or is reliant on America so cant act independantly.

Already before the war has started, the diplomatical collapse will have consequences that goes beyond the iraq crise.
Leaving the UN-system of collective security thinking,like USA did, there are new principals being introducted; a super power is giving the signals that they can do whatever they want to, in difference of small countries.
Certainly there would be very few people feeling griev over the death of Saddam, but if some countries feel they can do whatever they want to - well, the whole security system that has been built up after the cold war will break up.
This might be to drag the consequensec to a limit - but the international system is built up of a thinking like this. valid to small as to big.

The UN was flawed from the start. The theory was that if one member nation stepped out of line then the rest of them would come down on them like a ton of bricks, and the rest united would be too powerful for the rebel member. However, 1) whos going to start on America and 2) lets not kid everyone, the UN is one big happy family. If one country retaliates how can they be sure the rest of the UN will support them? The UN only benefits the smaller members like the Balkans or Scandanavia.

Already there is like a PR-war between France and USA about whos to blame about the UN collapse.
USA says that while threatening with a VETO, everything was fucked up by France. Who in return says that USA was lacking the majority in the security council and that this council is the only organ in the world that can decide about war.
USA says that the resolution 1441 that came this autumn is giving an automatical right to war. Already back then France, Russia and China said that so is not the case. What they say today is therefor only the same thing as they said a couple of months ago.

My favourite topic, the Froggies, Germans and Ruskies. 1) Theres no chance in hell Russia are going to support anything American endorsed. Theres no chance in hell Germany are going to support anything British or American endorsed (sore losers). France have a vested interest in the Iraqi oil, as in they get it on the cheap. I'm not totally sure of the situation but they have struck a deal with the Arab Sheiks and if America takes their oil from them they are going to lose their little cushdy deal. No that they have opposed America so much bang goes any chance of getting a good price for the oil. Therefore Britain, Spain, Australia and America can crave it up between them.

Bush says that there are earlier UN resolutions about iraque. UN was ok with a war back in 1990-91 and since Iraq hasnt obeyed the resolutions, they have a right to war them again. However it is only the UN security council that can decide in this question. USA can not take these rights.

According to Bush the "opponents" do not want to disarm Iraq. What we have seen so far is that this is not the case. They just want to give the UN inspectors more time. With this time they say they can solve this problem with a peacful solution. The battle here is only a matter how Iraq should disarm, not if.

IMHO, there is only a certain amount of time you can give Saddam. He was not forthcoming at all and obviously didnt want them to find something. Now we are getting intelligence reports the Iraqi soldiers are being trained in how to use chemical weapons I think we can have a stab in the dark as to what it was he was hiding.

The paradox thing in all this is that since USA is lacking support of UN for this battle, it is formally an attacking war. Saddam is being attacked - and therefor have international (peoples)law to selfdefense...

He shouldnt have been elected in the first place and ever since he got the power in the country it seems like he hasnt done anything that isnt war related. Prove that the american people isnt as stupid as their president. Fucking do sumthing before its too late...

I think the best solution is to run into Iraq, bump off Saddam and run out again. Or action to that effect. But then you have to worry about his successor, what he's like, whats he gonna do with all the weapons.

As much as I hate to say it, and as much as I realise that this war is 50% Saddam 50% oil, he does have to be stopped. Now that we are committed, we should give our 110% support to our troops. I dont want war, but it looks like its the only alternative.

[Fit of Rage]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Assumption is the mother of all fuck-ups

Originally posted by Pearl Jam
Using nationalism as an excuse to kill people?

OMG This has never happened before!

[Machine of God]

Re: "Assumption is the mother of all fuck-ups

Originally posted by Pearl Jam
Our soldiers have been thrown into this war....any American who continues to protest this war after our men and women are overseas fighting is a non-human, in my opinion.

anyone who would send your soldiers to go and fight overseas is non-human, in my opinion.

[pv=nrt]

out of curiosity, if US troops find WMDs does this war become justified?

[Epinephrine]

Originally posted by pv=nrt
out of curiosity, if US troops find WMDs does this war become justified?

If they don't they probably have some mockups pre-manufactured for the world to see. I wouldn't doubt they made some working chemical weapons, put some rust on them and are ready to plant them somewhere in the case they don't actually find any in Iraq.

-Epi

[ZeUs!!]

Re: Re: Stop it before its too late :/

Day 33 in the Big Brother house and Mike attempts to disect yet another post.

Originally posted by ConcreteSchlyrd
I wanted to touch on a couple of things. I admit first that I don't really respond in these forums on this topic because it's one of those things that I feel can't be changed. I could have an optomistic outlook that I live in a country whose opinions are shaped by the will of it's people, however that dream is quickly fading.

However, the whole US/France/UN situation was fucked from the beginning.

The US has been steadily building a military force in the region ever since before UN resolution 1441. Any political analyst either in the US (or around the world, for that matter) knew exactly where this thing was going from the get-go. The Bush administration has taken it upon itself to ignore a sizeable (we were a majority at some point, weren't we?) portion of the population and go ahead with something that no one's excited about--save maybe US big business.

France hasn't exactly been playing "big boy on the playground," either. By saying that any resolution enforcing concrete dates would be automatically vetoed, they're essentially shaving off any diplomatic recourse the world might have still had. This is the thing, and I want to preface it by saying that I'm not pro-war, and I'm definitely not pro-Bush. Here's the deal--if you have an ultimatum with no set dates, and no consequences if said dates are not met, what's to enforce the ultimatum? That's the only part of this whole thing that I agree with. You can assume that everyone's going to play nice, but human nature dictates that that won't necessarily be the case.

To say that either side wasn't swayed by economic issues is also a complete falsehood. Basically, you have two nine year-olds bickering like they were fighting over the ownership of a tetherball court. It's dumb. Shame on both countries.


Yeah, because massive war protests mean nothing. Come on Mantra. Short of a revolution, there's not a lot more that can be done here. Like I've said, it's already apparent that our government isn't listening to the will of it's own people. Our lawmakers seem preoccupied by The Almighty Dollar, and couldn't possibly be concerned with things like human rights or international law. If Sweden listens to it's people, great, you go out and stop Sweden's support for the war. One less ally means greater pressure on Bush. But by blaming a US war on the people of the US is about as dumb as blaming Saddam's genocide of the Kurds on the Iraqi people. They're two separate entities.

All this being said, I think I somewhat identify with Peej's statement. While I'm 100% against a war that could've been avoided, I can't help but support the actual troops (not their orders, but the people--the standard-issue footsoldier). My father is a Vietnam veteran. He came home from a war he didn't endorse and was treated to the same ill-will that most other soldiers were exposed to upon returning to the US. I'm sorry if this lumps me in as another "Imperialist American" (which it shouldn't, but it seems a lot of people want to slap a quick-n'-easy label on things so they don't have to actually make informed decisions) but the fact of the matter is that this war is inevitable. The only thing left to do is just to hold onto our asses until it's over and Bush can be exposed for all of the shit he's going to start.

Trying to think of a constructive argument but theres nothing I disagree with there. The only thing I can add is to keep harping on about my oil.

Apparently earlier on today France showed indications that they might not totally oppose the US et al in the war. If so, HAHAHAHA IM RIGHT. Sensing their cheap oil deal with the sheiks going up shit creek monsieur les frogs are starting to turn the corner to eventually support the war and so get back in US/UK's good books, and more importantly, cheap oil! Who needs a keg?

[ZeUs!!]

Before I forget, the BBC site is very good.

[Fit of Rage]

Kaboom

So the bombing ensues. The Democrats are going to have a field day with this. How long do you think Bush's "crusade" will last?

[RabbitRapist]

2-3 months

[Jason]

It's the Official "Talk About the War" Thread!!!

Dear Forum Mods,

I ask that you please consolidate all the various threads concerning the war and throw them in here, and then make this thread a sticky until the war's over. There's no need for a new war thread to pop up every day.