Jump to content


Photo

War On Iraq


66 replies to this topic

#51 merlinski

merlinski

    Member

  • Members
  • 403 posts

Posted 25 March 2003 - 08:06 PM

I find it hard to believe that people still believe that the war is for humanitarian reasons. Why didn't we stay in Somalia? Why didn't we intervene in Rwanda? Why didn't we use ground troops immediately in Kosovo? This is a war about 3 things. It is about Bush not wanting to look like he didn't try to prevent the next act of terrorism. It is about America maintaining our supply of oil. It is about attempting to "solve" the middle east by forcibly installing a democracy.

His actions only prove my point that war will probably end up badly for the United States. I didn't support giving him an indefinite period of time, I supported waging war with diplomatic support. I supported gradually increasing the power of the weapons inspectors for a much longer period of time. I supported giving the UN a time limit, even if it did take months. The problem with waging war the way that we did is that when the shit hits the fan, it will be America's problem. Europe will blame America. The Middle East will blame America. We will lose thousands of lives, and spark terrorism, because it was us. Not anyone else, just us. We are the ones responsible for each and every death that occurs in Baghdad and anywhere in Iraq, because we initiated the war. Saddam will lose all political sympathy as soon as he uses the weapons, but he doesn't really care about that anymore. He knows he's going down, but he will go down swinging. And the only one who will be taking damage from those punches will be America.
  • 0

#52 VACC

VACC

    Vacc is Legend

  • Founders
  • 3,265 posts
  • Location:New York
  • State:New York
  • Country:United States

Posted 25 March 2003 - 08:54 PM

So your rebuke to the idea of humanitarianism is that past efforts, in your opinon, were not humanitarian in purpose. Maybe I'm missing something, but it would seem that you got absolutely dick here. That proves nothing. If we didn't give a fuck about the people of Iraq why would we go so far out of our way to attempt to protect them? Our soldiers have risked their own lives in order to preserve the lives of these innocents, weather you aknowledge it or not. Yes, Civilians have died, but, as you've implied, no one can completely control a war. If we could it wouldn't be a war. That does not mean that we do not care about them.

But maybe that's beside the point. Allow me to understand this. What you're saying is, this problem could have been solved by increasing the number of inspectors? Ok, someone really needs to enlighten me here, what the fuck do you expect them to find? It's the same principle as "peace keeping" troops. Their very existance is an oxymoron. You expect a group of completely unarmed, defenseless
investigators backed by an organisation with a history of impotency to find anything in Saddam's facilities? He shows them what he wants them to see, and he doesn't want them to see these weapons. You think if we just asked him a few more times with a few more defenseless people he'd have broken down and shown them what they're looking for? Hell, maybe we should just send the girlscouts over their with puppies, maybe their utter adorability would have brought him to his knees.

Weapons inspectors are a solution for an organisation that has no interest in actually finding anything. If you truly believe that further inspection by the UN would have given us a security council consensus you're a fool. The French have shown rather plainly through their actions that they are more interested in confronting the US than Iraq. Sadam had been found in material breech of pretty much everything short of having been caught with the weapons red handed. What else does he have to do?

Of course an international concesus on the war would have been the ideal means of waging this war, but I think it was displayed rather obviously that such a concensus was impossible. At that point we had two options, wage the war with a 30 something coutry alliance, or just let Saddam do as he pleased. Personally I think there was very little choice in the matter.

VACC
  • 0

#53 merlinski

merlinski

    Member

  • Members
  • 403 posts

Posted 25 March 2003 - 11:05 PM

So your rebuke to the idea of humanitarianism is that past efforts, in your opinon, were not humanitarian in purpose. Maybe I'm missing something, but it would seem that you got absolutely dick here. That proves nothing. If we didn't give a fuck about the people of Iraq why would we go so far out of our way to attempt to protect them? Our soldiers have risked their own lives in order to preserve the lives of these innocents, weather you aknowledge it or not. Yes, Civilians have died, but, as you've implied, no one can completely control a war. If we could it wouldn't be a war. That does not mean that we do not care about them.


Did you even read what I said? I'm saying that we haven't gone out of our way to protect the people of Iraq, we've gone out of our way to oust Saddam and gain control of the area. My point is that the motive for this war is most definitely not humanitarian. I believe this because (listen to this part) we have been faced with situations in which humanitarian aide was just as needed, and we have backed down. What makes Iraq different? The fact that it has the cheapest oil to extract in the world. The fact that it is one of the major dictatorships in an unstable region. The fact that it makes it look like Bush is doing something to try and prevent the next act of terrorism. Its damn simple. Why didn't we feel so strongly about helping the people of Somalia, Rwanda, or Kosovo? Because they weren't sitting on top of oil in an idealogical hotbed near the roots of terrorism. Why are we "helping" the Iraqis? Because they are all of those things.

Its obvious that you feel that war was the only option. The fact is that it might have been inevitable, but a concentrated diplomatic effort might well have turned some of the unsure countries in our favor. And giving more weapons inspectors more support and more time might have had an effect, you can't say whether it would have or not.

You also speak of our "30 country alliance"? 27 countries that don't mean crap in the big scheme of things, Spain, Britain, and the US. Spain is halfhearted, and Britain is damn near overthrowing Tony Blair for supporting us.

The fact that we got to a point where war was inevitable is something people ignore way too much. Bush backed himself into a corner regarding Iraq, by speaking so much about the need to disarm. If he hadn't pushed so hard, he never would have felt obligated to act on his threats, many countries wouldn't be as opposed to us as they are now, and for damn sure no one would be arguing about the "mistreatment of the Iraqi people".

That pisses me off a lot too. The fact that had he never started this crusade against Saddam, there would be no way in hell that this many people would care about the fate of the Iraqi people. The sympaty is a goddamn manufactured reaction to what we have been doing. You can not honestly say that you cared about the fate of the Iraqi people in 2000 or 2001, you probably didn't in 2002. You care now because we need a motive. "America, the great liberator"? Bullshit. Am I proud to be an American? Yes, I'm proud to be part of the most powerful nation on earth. Am I proud of my president? Hell no, but that doesn't make me anti-American. If anything, it means that I'm participating in the 2-party system and fulfilling the ideals of democracy. If I say that Bush's regime is making America look like the assholes of the world, am I being anti-American? No. I think that we need to be careful in this modern world, that as the sole superpower we need to make sure that people want to be our allies and not be against us. I think that we are stupid to think that we are invincible, that we do not need the rest of the world. I think that this conflict is, in the big scheme of things, an indicator. Worse than any result of the war will be the trend that we begin. We will seem in need of a counterbalance. The world will see us as unruly and unconstrained. I honestly believe that a continuation of the policies that Bush is implementing will lead to the downfall of American international power as we know it now. Thank god that the bastard can only serve 2 terms. Then again, after the results of his economic and political plans begin to show, I can only hope that America wakes up.

This has been a daily rant by Merlinski.
  • 0

#54 VACC

VACC

    Vacc is Legend

  • Founders
  • 3,265 posts
  • Location:New York
  • State:New York
  • Country:United States

Posted 26 March 2003 - 12:01 AM

More like your daily bitch fit (I'm sorry but that sounded too funny not to say). For the record, I never gave a shit about the Iraqi people, and I still don't. I guess that's why I'm an asshole and not a marine.

I never meant to imply that this war is an entirely humanitarian effort. Fuck Rowanda, what about Sudan? Do you know what's going on in Sudan right now? I sure don't, but I know I probably should. My point is that there are a hundred needy countries that could use some humanitarian aid that we ignore every year. Of course we have other reasons for entering Iraq, and of course we wouldn't be there if the only people standing to get hurt were the Iraqis. However that is not the case. Sadam is crazy, and Sadam does have weapons. Quite frankly, that concept alone scares me. We're there because this guys is a threat to everybody, not just his own people.

I'm not going to say that we need oil, because I think that's pretty damn clear. We are NOT there to steal the oil, and we are NOT there to take over Iraq. Sure, the fact that he can hold a good portion of the world's oil hostage adds urgency to our action, but honestly that's half of france's motivation for their actions too, and I don't see you jumping on them for it.

As far as the inspectors go. The UN has been "inspecting" Iraqi compounds for years now and there has been no significant progress. I think we can be pretty damned certain that a few more inspectors and a few more weeks/months/years would yield absolutely nothing Saddam didn't want them to yield. Without any kind of reaction on the UN's part why the hell would he give them anything? I mean in all seriousness, just think of the concept behind that whole opperation. We send a party of civilians under the flag of a union famous for doing nothing to ask a psychopathic dictator to show them his contraband... it just doesn't make sense, and I think the UN has done a pretty thourough job of showing us that it doesn't work.

I think I had other things to say, but my head really hurts, and the lack of caffiene in my system is sapping my motivation. It's been fun.

VACC
  • 0

#55 Evil

Evil

    Fucking Copout

  • Members
  • 1,156 posts

Posted 26 March 2003 - 06:43 AM

I find it hard to believe that people still believe that the war is for humanitarian reasons.

I do believe it's for humanitarian reasons in the respect that this man is torturing, raping, murdering, and starving his own people... and we're going to stop him. He's killed enough people in his own country for it to be labeled genocide. It started in 1979 when Hussein took power, and it will end here in 2003 when the coalition of the willing does him the justice he deserves.

Again, God knows what he did to the Iranians.

Again, God knows how much he does to his people that we don't know about.

Again, God knows how much that we'll never know.

Again, God knows how much we'll find.

Again, this man is a monster, a tyrant, a torterous life taker.

This war is for humanity, it is for the people of Iraq. It isn't for oil, we can buy that. It isn't for our economy, we can survive through the market's highs and lows. This is a war which will bring freedom to a people oppressed by a heartless and evil monster of a man.

When it comes to other conflicts, I don't know what to tell you. I don't know much about Rwanda so I don't have much to say, I'm sure you understand.

When it comes to Somalia, the situation was more like a feudal country with various gangs of roving armed merc-soldiers. I don't know about today, but from what I've read Somalia cannot sustain a centrally established government due to this. Without a centralized government our aid efforts are far less effective. Maybe we got discouraged, maybe politics nullified the moral justifications of the conflict and the aid we were bringing. It's a shame we didn't do more, but at least we tried.

We'll help when we can, for as long as we can. Somalia was cut short. Our Afghan operations are still underway and we've made great progress there. Now Iraq is a target of freedom. Pretty soon they'll be free to live their lives without fear, and I welcome them.
  • 0
2007 Great American GoreFest Champion (Aug. 4, Apoc)

#56 cxwq

cxwq

    Member

  • Founders
  • 3,634 posts

Posted 26 March 2003 - 12:46 PM

Oh please. You think Bush and his cabinet are so fucking altruistic it makes me puke.

Bush is a Christian and God told him he needs to go rescue the fucking people of Iraq from that Evil Evil Saddam... Sounds like a Holy War to me.

I have rarely resented Christians more than I do right now and that pisses me off cause I know there are actually some decent ones out there. Why the hell are you using God to support starting a war? If this was about the suffering of the Iraqi people why didn't we depose him in 91? What are we going to do about the dozens of other countries with evil dictators? When we don't agree with a government we apply political pressure to change things. Except Iraq.
  • 0
<meta name="cxwq" content="mostly water">

#57 jon

jon

    Member

  • Members
  • 91 posts

Posted 26 March 2003 - 02:01 PM

beladin was the terrorist but sadam is the person we are picing a fight with.

Saddam counts as a terrorist, don't tell me he doesn't. He's killed 180, 000 of his own people, and done worse human damages to the Iranians whom he waged war with for a long 8 years. If Saddam isn't a terrorist, I don't know who is.

if you didn't know he is a political leader. he ust to be a terrorist be now he is biligerant tyrrant. he has targetted people but so has the us. he is no longer a terrorist he has overthrone his own gov. so that he could take power. he is now in power and not with his old group. here is the def of terror def of terror
  • 0
Die you super-monkey fuck!

#58 jon

jon

    Member

  • Members
  • 91 posts

Posted 26 March 2003 - 02:14 PM

vac, milerski you are both right in this sence.both you points have faults and good good ideas. the thing is all of us don't know the whole truth. Bush is into oil but we don't live inside the fact is WE ARE AT WAR! now we can all have our opoions. personaly i think i have to suport this wars because it's fate and we can control it. but i don't like the reason why we are doing it or the insint live are beeing killed
  • 0
Die you super-monkey fuck!

#59 Evil

Evil

    Fucking Copout

  • Members
  • 1,156 posts

Posted 26 March 2003 - 02:14 PM

Oh please. You think Bush and his cabinet are so fucking altruistic it makes me puke.

Bush is a Christian and God told him he needs to go rescue the fucking people of Iraq from that Evil Evil Saddam... Sounds like a Holy War to me.

I have rarely resented Christians more than I do right now and that pisses me off cause I know there are actually some decent ones out there. Why the hell are you using God to support starting a war? If this was about the suffering of the Iraqi people why didn't we depose him in 91? What are we going to do about the dozens of other countries with evil dictators? When we don't agree with a government we apply political pressure to change things. Except Iraq.

I look at this subject in a black and white manner. But that's me.

As for this being a holy war, if you concider liberation a righteous action then sure, we can call it a holy war if that's what you want.

I'm not a religious person at all, I was just using the term God in the "Who knows" sense, not literally. My religious stance is based around having faith in myself, but that's another discussion for another time. I was really just using "God" to emphasize a point. My word usage betrays me and for that I'm sorry for the misunderstanding.

We didn't dispose of Saddam in '91 because we had figured we had taught him a lesson. We thought he would have learned, but apparently here we are today, and we are now in this situation because we didn't teach him a harsh enough lesson.

As for the other dictators who take advantage of their people's fear, UN funding, and the usage of diddle and torture as internal policy, I don't know what we're going to do. No one does. We'll take to the situation differently each time, so you and I will really have to wait it out and see. I can't speak for what I don't know, please don't hold that against me.

Political pressure works well. In most cases. Since the Persian Gulf war we have given Saddam several chances to save himself from what now is unfolding. Bush gave him chances before his administration's time ran out, Clinton gave him quite a few chances as well, and our newest president made the case and gave him the chance to come clean. All and all Saddam Hussein has been given more chances then he deserves.

Now he's getting his justice. Now he's going to have to answer for what he's done.
  • 0
2007 Great American GoreFest Champion (Aug. 4, Apoc)

#60 merlinski

merlinski

    Member

  • Members
  • 403 posts

Posted 26 March 2003 - 04:10 PM

As for the other dictators who take advantage of their people's fear, UN funding, and the usage of diddle and torture as internal policy, I don't know what we're going to do. No one does. We'll take to the situation differently each time, so you and I will really have to wait it out and see.


Saying that "we take to it differently each time" doesn't even come close to meaning that this is a war for the rights of people. You're right in that we don't know what the US will do. But I do know what the US has done. We have never, ever, ever put even a fraction of this much effort into a conflict that was for humanitarian reasons. And Bush does not have any more regard for human life than any president before him. Why did the US foreign policy suddenly allow us to put 300,000 troops into a humanitarian conflict? It didn't! This conflict is not for humanitarian reasons.

This war is for humanity, it is for the people of Iraq. It isn't for oil, we can buy that. It isn't for our economy, we can survive through the market's highs and lows. This is a war which will bring freedom to a people oppressed by a heartless and evil monster of a man.


We can't buy oil anymore and expect to maintain our current American lifestyle. That is the key. The oil that we do have access to usually costs over 10 dollars a barrel to extract. Iraqi oil costs 1.50 a barrel. I've read up on this, the supply of oil in the world is decreasing a lot. Although we have not yet used up half of the natural oil, the less that there is left, the more it costs to extract it. The figures rise exponentially.

VACC, I see what you are saying about the war being inevitable. I personally believe that more time and a lot more weapons inspectors might have had an effect, but thats something we both have differing opinions about and will never really know the answer to. I personally believe that the "cry for Iraqi disarmament" would have never happened if Bush hadn't pushed for it. It's also a manufactured reaction. If he had focused from the beginning on North Korea instead of Iraq, people would be calling the N. Korean leader (forgot his name) a ruthless madman, and saying that we need to control and disarm him.
  • 0

#61 VACC

VACC

    Vacc is Legend

  • Founders
  • 3,265 posts
  • Location:New York
  • State:New York
  • Country:United States

Posted 26 March 2003 - 04:28 PM

VACC, I see what you are saying about the war being inevitable. I personally believe that more time and a lot more weapons inspectors might have had an effect, but thats something we both have differing opinions about and will never really know the answer to. I personally believe that the "cry for Iraqi disarmament" would have never happened if Bush hadn't pushed for it. It's also a manufactured reaction. If he had focused from the beginning on North Korea instead of Iraq, people would be calling the N. Korean leader (forgot his name) a ruthless madman, and saying that we need to control and disarm him.

I agree that this could be North Korea, but honestly, I think that situation is pretty dangerous as well. Like you said, our disagreement basically comes down to the fact that I think this was inevitablbe and you don't. I'm glad we could have an inteligent conversation about it. These things seem to be rare on most boards.

VACC
  • 0

#62 Evil

Evil

    Fucking Copout

  • Members
  • 1,156 posts

Posted 26 March 2003 - 04:32 PM

These things seem to be rare on most boards.

Much agreed.
  • 0
2007 Great American GoreFest Champion (Aug. 4, Apoc)

#63 Ash

Ash

    Member

  • Members
  • 402 posts

Posted 26 March 2003 - 06:35 PM

We didn't stop in '91 because we thought we taught him a lesson, we stopped in '91 because that was the U.N. decesion.

North Korea is similair, but we have them under fairly tight observation. South Korea is basically and American military base and there are constant reconassiance missions being held as well as enough spying to take care of anything there. If something bad were to come of the situation there I'm sure we could handle it before it became much of a problem at all.

Jon, Jesus Christ man! Go back and read your post at least once before you send it. It really hurts my brain to read your posts... you have good ponits to make but the spelling and grammar!

And now back to your regularly programmed pants.
  • 0
Name's Ash, Housewares

#64 merlinski

merlinski

    Member

  • Members
  • 403 posts

Posted 26 March 2003 - 10:08 PM

I think that the situation in North Korea has only certain similarities, but it presents a whole different issue. I think its easier to contain because if Nuclear Weapons were ever used against the US or an Ally of the US, the response would be swift and extremely deadly. We can't exactly nuke Iraq if Saddam uses tactical chemical weapons, but if a strategic nuclear weapon is detonated by North Korea in the US, the amount of energy being released over North Korea will probably be in the gigatons.

There really is no gray area with Nuclear weapons, however there is a large gray area in the situation in Iraq when you talk about appropriate use of force.
  • 0

#65 Evil

Evil

    Fucking Copout

  • Members
  • 1,156 posts

Posted 27 March 2003 - 06:17 AM

I wonder what the French are going to have to say about North Korea. <_<
  • 0
2007 Great American GoreFest Champion (Aug. 4, Apoc)

#66 Guest_SentinalofNight_*

Guest_SentinalofNight_*
  • Guests

Posted 05 October 2003 - 08:35 PM

while youre worring about Iraq I have to beat this kid with a stick that breaks into my house every Saturday.
  • 0

#67 Grinch

Grinch

    Member

  • Members
  • 642 posts

Posted 05 October 2003 - 09:02 PM

while youre worring about Iraq I have to beat this kid with a stick that breaks into my house every Saturday.

I can't believe you brought up a 7 month old topic so you could tell us how you beat your neighbor with a stick.

Don't bring up old topics.
  • 0
Webmaster of Nerf World

Previously mrgrinch_nm!


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users