The Official Iraq War thread (country, Europe, American, cover)

[Alexander the Grape]

Instead of trying to respond to the 5 pages of posts I didn't read I'll just say this:

The vast majority of Iraqis want us out of there. We're supposedly trying to spread democracy. Therefore, we should obey the wish of the people and leave.

/thread

But while I'm here:

Originally Posted by The-Starving-Artless

ARE YOU FOR SERIOUS?

Those are actually lyrics he's used?

Yeah, the first time I heard that song I got the feeling in my stomach like I was going to puke. I'm not joking at all. It didn't help that all my coworkers got together and started singing along with it. It felt like a gross perversion of when my friends and I always would sing along to Against Me! at work.

[boo boo]

Don't mean to be rude but, I question the possibility of blowing up an entire country with an average car bomb. It would have to be one hell of a nuke.

[i get high sometimes]

bump. i like to argue about stuff like this.

[CAPTAIN CAVEMAN]

Then why didn't you contribute to the discussion instead of just saying "bump"?

[Voice_of_the_Soul12,13,01]

I'm gonna regret posting here, but what the hell.


I have mixed feelings about the war in Iraq.

As far as war goes, I have no problem with it if;

1. It is to remove a major threat to the world.
2. Conquest for the greater good.
3. Retaliation (ie, 9/11 attack).

I don't support the starting of wars, unless it's unavoidable. I think of war as I do natural disasters; both have their own share of conflict that humans must overcome and both involve not only people but sentient life overall. But while most natural disasters mainly deal with Man Vs. Nature conflict, war goes deeper than that; Man Vs. Man, Man Vs. Machine, and Man Vs. Himself. War is the ultimate, I guess, competition where death cam happen at anytime, and it is just one more way of eliminating the weak and preserving the strong, even though that's not the reason wars are started.

Part of me wishes the War in Iraq hadn't started; it wasn't our place to remove Saddam Hussein from power. We should have been looking for a peaceful solution instead pushing for this war.

The other part of me is glad we started it; No one else had the will to do it, and Saddam Hussein was a dangerous dictator and could have become more dangerous.

I don't think we should be staying in there to try to fix their government and form it into something we want; we don't own the country, so we have no right to regulate what kind of government it becomes

But I don't think we should leave; While we have no right to control what they become, I do think that by leaving, we run the risk of another dictator rising up and taking Saddam's place.

As I said, mixed feelings.

[i get high sometimes]

Originally Posted by Voice_of_the_Soul12,13,01

I'm gonna regret posting here, but what the hell.


I have mixed feelings about the war in Iraq.

As far as war goes, I have no problem with it if;

1. It is to remove a major threat to the world.
2. Conquest for the greater good.
3. Retaliation (ie, 9/11 attack).

I don't support the starting of wars, unless it's unavoidable. I think of war as I do natural disasters; both have their own share of conflict that humans must overcome and both involve not only people but sentient life overall. But while most natural disasters mainly deal with Man Vs. Nature conflict, war goes deeper than that; Man Vs. Man, Man Vs. Machine, and Man Vs. Himself. War is the ultimate, I guess, competition where death cam happen at anytime, and it is just one more way of eliminating the weak and preserving the strong, even though that's not the reason wars are started.

Part of me wishes the War in Iraq hadn't started; it wasn't our place to remove Saddam Hussein from power. We should have been looking for a peaceful solution instead pushing for this war.

The other part of me is glad we started it; No one else had the will to do it, and Saddam Hussein was a dangerous dictator and could have become more dangerous.

I don't think we should be staying in there to try to fix their government and form it into something we want; we don't own the country, so we have no right to regulate what kind of government it becomes

But I don't think we should leave; While we have no right to control what they become, I do think that by leaving, we run the risk of another dictator rising up and taking Saddam's place.

As I said, mixed feelings.

You do realize that it was the United States who put Saddam Hussein in power in the 1960's and we were the ones giving him military and monetary aid while he was commiting the atrocities that qualify him as a 'dangerous dictator'.

i guess ill actually reply to each part of this.

1. he was not a threat to the world, polls indicate that he wasn't even a threat to the kuwatis, a people who had already been invaded by him once. he was a fledgling dictator living off of decades old American aid.

2. er, conquest for the greater good? what is the greater good in all of this? 100,000 iraqis dead? increased threat of terrorism? i'm missing this greater good.

3. saddam hussein had no al queda connections, a point which has been conceded by the bush administration, are you still basking in that hollow justification?

About you being glad that we started it because no one else had the will to do it. are you up on your historical facts much? i guess you don't recall the Shi'ite uprising in the early 90's which would have very likey overthrown Saddam from power, but was crushed with US authorization and assistance. I think that those shia muslims had the will to overthrow saddam, the only problem is that the US wouldn't let them do it. so i guess your whole "we were the only ones with the will to do it" argument is kaput. We were the only ones with the will to do it because we were the only ones who were painting him as this grave threat to world security. the rest of the world could see through our bullsh*t, and realized that saddam was not an imminent threat.

[Voice_of_the_Soul12,13,01]

Originally Posted by i get high sometimes

You do realize that it was the United States who put Saddam Hussein in power in the 1960's and we were the ones giving him military and monetary aid while he was commiting the atrocities that qualify him as a 'dangerous dictator'.

i guess ill actually reply to each part of this.

1. he was not a threat to the world, polls indicate that he wasn't even a threat to the kuwatis, a people who had already been invaded by him once. he was a fledgling dictator living off of decades old American aid.

I believe any dictator in this world, whether they live in a **** hole of a country or not, is a potential threat. Maybe not now.... well, especially not now since he's dead, but give him a little leg room and a couple years and see.

2. er, conquest for the greater good? what is the greater good in all of this? 100,000 iraqis dead? increased threat of terrorism? i'm missing this greater good.

I'm talking about war in general. By conquest for the greater good, this could mean waging war with a dangerous nation and trying to conquer them before they can conquer other nations, or for imperialistic gain, which would be for the greater good of the country conquering and taking over nations rather than the whole world.

Of course, as you can see, there is a problem with the latter reason, especially in this time and age.

3. saddam hussein had no al queda connections, a point which has been conceded by the bush administration, are you still basking in that hollow justification?

I believe in whatever I believe in, whether it be based on facts, conjectures of my own, or just figments of my own quirky imagination. If that discredits my argument, so be it. But no, I don't listen to anything Bush or his administration say.

About you being glad that we started it because no one else had the will to do it. are you up on your historical facts much? i guess you don't recall the Shi'ite uprising in the early 90's which would have very likey overthrown Saddam from power, but was crushed with US authorization and assistance. I think that those shia muslims had the will to overthrow saddam, the only problem is that the US wouldn't let them do it. so i guess your whole "we were the only ones with the will to do it" argument is kaput. We were the only ones with the will to do it because we were the only ones who were painting him as this grave threat to world security. the rest of the world could see through our bullsh*t, and realized that saddam was not an imminent threat.

Ok, you got me there. I wasn't aware of any uprising in the 90's. I was refering to right before the war started. And again, I believe any dictator in this world is a potential threat. Even if the world didn't see Saddam as one, I did, and the US did apparently. Whether they were painting him as a threat or not is irrelevant.

...

[i get high sometimes]

Originally Posted by Voice_of_the_Soul12,13,01

...

Alright, I'll reply to each part of this.

Saddam Hussein WAS a threat, point conceded, but he was a threat in the 1980's, when he was backed and supported by the United States. During the Reagan and Bush I administrations, Saddam committed genocided against the Kurds in northern Iraq. All the while, the United States was providing him with the weaponry he needed to carry out this genocide. In fact, in 1982, Iraq was taken off the list of countries which sponsor terrorism so that he would be eligible for aid under the Reagan administrations. So, we supported him during his atrocities, and then used the same atrocities to justify his removal from power. Pretty illogical. Ever since 2000, when he stopped recieving aid from the United States, he poses absolutely no threat to anyone. Perhaps his own people, but that is what revolution is for. As for any dictator being a threat, you should really let the government know that, since we continue to support ruthless dictators just like Saddam Hussein, and have been doing so for years. Look at Suharto, Mobutu, Somoza, the Shah, and countless others for proof of that. The United States really doesn't view fascist dictators as a threat. If they did, we would stop supporting them.

Next, you think that imperialist gain is for the 'greater good'? Do you see the massacres in India (the Sepoy rebellion) and China (the Opium Wars) or the absolute raping of the Congo by the Belge, or the horrors in pre-1960 Algeria, as very potent counter-examples of imperialist gain being for the 'greater good'? The Indochina wars? In what way is imperial gain 'greater good'? All it does is cause suffering, which is why most European countries released their imperial possessions after WWII. Of course their is a problem with justifying war for imperial means. Not even the imperialist countries actually thought imperial gain was good justification for war, which is why they came up with other silly excuses for their wars.

Okay, you believe in what you want to believe in. That doesn't make it true in any way whatsoever, especially when it is not only based on NO evidence, but is actually refuted BY the evidence which is in existance. Why would the United States concede that Iraq had no al-Queda connections, after all, they used it's 'connections' with al-Queda to justify war in Iraq after the first justification fell through (WMD's). It was in their favor to have the populus think that Iraq had al-Queda connections, which is why, when it was discovered that they had none, it was somewhat impressive to hear the administration admit it. But of course, they couldn't pull out, they just offered another justification. Your 'own conjectures' led you to believe that Iraq had al-Queda connections...


And lastly, YOU viewed Saddam as a threat. Therefore an illegal war against him is justified. Well there you go, all this time the Bush administration was desperately grasping for plausible justification for this war, when they could have just gone ahead and said that Voice_of_The_Soul 12,13,01 viewed him as a threat and the international community would have been off our backs. Why didn't you say so earlier?!

[sleepy jack]

Originally Posted by Voice_of_the_Soul12,13,01

I believe any dictator in this world, whether they live in a **** hole of a country or not, is a potential threat. Maybe not now.... well, especially not now since he's dead, but give him a little leg room and a couple years and see.

Originally Posted by Voice_of_the_Soul12,13,01

A dictatorship CAN work if we have the right dictator; someone who is in power not for the sake of being in power, but for doing what's needed to strengthen society. If there is such a person, and he/she can rule with an iron fist without letting any prejudice thought cloud their judgment and causing more harm than good, then yes. I propose a dictatorship.

I just find these two posts coupled together funny.

[i get high sometimes]

Three cheers for contradiction.