Music Banter

Music Banter (https://www.musicbanter.com/)
-   Current Events, Philosophy, & Religion (https://www.musicbanter.com/current-events-philosophy-religion/)
-   -   I am an uneducated American who supports the war for no good reason (https://www.musicbanter.com/current-events-philosophy-religion/29864-i-am-uneducated-american-who-supports-war-no-good-reason.html)

Predator 04-13-2008 05:32 PM

I am an uneducated American who supports the war for no good reason
 
To bad that as true as most people who oppose the war. I support the war and I am educated on the reasons why. I could of course go on and on about weapons of mass destruction and why we never found them even though they were in Iraq prior to the war. I could talk about the resistance the U.N. inspectors faced that is the common reason for the start of the war. I could go in to the ties with terrorist organizations. I'm not going to do that and I would appreciate if others could abstain from bringing these up in this discussion. If you would like make a new thread and we can discuss it there.
As a disclaimer and to protect those who do not want to see the disturbing images, please do not click the links.
I am going to talk about Halabja and the events that took place there in 1988. There were similar attacks, but I am focusing on Halabja because this was the worst attack. This discussion is to hopefully educate some members of this board of the reasons that the Baath party needed to be taken out of power in Iraq.
Most people have heard how the Iraqi government launched chemical weapons against their own people, but how many know more than that? Did you know that Iraq signed the 1925 prohibition of the use of chemical weapons? Did you know that Iraq used various chemical weapons in a civil war in 1988? Did you know that 75% of those killed were unarmed women and children? Ali Hassan Al Majid, the man appointed as governor of northern Iraq by Saddam Hussein, stated "I will strike with chemical weapons and kill them all. What is the international community going to say? The hell with them and the hell with any other country...". Words spoken by a mad man. A mad man appointed by a mad man. 5000 lives lost in less than an hour. 75% were women and children. Mustard, cyanide and nerve gas used against 70,000 civilians. Bombs dropped for an hour in an act of genocide. They were targeted for extermination because they were Kurdish. Does this sound familiar? Would you have been willing to turn your back on the acts of the Nazi party? Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran and their own Kurdish population in 1984, 1986 and 1987. These times were verified, there are more times suspected. A government that has already shown that they would use chemical weapons in war time as well as against unarmed civilians would no doubt use them against against others. Back to the subject. When I joined the Army in 1997, I had to attend NBC (Nuclear, Biological and Chemical) weapons training. At this time, I was introduced the first time to the events in Halabja. As time went on, I researched further. The thing that turned me to the point of supporting any invasion of Iraq was the images.
Again, do not click the links if you are easily disturbed by death.
halabja,halabjah, iraq, north iraq, kurdistan, kurdland, kurd,bloody friday

Quote:

You have to understand something here that's so diabolically clever. The Iraqis knew that gas is heavier than air and would penetrate cellars and basements more effectively by launching a conventional artillery attack on the town for several hours. In other words, they knew that people would do what they always did during an artillery barrage and run to their basements. They were stuck in their basements, and then [the Iraqis] launched the chemical weapons attack turning them, really, into gas chambers.
Quote:

Al-Anfal

Halabja was neither an aberration nor a desperate act of a regime caught in a grinding, stalemated war. Instead, it was one event in a deliberate, large-scale campaign called Al-Anfal to kill and displace the predominately Kurdish inhabitants of northern Iraq. In an exhaustive study published in 1994, Human Rights Watch concluded that the 1988 Anfal campaign amounted to an extermination campaign against the Kurds of Iraq, resulting in the deaths of at least 50,000 and perhaps as many as 100,000 persons, many of them women and children.

Baghdad launched about 40 gas attacks against Iraqi Kurdish targets in 1987-88, with thousands killed. But many also perished through the regime's traditional methods: nighttime raids by troops who abducted men and boys who were later executed and dumped in mass graves. Other family members — women, children, the elderly — were arrested for arbitrary periods under conditions of extreme hardship, or forcibly removed from their homes and sent to barren resettlement camps. As Human Rights Watch details, Iraqi forces demolished entire villages — houses, schools, shops, mosques, farms, power stations — everything to ensure the destruction of entire communities.
So in the war on terror, the Baath party had to be eliminated. They were a terrorist government. They supported terrorism. They developed their attacks to cause the most civilian deaths possible. So now that the Baath party is out of power, should we leave? No, we started a job and now its time to finish it. I hear that we went into Iraq with no exit strategy. We have an exit strategy. Victory. The total liberation of the Iraqi people. Their ability to live without fear of genocidal attacks from their own government. Was the war about weapons of mass destruction? Partially, but remember the name of the operation. Iraqi Freedom.

sweet_nothing 04-13-2008 05:33 PM

I support the war on terror but not the one in Iraq, and I support our troops.....

adidasss 04-13-2008 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Predator (Post 469242)
Partially, but remember the name of the operation. Iraqi Freedom....and possibly oil.

:yeah:

Predator 04-13-2008 05:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by adidasss (Post 469263)
:yeah:

I love it when people bring this up. If we invaded Iraq for oil, why did we attack a country that invaded Kuwait for their oil? Would you care to show where the Iraqi oil exports go? Actually, I'd rather if you didn't, that isn't why I made this thread.

Miltamec Soundsquinaez 04-13-2008 05:46 PM

Exactly, who declares war on a country to liberate them?

I actually don't think it's a war for oil.
Sadam Hussein vowed that he would kill George Bush Sr. while he was president, and I think it pissed off W. so much that he took it upon himself to catch Sadam, plain and simple. The rest of it all is just to cover up his lie.
I don't think it's about oil, because who is drilling for the oil? It's not like our troops are drilling over there. Do we have troops contravening and capturing barrels of oil? I don't think so. I'm not sure on this issue, but what I would like to know from people who believe it's a war for oil, is How exactly are we going about seizing the oil, because unless we're doing that-the oil isn't going to just magically make its way into our economy, just because we have an occupation over there.

right-track 04-13-2008 05:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Predator (Post 469274)
Actually, I'd rather if you didn't, that isn't why I made this thread.

:rolleyes: I could delete all posts that don't agree with your opinion if you want.

bruise_violet 04-13-2008 05:47 PM

I would love to say there could be another way to stop all the horrible things in the world but i can't think of any.

The prospect of oil is probably a big factor in why America is so quick to help the innocent people of Iraq. Then again if they didn't, who would?

I know whats going on in Iraq is much worse, but there was terrorist attacks on N.Ireland for almost 40 years and America didn't give a ****.


Right or wrong, I genuinely pity the soldiers out there. If it was my boyfriend I actually could not live anymore.

right-track 04-13-2008 05:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheUsed2lguy (Post 469275)
Exactly, who declares war on a country to liberate them?

I actually don't think it's a war for oil.
Sadam Hussein vowed that he would kill George Bush Sr. while he was president, and I think it pissed off W. so much that he took it upon himself to catch Sadam, plain and simple. The rest of it all is just to cover up his lie.
I don't think it's about oil, because who is drilling for the oil? It's not like our troops are drilling over there. Do we have troops contravening and capturing barrels of oil? I don't think so. I'm not sure on this issue, but what I would like to know from people who believe it's a war for oil, is How exactly are we going about seizing the oil, because unless we're doing that-the oil isn't going to just magically make its way into our economy, just because we have an occupation over there.

:laughing:

The Unfan 04-13-2008 05:50 PM

A war on terror makes no sense. Terror is a strategy, and you can't really fight a war against a strategy. It'd be like declaring a war on blitzkrieg.

adidasss 04-13-2008 05:51 PM

You made this thread to show us that that Saddam was a bad man and that America really had no interest in Iraq other than altruism. Gotcha.

Predator 04-13-2008 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by right-track (Post 469276)
:rolleyes: I could delete all posts that don't agree with your opinion if you want.

My point is in trying to keep this on topic. If you read my original post, I stated that I was not interested in discussing that here, I would be more than happy to argue it elsewhere. I made this thread to explain why I support the action taken in Iraq. The point is to start a discussion about the genocidal acts of the Iraqi government.

bruise_violet 04-13-2008 05:52 PM

But why not help poor Northern Ireland?

Predator 04-13-2008 05:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by adidasss (Post 469281)
You made this thread to show us that that Saddam was a bad man and that America really had no interest in Iraq other than altruism. Gotcha.

Fine then, lets argue that here. Where is Iraqi oil going?

right-track 04-13-2008 05:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Unfan (Post 469280)
A war on terror makes no sense.

Neither does terrorism.
The British and the Irish came to this conclusion after 40 years of bloodshed.
There's only one end game...compromise.

The Unfan 04-13-2008 05:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by right-track (Post 469288)
Neither does terrorism.
The British and the Irish came to this conclusion after 40 years of bloodshed.
There's only one end game...FOOTBALL!

Fixed.

bruise_violet 04-13-2008 05:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by right-track (Post 469288)
Neither does terrorism.
The British and the Irish came to this conclusion after 40 years of bloodshed.
There's only one end game...compromise.

is that George best in your avatar?

right-track 04-13-2008 05:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bruise_violet (Post 469295)
is that George best in your avatar?

:love:

bruise_violet 04-13-2008 06:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by right-track (Post 469299)
:love:

my granny LOVES him.

'loved'

right-track 04-13-2008 06:03 PM

For Predators sake...back OT please.

:pssst: your granny has taste bruise.

bruise_violet 04-13-2008 06:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by right-track (Post 469305)
For Predators sake...back OT please.

:pssst: your granny has taste bruise.

I want someone to say why America didn't help my lovely green country when everyone was getting bombed?

(she listens to meatloaf and has had a convo with pete doherty she is even cooler than me)

sleepy jack 04-13-2008 06:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bruise_violet (Post 469312)
I want someone to say why America didn't help my lovely green country when everyone was getting bombed?

Because America doesn't care about helping countries it cares about what they can get out of getting involved under the pretense of helping.

Urban Hat€monger ? 04-13-2008 06:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bruise_violet (Post 469312)
I want someone to say why America didn't help my lovely green country when everyone was getting bombed?

It did help , it was helping arm the IRA

Predator 04-13-2008 07:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheUsed2lguy (Post 469275)
Exactly, who declares war on a country to liberate them?

Well, Korea for example was invaded to liberate from communism. In the end the country was split in half and the communist north was forced out of the south.
You could also consider the invasions of Nazi occupied countries. All were invaded to liberate from Nazi rule.
Kuwait was invaded to liberate from Iraq.
Iraq was invaded to liberate from their own government. The Baath party did forcefully overtake Iraq.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bruise_violet (Post 469277)
I know whats going on in Iraq is much worse, but there was terrorist attacks on N.Ireland for almost 40 years and America didn't give a ****.

I can't really answer this. I remember asking my dad about it when I was a kid. His only explanation was that Ireland is a part of one of our allies and we could not take action without the request of the U.K. He said that in a perfect world we would be able to help.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Unfan (Post 469280)
A war on terror makes no sense. Terror is a strategy, and you can't really fight a war against a strategy. It'd be like declaring a war on blitzkrieg.

Terrorism adapts to the enemy. If you look at the actions of the terrorists in Iraq you can see the changes over the course of the war. Terrorism is psychological warfare. Scare them in to doing what you want. If you give in, they take more. If you take a stand, they change until they find something that makes you give in. They will eventually fail to gain more members thus losing the war. Giving in will give the impression that they are winning thus making it seem like a good idea to join them. The collateral damage caused by terror attacks on U.S. troops has gotten to the point that more Iraqi's are taking our side again. From the beginning we had major Iraqi support. Some began to join the terrorist side thinking that the collateral damage was caused by the occupation. As time went on the tide has again turned further in our favor. You can fight terrorism by not backing down from it.

Predator 04-13-2008 07:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crowquill (Post 469317)
Because America doesn't care about helping countries it cares about what they can get out of getting involved under the pretense of helping.

What exactly are we gaining Iraq aside from an ally?
Why wouldn't we be able to gain access to the offshore oil by helping Ireland?

The Unfan 04-13-2008 07:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Predator (Post 469432)
You can fight terrorism by not backing down from it.

But you're not really fighting the strategy, you're fighting the people who use it by using a strategy that discourages theirs.

bruise_violet 04-13-2008 07:20 PM

I'm glad America didn't help, we would probably be 'owned' by them if they did.

Or, heaven forbid, give Americans an ever more outrageous excuse to celebrate St. Patricks day...

Predator 04-13-2008 07:27 PM

The war on terror is against all who use terrorism to gain what they want. There are many groups that use terror tactics. The war on terror is a blanket term to describe the intent to eradicate the use of terror tactics.

Back to the subject that I started this for. Did anyone really bother to read my first post? I know it was long, but I am not attempting to prove anyone wrong with my reason for supporting Operation Iraqi Freedom. I simply want people to remember and understand what happened that day.

sleepy jack 04-13-2008 07:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Predator (Post 469438)
What exactly are we gaining Iraq aside from an ally?

Their natural resources, America did it with Mexico with cotton in the 1850s same concept here. America isn't as righteous as they advertise, it's just a facade for their imperialistic bullshit.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Predator (Post 469438)
Why wouldn't we be able to gain access to the offshore oil by helping Ireland?

Um, how much oil is there in Ireland?

Predator 04-13-2008 07:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bruise_violet (Post 469442)
I'm glad America didn't help, we would probably be 'owned' by them if they did.

Or, heaven forbid, give Americans an ever more outrageous excuse to celebrate St. Patricks day...

Just like Korea, occupation of Iraq will be necessary until they can defend themselves. The same would apply to Ireland. Is sucks but it is true.

I have a pretty good reason to celebrate St. Patricks day. Its my birthday.

Predator 04-13-2008 07:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crowquill (Post 469456)
Their natural resources, America did it with Mexico with cotton in the 1850s same concept here. America isn't as righteous as they advertise, it's just a facade for their imperialistic bullshit.



Um, how much oil is there in Ireland?

Quite a bit offshore. Ever heard of BP?

It would make more sense to go after Canada or Saudi Arabia or Mexico.... any of the top 6 countries we import from before going after number 7. On top of that the oil we buy from Iraq is purchased at the same price as as what we get elsewhere.

bruise_violet 04-13-2008 07:32 PM

BP is British.

I never heard of any oil in Ireland?

Predator 04-13-2008 07:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bruise_violet (Post 469460)
BP is British.

I never heard of any oil in Ireland?

I know that BP is British. There is a considerable amount or oil and natural gas offshore from Ireland. The platforms are accessed by taking a helo from Ireland.

sleepy jack 04-13-2008 07:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Predator (Post 469467)
I know that BP is British. There is a considerable amount or oil and natural gas offshore from Ireland. The platforms are accessed by taking a helo from Ireland.

Links to information on these platforms?

Rubberchicken 04-13-2008 07:55 PM

The oil gets shipped to germany all the way around europe through the south of the netherlands then in germany it gets devided by all the major oil companies. Everytime it stops it gets a tax put on it.. but its the last stop when it reaches your country that it gets the biggest tax slapped on it (in the 40% range) by your national federal goverment c-nts.
I heard it gets pumped off one ship and then pumped onto land then back onto the same ship because the water is too shallow (somewhere near saudi arabia and egypt). Can't be bothered researching it right now plus Im busting for a sh!t.

tkpb938 04-13-2008 07:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crowquill (Post 469456)
Their natural resources, America did it with Mexico with cotton in the 1850s same concept here. America isn't as righteous as they advertise, it's just a facade for their imperialistic bullshit.

Links to information on how we're getting anything more than higher national debt out of Iraq please?

sleepy jack 04-13-2008 08:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tkpb938 (Post 469481)
Links to information on how we're getting anything more than higher national debt out of Iraq please?

http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/i...orts0507-1.jpg

U.S. Total Crude Oil and Products Imports

And us having control in Iraq is only going to boost those figures.

Predator 04-13-2008 08:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crowquill (Post 469475)
Links to information on these platforms?

I used to have a pretty good map of offshore oil fields broken up into regions. To bad I can't find it now. You could look here though. There are smaller maps showing Ireland's off shore oil as well as some news articles about the oil and gas fields.

Offshore247.com - Breaking Oil & gas news: -Ireland

Predator 04-13-2008 08:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crowquill (Post 469483)
http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/i...orts0507-1.jpg

U.S. Total Crude Oil and Products Imports

And us having control in Iraq is only going to boost those figures.

Your graph shows Iraq even lower than mine. We have had control of Iraq since 2003, shouldn't the numbers have gone up?

tkpb938 04-13-2008 08:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crowquill (Post 469483)
http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/i...orts0507-1.jpg

U.S. Total Crude Oil and Products Imports

And us having control in Iraq is only going to boost those figures.

How do you know our occupation of iraq had anything to do with those figures?

sleepy jack 04-13-2008 08:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Predator (Post 469487)
I used to have a pretty good map of offshore oil fields broken up into regions. To bad I can't find it now. You could look here though. There are smaller maps showing Ireland's off shore oil as well as some news articles about the oil and gas fields.

Offshore247.com - Breaking Oil & gas news: -Ireland

Thanks, does anyone have claims to these lands? Because I doubt even if we helped Ireland they'd let us jump in willy nilly. You know I actually don't care about this, it really is irrelevant to what's going on in Iraq regardless of what comes of it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Predator (Post 469490)
Your graph shows Iraq even lower than mine. We have had control of Iraq since 2003, shouldn't the numbers have gone up?

We've done nothing to improve Iraq so it's not exactly the best place to start going drill crazy. The US uproar that would occur aside the Iraqis didn't ask for us to come there, other countries didn't want us to come there, hell even plenty of American citizens don't want us there. They'd probably revolt, which would've been the best answer to their problem if the US hadn't stuck their nose where it didn't belong. Tons of nations have ruled the way they did and tons still do. Why haven't we done something about them? We should really pull out, we're just continuing to lost more credibility and more money. I mean I know its way way way way way too late and continues to get later at least we can show we're not a bunch of stubborn idiots. Thousands of soldiers dying because all because one man is too proud to admit he made a giant mistake. Even if we do launch a democracy there like our supposed plan was do you think Iraq is going to be thanking for killing as many of them as we did?

I don't even think we even plan to pull out, I realize Obama and Clinton are running around saying they're so opposed to the Iraq war and they're going to pull us out but Obama also said "All options are on the table for Iran" didn't he? They're not very anti-war at all Hillary was all for it until it became popular to be against it, so with typical democratic loyalty she bent over and switched sides, she'd even helped fund it. If we're so interested in pulling out someday why are we basically constructing the biggest foreign embassy in the world right in Baghdad? The War Against Terror is a complete lie and front for our government's own sick needs.

Oh and tkpb938 since you're concerned about our national debt I have a question for you. Do you think Bush, Rove and Cheney are losing much money from this or the good ole' tax payers of Americas are? This is just the UK's Arab Facade all over again.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:55 PM.


© 2003-2025 Advameg, Inc.