Are You For Or Against The War In Iraq?

1. Against the 'the war against terror' in Iraq.
2. It is upheld through lies and deceit for reasons that are dubious at best.

To those who believe that the reason was to remove a dictator who threatened the world with weapons of mass destruction, the human rights crisis in Sudan or Zimbabwe is our yard stick - lets see if those human beings get the same savour treatment from their oppressive dictators as those lucky Iraqis and their new land of the free; in fact there are many more people to free around the world, you've sure got your work cut out, get cracking!

Oh yeah, I heard that Robert Mugabe has weapons of mass destruction which he can launch in 45 minutes to your front door! (the best intelligence agencies in the world told me that, so it must be true)

[edit on 27-6-2005 by shanti23]

Originally posted by shanti23
To those who believe that the reason was to remove a dictator who threatened the world with weapons of mass destruction, the human rights crisis in Sudan or Zimbabwe is our yard stick - lets see if those human beings get the same savour treatment from their oppressive dictators as those lucky Iraqis and their new land of the free; in fact there are many more people to free around the world, you've sure got your work cut out, get cracking!

I believe in due time all dictators will be removed by the west!

Which is defnitly a good thing!

Besides beauty contests with contestants desiring to work for world peace, I've rarely seen such naivety.

Originally posted by Simon666
Besides beauty contests with contestants desiring to work for world peace, I've rarely seen such naivety.

Eh???

Mic

Originally posted by Identity_Unknown

I believe in due time all dictators will be removed by the west!

Which is defnitly a good thing!

Does that include the removal of dictators in the West as well?

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar
Does that include the removal of dictators in the West as well?

I am not agreeing with Identity_Unknown here but would like to know which dictators you mean!

Mic

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar
Does that include the removal of dictators in the West as well?

Which dictators would that be?

And yes it would include the removal of dictators in the west.
Dictatorships are wrong and should be stopped.....

I did not agree with going to war in Iraq. However, now that we are there, I believe we have to follow up and finish the job, however unpleasant and difficult.

We have a responsibility, and just because our leadership's judgement was poor (both, in my opinion, in getting into this thing, and in our expectations and assumptions) does not mean that now that when the going gets tough, the US has any other choice but to get going and clean up this mess.

I was adamently against the war. I always knew this was all an excuse, so pardon me for a few "Ha I told you so!"s. Of COURSE this is about oil. Not necessarily in the "Neo-cons are getting rich" sort of way (though that's certainly a neat little win win for some of them), and of COURSE this is about setting global precident and insuring the USA is THE superpower of the world. It IS Imperalism, though, I think that's an emotional misuse of the term, but it makes its points.

I believe that we tarnish the ideals of this country by mislabeling them, shouting about Freedom and Democracy, when instead it's really all about money, and spreading Capitolism (that's not to say there isn't freedom in an open market, but that's not what I'm saying here). And while I understand that we wish to prosper and for our people to thrive, eat well, have a good life, but I wonder - at what expense? And at what moral right?

When does might make right?

Sure, world stability is in all our best interests. OIL stability is in all our best interests. But anyone that thinks that we're acting selflessly is ignorant or naive.

It's what we have a government for, to look after our interests. And certainly, in this day and age, our interests more and more ARE global. We talk about Monroe Doctrine and staying out of global affairs, but is that really possible in this day and age?

So where do we draw the line between our interests, other country's interests, and global interests?

We don't have the greatest of histories regarding some of the deeds we've done in the name of our best interests. South America anyone?

So who watches the watchmen? If you ask me, I think WE do. You and I, and every American citizen. So forgive me if I pass a criticial eye on my government. It's my duty to question.

No one wants to be proud of America more than I do. I want us to do the right things for the RIGHT reasons.

Perhaps I'm a bit of an idealist. But I think we fell short of the measure here. Can we enable a better future? Find a balance, compromise?

I don't have all the answers. If I did I'd be running for office.

I guess I should have posted here heh.

I've been opposed to the present war in Iraq from the start. Recently, however, I have changed my mind. After the 2005 Iraq elections I became skeptical about protesting the war. Now I have come to agree with the war in Iraq. Here's my reasoning:

An estimate of 3,000 people died on the 11th of September 2001. Now, the United States cannot let the most catastrophic event since Pear Harbor go without action; especially since most of the deaths were civilians, as opposed to Pearl Harbor.

Now, the US gov't knows those responsible are fundementalist terrorists. The problem, is that they are all decentralized and not all of them are under one roof.

Proceed with Operation: Wipe out Terrorists

Now the US government has intelligence indicating that a high population of terrorists resides within this green circle: (Circle is not drawn to scale!)



Proceed with invasion of those countries in the green circle. One by One.


The US gov't knows that this is going to be a very controversial action. So they go after Afghanistan first, target : The taliban who refused to turn over the suspects. The US gov't knew that the taliban was never going to turnover the suspects anyway, so they were already ready for war.

After Afghanistan, it was always going to be Iraq next. It was a good choice really as the next candidate for invasion. Iraq had a weak military, no real allies, and had a totalitarian regime with a sinister dictator. So Iraq would be next, and so it was.

My Conclusion:
The US gov't did "sugarcoat" the real reasoning for invading Iraq because the US Gov't apparentlly still considers the American people as children, and treats us as so. However, I do believe the US government is looking out for its citizens.

My prediction for the next invasion after the smoke clears in Iraq? Iran. And I will fully support this war campaign until we have cleaned house.

[edit on 7/6/2005 by Mike at ATS]

I am for the war in Iraq and was even before it bush proposed it. I think that area of the world needs to be cleaned up.

Originally posted by Mike at ATS
Here's my reasoning:

You call that reasoning? if you cannot let 9-11 go without action, how about attacking those responsible, which were largely Saudis and NOT ONE SINGLE IRAQI? You seem to believe the US is going to invade the countries in the green circle. Well have I got a newsflash for you: AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN. Only those that are hostile to Israel and not open to US oil companies like Syria and Iran are going to get harassed. Even that is dubious by the way as Iraq is a disaster that has shown the entire world the limits of US power: the US can depose regimes at will but can't make the country work afterwards.

Originally posted by iksmodnad
I am for the war in Iraq and was even before it bush proposed it. I think that area of the world needs to be cleaned up.

Well, so far you only made a bigger mess.

[edit on 6-7-2005 by Simon666]

Originally posted by Simon666

Originally posted by Mike at ATS
Here's my reasoning:

You call that reasoning? if you cannot let 9-11 go without action, how about attacking those responsible, which were largely Saudis and NOT ONE SINGLE IRAQI? You seem to believe the US is going to invade the countries in the green circle. Well have I got a newsflash for you: AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN. Only those that are hostile to Israel and not open to US oil companies like Syria and Iran are going to get harassed. Even that is dubious by the way as Iraq is a disaster that has shown the entire world the limits of US power: the US can depose regimes at will but can't make the country work afterwards.
[edit on 6-7-2005 by Simon666]

We are going to deal with the Saudis in time; Next in line though is Iran, then Syria etc... (not necessarily by military invasion means mind you)

I've got a newsflash for you, IT WILL HAPPEN MUAHAHAHAHAHAH!

Seriously though, I'm going by Wikipedia reasoning:

Many staff and supporters within the Bush administration had other, more ambitious goals for the war as well. Many propagated the claim that the war could act as a catalyst for democracy and peace in the Middle East, and that once Iraq became democratic and prosperous other nations would quickly follow suit due to this demonstration effect, and thus the social environment that allowed terrorism to flourish would be eliminated. However, for diplomatic, bureaucratic reasons these goals were played down in favor of justifications that Iraq represented a specific threat to the United States and to international law. Little evidence was presented actually linking the government of Iraq to al-Qaeda.

en.wikipedia.org...

^That is the reason the American people should have been presented with, not the "smoking gun" horsecrap. The US government still percieves the American people to be children, and treats us as such.

"We know the terrorists are in the Middle East. Beyond that we can't get anymore specific as to where exactly the terrorists actually are, so we might as well cover the whole area just to make sure we get them."

Originally posted by iksmodnad
I think that area of the world needs to be cleaned up.

Agreed!

Needless to say, some will remain apathetic and passive until a terrorist attack comes knocking at their door.. We'll see just how passive and peaceful they are then about leaving the Middle East alone.



[edit on 7/6/2005 by Mike at ATS]

1. Because i´m not from states,uk or australia do i even need to answers this?-D..well..against the war.

2. If giving a paranoid explanation: Osama is working for bush&co and the terrorism spook is partly made up and partly created. By osama for his half and by media for their half.
Russia saw this clever idea and used it to get proper reason for war in tchetsenia (real reason was the oilpipe going throught the country).
And afganistan was only taken so that start of the war would look like there would be reason for all of this.
After iraq the oil become mainly reason. And the fact usa hasn´t got intentions to leave just makes it harder to believe there would be some other reason for all of this but oil. Iran shall be next but i doubt usa has resources to wage war in a third country.

2b. Now the not so paranoid explanation. Ok let´s try to think that usa dumps away the oil what is transferred from iraq and the whole deal is to just bring democracy to iraq.
Well, the idea isn´t working. Iraqis are all pissed off that they are prisoners in their own country and at the same time in religious point of view it seems that it´s just a big new crusade. So now it´s jihad going on, and that´s not good. I´m not even going to speculate the way rest of the world now thinks about usa.
Also by economical half, the oil isn´t yet paying the expenses of this tragic event. War isn´t cheap u know, and when bankers around world own usa it´s clear that your economic collapse will be ours too. So it would be clever to cut the losses and let them build their country for their own. But that wouldn´t solve oil peak.
So to end this gibberish of mine: brown material hitted the fan and now wheels are rolling, and there is no way going back.
ps. sorry if this looks ranting or something, i tried to be neutral on the case. But it´s hard .
-aape

Originally posted by Mike at ATS
We are going to deal with the Saudis in time

Errrr.......How about no!

Why would we disturb a somewhat fragile relationship with the only half sane country in the Middle-East?

We will leave Saudi alone, they are of no use to us and they are to big to invade!

I agree anout Iran though, although an invasion is not the right answer!

Well, so far you only made a bigger mess.

all wars are messy you got to look at things in the long run.

Originally posted by Identity_Unknown

Originally posted by Mike at ATS
We are going to deal with the Saudis in time

Errrr.......How about no!

Why would we disturb a somewhat fragile relationship with the only half sane country in the Middle-East?

We will leave Saudi alone, they are of no use to us and they are to big to invade!

I agree anout Iran though, although an invasion is not the right answer!

Gosh. Like I said, not necessarily by military means.

It's a proverbial "quagmire" without clear direction from our leadership...

A question for all my fellow Brits that do not support the war.....

Do you support the 'War On Terror' now that OUR homeland has been attacked?

Originally posted by Identity_Unknown
A question for all my fellow Brits that do not support the war.....

Do you support the 'War On Terror' now that OUR homeland has been attacked?

No, why?
The "war on terror" has been going on for over 200 years.
This is but another strike at our homeland, It would have made no diffrence if we didnt or did support the war in terror, we still would have been attacked.

Originally posted by Identity_Unknown
Do you support the 'War On Terror' now that OUR homeland has been attacked?

Although i already support the 'war on terror', why would i have changed my mind after the London bombings?

The UK has been being attacked for decades, and we've never hit back hard, so why should we now?

Mic