Why A War Against Irak Is Wrong

[ketoprak]

Originally posted by j2k4@11 March 2003 - 20:37
ketoprak-
I'm so sorry, I wasn't aware that the reasons for going to war were complete fabrications; thank you for relieving me of my ignorance. I stand chastized, enlightened, AND STILL IN FAVOR OF TAKING HUSSEIN OUT!

Your sarcasm seems to be only the sign of your ignorance. You may be living in a country without a free press. Since you have access to the internet, you may consider reading some alternative newspaper and you'll find the info about Blair & Bush faking evidences about Al-qaeda links & Iraq's nuclear program.

BTW, I was really pleased to read the New York Times editorial position on Iraq. It seems at last that some US journalists are begining to see the sitaution as it really is. you can read it here.

[-=M3th0d=-]

Paul, VB etc. i think this topic has been pretty much discussed to its maximum potential, if anyone has any comments they should probably post them in either 'why i think this war is wrong' or 'why i think this war is right'. Im not going to give my opinion here cos i have done so already, and form experience with the last time this was discussed, its only going to lead to flaming.

People just accept that different people have different points of view - there are arguments for and against this war, and you can shout them till your blue in the face but you cant expect everyone to agree with you, and if they dont it doesnt make them bad or evil or stupid or anything, it makes them an individual.

My point - if you have an opinion, say it once and dont get drawn into a flaming war with someone who doesnt agree with you, but honestly i think this topic should be closed.

[j2k4]

I agree-tired,tired,tired
Events will take their course; perhaps there will be more "truth" after the fact.
Ketoprak-if either of us remembers, why don't we try to match notes after whatever "happens" happens?

[Ron]

Originally posted by hypoluxa3k@11 March 2003 - 18:38
the ku'ran clearly states that you need to be 'firm' with your aggressor.
us muslims are peaceful people...unless we are provoked.

The Koran is just a book that can be interpreted in many different ways.
Most interpretations are used for selfish reasons however.
The Islam today, is where Christianity was in the Middle Ages.
The only problem is that we have all these weapons of mass destruction now.....and people willing to use them.
If you call killing tens of thousands of Kurds peaceful, then you have a twisted sense of ethics, dude.
Bombing pubs and markets, filled with INNOCENT civilians in Israel is peaceful too?
You scare the shit out of me.
As far as the provocation goes, some people are provoked quite easily.
Just go into a bar and look at some guys twice. They WILL be provoked.

I live in Belgium, and my sheer existance seems to be a provocation to the Arabs here.
If you want to talk peaceful religion, think about Bouddhists. Now THAT is a truly peaceful religion! Ever had a problem with one of those people?
I haven't.

[Ynhockey]

Hmm, let's see...

Why shouldn't the US go to war with Iraq ?
1) The US has acted as "world's mother" (simply no other way to describe it) long enough - it has to stop some day.
2) It's just going to result the deaths of many innocent people, and probably will have the same outcome as the last gulf war - the loss of Saddam, but no political change in Iraq.
3) Bush is just like Hussein except he's not a dictator. I haven't seen Bush do one thing that i would want a president of my country to do (thankfully, i don't live in Bush's country). Why shouldn't Bush and Hussein both be eliminated ?
4) Half the world is against this war, so why start it ?

Why should the US go to war with Iraq ?
1) There's a chance of actually achieving something, like eliminating the chemical weapons or killing Hussein.
2) Since Iraq supplies weapons to many terrorist organizations, maybe this will be like 'eliminating the problem from its source', and even though Russia will still sell weapons to Iraq (most likely), cutting Iraq's ammunition supply can be a direct blow to terrorist organizations around the world.
3) It's a fact that most Iraqis only know what's going on from Arabic sources (Arabic TV, newspapaers, etc.), and there's a lot of propaganda there, even more than on CNN, BBC and other such stations. Therefore, many Iraqis prepare to be 'live martyrs' for Saddam when they don't even know what the whole deal is about. A lot do know, but they trust only the 'Arabic sources' and disregard everything else. Again, that's a fact, whether we like it or not.
4) Can't think of any more major reasons, except that it will benefit Israel a whole lot - because of the Palestinians, Israel lost so much - the safety (yes, Israel was completely safe at some point), the economy - they took off a little from every aspect of Israeli lives. Since i live in Israel, i would greatly like to see Saddam eliminated (he clearly had a link with Arafat and the PLO).

So, which reasons are greater ? Neither are. But nevertheless, I'd like to see the 'Iraqi threat' eliminated. It's too bad that some innocent people will either willfully die, or just perish in the crossfire, there's nothing i personally can do for them. But if those people don't die, along with Saddam Hussein, the world would be much more dangerous for everyone else and then innocent non-Muslims will die. Therefore, it's either us or them - no better way to describe it. So i'm for the war.

[Rat Faced]

Originally posted by kAb@11 March 2003 - 16:28
Why we SHOULD go to war with Iraq

1) Saddam Hussein has gassed his own people. killed hundreds of thousands of his own people.
2) he was not democratically elected
3)is OBVIOUSLY hiding weapons of mass destruction. ( i don't want to get into this to much but i will if you really want me to)
4)It has been known for more than 10 years that saddam has ties to al-qaeda.
5) remember 9/11? when bush knew that there was a threat from al-qaeda, and everyone is pissed that he didn't alert the public or try to stop it? well, now he IS alerting the public. sounds like a real threat that the cia discovered, now Bush doesn't want another 9/11 does he? so he is alerting America.
6)watch powell's speech, very convincing.
7) why did saddam not mention the long range missles in his 12,000 page document? if he has those not mentioned, it is scary to think of what else he might have.

i recently watched an MTV show/interview thing with tony blair, and in it a 16 year old guy (who lives in Iraq) was almost crying to the tony blair to help him and his family by taking out saddam, and not letting him continue his reign of terror.

if you don't think he should be taken out of power, then you must be stupid.

edit: and o, if you don't want to think of it as war, you can think of it as cops going after a huge crime organizations. you do think think that cops should get rid of crime organizations don't you?

WTF?

Can I ask you some questions, instead of answering your comments?

To your points:

1/ So why did the USA sell him all those chemicals AFTER he did this? Isn't this like getting mugged by the shopkeeper after buying your groceries?

2/ So why did the USA support him so avidly until Desert Storm? Seems there are a LOT of dictators where they are only because of US help getting there, none of them are renowned for their Human Rights record.

3/ Really? Well USA should know, i mean they SOLD them to him....

4/ Yes he has...He shoots any members he finds, so thats a tie of sorts. Al-Queda bomb Iraq more than any other country. They are FUNDAMENTALIST muslems, this is a Secular Islamic State....ie to Al Queda, he is a traitor to his Faith. In fact, after Desert Storm, the USA had to STOP Al-Queda finishing the job (coz they were another US ally at the time...which only existed because of the USA ). This being the case should UK try and invade Germany now?

I mean the IRA have bombed Germany before...so its just asking for it...it has ties.

5/ Dont you think if Bush knew and didnt try to stop it, then blaming a country going through terrorism by THE SAME PEOPLE all the time and didnt know about it, is a little off target even for the USA?

6/ The part where he praised the UK 'evidence' written by a student 10 years ago?

Yeh..that really convinced me too. I especially liked the 'taped telephone conversation too'..."Bury the Ammo", "What Ammo?", "You know THE Ammo", "The chemicals?", "Yeh, they're the ones"....I mean everyone knows the military of every country speaks like that on unsecure lines when they KNOW they are being tapped...

7/ The 'Long Range' missiles you are talking about are not designed to go that far. They are designed to have maximum range under that set by the treaty. It took all the US technological know how to change it to exceed this range.....so are you saying that Iraq is as technologicaly advanced as the USA? I think i'd question that one....


Wow MTV? We all know what a ROCK of investigative journalism MTV is; must be right. How could I even doubt anything comming out of those secred studios?

I wonder how a couple of normal UK 'protesters' only managed to get "Because I think Im right, and everyone else must be wrong" out of him, on a 1/2 hour program HE asked for to try and convince them the war was right? Interesting that the evidence was SOOOO strong that more people were against war AFTER the program than there was BEFORE it..

But you sure have convinced me kAb.....



Oh by the way, I think your Avatar is VERY offensive, could you please change it?

Thankyou

RF


PS

Oh yes...

Why dont you try offering a refund on the Goods that the USA have now found to be inappropiate, instead of just confiscating and destroying them? Im sure this would work....no one likes being 'taken' by the Grocer.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Rat Faced@12 March 2003 - 21:02
[1/  So why did the USA sell him all those chemicals AFTER he did this?  Isn't this like getting mugged by the shopkeeper after buying your groceries?

2/  So why did the USA support him so avidly until Desert Storm?  Seems there are a LOT of dictators where they are only because of US help getting there, none of them are renowned for their Human Rights record.

3/  Really?  Well USA should know, i mean they SOLD them to him....

4/  Yes he has...He shoots any members he finds, so thats a tie of sorts. Al-Queda bomb Iraq more than any other country.  They are FUNDAMENTALIST muslems, this is a Secular Islamic State....ie to Al Queda, he is a traitor to his Faith.  In fact, after Desert Storm, the USA had to STOP Al-Queda finishing the job (coz they were another US ally at the time...which only existed because of the USA ).  This being the case should UK try and invade Germany now?

I mean the IRA have bombed Germany before...so its just asking for it...it has ties.

5/  Dont you think if Bush knew and didnt try to stop it, then blaming a country going through terrorism by THE SAME PEOPLE all the time and didnt know about it, is a little off target even for the USA?

6/ The part where he praised the UK 'evidence' written by a student 10 years ago?

Yeh..that really convinced me too.  I especially liked the 'taped telephone conversation too'..."Bury the Ammo", "What Ammo?", "You know THE Ammo", "The chemicals?", "Yeh, they're the ones"....I mean everyone knows the military of every country speaks like that on unsecure lines when they KNOW they are being tapped...

7/  The 'Long Range' missiles you are talking about are not designed to go that far.  They are designed to have maximum range under that set by the treaty.  It took all the US technological know how to change it to exceed this range.....so are you saying that Iraq is as technologicaly advanced as the USA?  I think i'd question that one....


Wow MTV?    We all know what a ROCK of investigative journalism MTV is; must be right.  How could I even doubt anything comming out of those secred studios?

I wonder how a couple of normal UK 'protesters' only managed to get "Because I think Im right, and everyone else must be wrong"  out of him, on a 1/2 hour program HE asked for to try and convince them the war was right?    Interesting that the evidence was SOOOO strong that more people were against war AFTER the program than there was BEFORE it..

But you sure have convinced me kAb.....



Oh by the way, I think your Avatar is VERY offensive, could you please change it? 

Thankyou

RF


PS

Oh yes...

Why dont you try offering a refund on the Goods that the USA have now found to be inappropiate, instead of just confiscating and destroying them?  Im sure this would work....no one likes being 'taken' by the Grocer.

Ynhockey-
You done said it all; good to hear the Israeli perspective. I think it carries more weight than most.
Rat-let me try to answer you, point by point.
1. I don't recall ever hearing about the U.S. selling Saddam chemicals after he gassed the Kurds; where did you hear that? Odd point regarding the Kurds-he gassed them because he regarded them as "bastard Turks" who didn't deserve to live as Iraqis but invaded Kuwait because their land originally "belonged" to Iraq. Kuwait was also blessed with a shitload of oil-HMMMMM?
2 The U.S.A. originally supported Saddam as a regional ally in response to it's difficulties with Iran after the Shah fell and the Ayatollah started to get pissy with us. We didn't run a "background check" on him; he didn't like Iran, and that was fine with us, so we helped him. Afterwards, he started getting pissy too, but by then he had been agreeable long enough to have accumulated quite a formidable military. Things remained more or less status quo until he went into Kuwait. (Believe me, nobody here forgets that he couldn't have gotten where he is without U.S. help; that fact in no way mitigates the need to address the current problem). To complain about human rights not being our focus at the time.....Would you settle for a "mea culpa" and allow us to do something about it now?
3,4,5,6........

The rest I can't really make sense of; perhaps you could be a little more factually elaborate? A little less rhetorical, perhaps?

[kAb]

Edit: This is directed at RatFace's response.

1. I've never heard of these either...

At one point the USA did sell Iraq bombs. They made a very bad decision. Their main goal, was to fuck up iran. They weren't thinking of what iraq would do later with the weapons.

I don't agree with all that went on in the past, but it is the past. Now is now. iraq must be dealt with sooner than later.

4/ They don't bomb iraq more than any other country. NEVER HEARD THIS BEFORE. bin laden isn't tight with saddam, but many others sure are.

5. restate your sentence, i don't understand it. poor grammar.

6. Sadly, i wouldn't be suprised if the iraqi military is full of airheads not sure what to do with their "modified vehicles" etc.

7/ The 'Long Range' missiles ARE designed to exceed the treaty's set limits. Their technology isn't even close to ours, i don't know how you got it in your head about this.

The MTV show, wasn't really an MTV show, it just put it on the air by them. it was a show in the UK where teens asked Tony Blair questions. did i not make this clear?
There were many opinions on this program and i thought it was done very well. All sorts of questions were asked, for the war and against. I suggest you watch it sometime.

How is my avatar offensive? I see it as a remembrance of what was once there. If you think it is "offensive", obviously you don't realize the significance of the architecture of the buildings. my avatar is marveling at what was once a reality. I don't see how it could possibly be offensive, and i refuse to take it down.

[j2k4]

kAb-
I believe your avatar is spectacular; I recommend anyone demanding you take it down be de-bagged and radished.
(Where do you think Ratface is doing his posting from? I have a guess....)

It's very good to have my historical recollections confirmed-thanks.

[ketoprak]

Originally posted by Ynhockey@12 March 2003 - 20:16
because of the Palestinians, Israel lost so much

And reversely: because of Israel, the Palestinians lost so much.

Can't you see that also?