Are You For Or Against The War In Iraq?

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 18 2005 @ 03:49 PM
link   
1. Do you support the war in Iraq? (This also includes if you did but no longer do).

YES, but I don't support the WAY it is being fought. It's obvious that any plan for occupation and establishing government was half-assed at best, unplanned for at worst. I still support our troops though, it's the administration I have a beef with.

2. Why? (Your reasons for being for or against the war)!

a. It's obvious the years ahead are going to require more and more military actions in the region, and we'll need more options for deployment, which means US-agreeable governments. Terrorism didn't just start with 9/11, it's been brewing for decades, and 9/11 was just the spark.

b. Nobody denies Saddam needed to go. I disagree with it being touted as a main reason, for me, it was a secondary (bonus) objective. For those still claiming Saddam didn't sponsor terrorism, I'd remind them of those $10,000 checks that went to the family of every suicide bomber, etc. or the numerous reports of ex-Iraqi military speaking of terrorist training camps being allowed to operate in the country.

c. WMD - just to clarify, I REALLY have a problem being lied to. This excuse was the MAIN reason mentioned, and now it's bogus, in effect making the whole war illegal....despite the other objectives which I agree with.

d. Dollar vs. Euro, Saddam was really making a play in this little battle, so nice to see his hand called on it.



cjf

posted on May, 18 2005 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok

c. WMD - just to clarify, I REALLY have a problem being lied to. This excuse was the MAIN reason mentioned, and now it's bogus, in effect making the whole war illegal....despite the other objectives which I agree with.



I believe you have ‘hit the nail on the head’ for a large mass of people from around the globe with this specific point. Grappling with this issue this is going to take quite some time inside our era.


[edit on 18-5-2005 by cjf]



posted on May, 18 2005 @ 04:43 PM
link   
Jeez, some people who are against the war on Iraq here just don't get it.


They are focusing too much on the "horrible" and the "wrongness" aspects of the war, bland Saddam-not-as-a-threat argument, no-WMD-program BS, the weak-a**ed PC views of the whole affair.

Never mind the big picture.

Never mind the geopolitical reality of oil having a huge life-changing impact on the global economy, especially on the American economy and how Saddam have every intention to throw his little wrenches onto a global energy order managed by the OPEC/Saudis and stabilized by the US for years. Saddam's decision to switch from petrodollar to Euro in November 2000 was the biggest wrench he ever threw at.

People here just needed to look at the big picture instead of coming up with the same weak-a**ed PC arguments on how wrong and horrible the war is: www.silverbearcafe.com...

The American economy, heavily linked to the global economy, is far more important than that little war in Iraq. Even China's and EU's economies doesn't even come to close to the same level as the American economy. The global economy depends nearly 100% on oil and only the US can guarantee the stability of oil markets in the long run. Trust me, NO country can guarantee its stability as much as the US can, being the world's only superpower. Not even Russia.

Now Iran will be doing the same thing by switching from petrodollar to Euro later this year (or next year).



posted on May, 18 2005 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by the_oleneo
Now Iran will be doing the same thing by switching from petrodollar to Euro later this year (or next year).


Finally someone who knows whats really going on.

So are you basically saying that a country does not have the right to sell their lands natural resources how they see fit? That is imperialism. Hey at least you get whats going on though.



posted on May, 18 2005 @ 05:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by the_oleneo
Jeez, some people who are against the war on Iraq here just don't get it.



I think you'll find that the reason why many of the people are against the Iraq war is precisely the reason you mention. Im sorry but I do not support the machinations of those intent on the exploitation of the regular guy in order to make a quick buck.



posted on May, 18 2005 @ 05:42 PM
link   
1. NO!!

2. We have no justifiable reason to have started a war in Iraq. We started it and we should never have interfered with other countries in the first place. If they wanted our help, they would have asked for it!
George Bush is an idiot.

[edit on 18/5/2005 by Kitsunegari]



posted on May, 18 2005 @ 05:45 PM
link   
the_oleneo,
So its ok to kill to save yourselfs?
To slaughter millions so that you can have oil?



posted on May, 18 2005 @ 05:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kitsunegari
1. NO!!

2. We have no justifiable reason to have started a war in Iraq. George Bush is just an ididot.


Well you do have a perfectly jusitifiable reason... George Bush is just an ididot.



posted on May, 18 2005 @ 05:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by cmdrpaddy

Well you do have a perfectly jusitifiable reason... George Bush is just an ididot.


Don't you just love the persuasive arguments proffered by these antiwar types? My favorite is from a blog:



The world has many wrongs, and many wars, but there's only one wrong Iraq war.
"A wrong war like during the Iraq war was cannot just be sitted idly by by." --The Proprietor

The Iraq War Was Wrong Blog



posted on May, 18 2005 @ 05:54 PM
link   
yeah, i can definitely see the truth in your statement, cmdrpaddy. LOL



posted on May, 18 2005 @ 06:17 PM
link   


Don't you just love the persuasive arguments proffered by these antiwar types?

That wasn't an argument it was a pretty bad joke... hence the
and the



posted on May, 18 2005 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77

Originally posted by cmdrpaddy

Well you do have a perfectly jusitifiable reason... George Bush is just an ididot.


Don't you just love the persuasive arguments proffered by these antiwar types? My favorite is from a blog:



The world has many wrongs, and many wars, but there's only one wrong Iraq war.
"A wrong war like during the Iraq war was cannot just be sitted idly by by." --The Proprietor

The Iraq War Was Wrong Blog



1. You misattribute a statement to cmdrpaddy that belonged to Kitsunegari. Care with information and truth doesn't matter a damn in the Bush administration, but it does to some folks at ATS.

2. Thanks for the blog link. As "the Proprietor" at this blog says, he has come a long way since inception and while he is a walking grammatical malformity, the content of the blog site, especially that provided by guests, is superb, informative and at times entertaining reading. Thanks for the link, I enjoyed!

The Iraq War Was Wrong Blog


[edit on 18-5-2005 by MaskedAvatar]



posted on May, 18 2005 @ 06:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar
1. You misattribute a statement to cmdrpaddy that belonged to Kitsunegari. Care with information and truth doesn't matter a damn in the Bush administration, but it does to some folks at ATS.


I've made that mistake (accidently) before, but not here. What I quoted was indeed said by cmdrpatty, though referring to Kitsunegari's post. I didn't do a double quote because it's against the ATS T&C.

[edit on 5/18/2005 by djohnsto77]



posted on May, 18 2005 @ 06:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by cjf

Originally posted by Gazrok

c. WMD - just to clarify, I REALLY have a problem being lied to. This excuse was the MAIN reason mentioned, and now it's bogus, in effect making the whole war illegal....despite the other objectives which I agree with.



I believe you have ‘hit the nail on the head’ for a large mass of people from around the globe with this specific point. Grappling with this issue this is going to take quite some time inside our era.

[edit on 18-5-2005 by cjf]


i reckon those 'other objectives' were the determining factors in our (& the coalition-of-the-willings') willingness to employ the use of Force...which should have been held back as the-extreme-measure-of-last-resort !!
>>and therefore Avoided at all costs



posted on May, 18 2005 @ 06:46 PM
link   
For the war in Iraq.

1) Support the removal of Saddam Hussein and his genocidal ways.

2) Support the war because in FACT, WMDs were found by Dutch troops back in late 2003. It WAS covered in the news, however, it was later downplayed. Secondly, it is OBVIOUS Saddam has WMDs. He used them in the first Gulf War, against Kuwait, and against the Kurds. No denying that.

3) Some of the things done in the war, however, make me feel iffy about the war itself. From a military standpoint. (Abu-Ghraib, etc.)

-wD



posted on May, 18 2005 @ 06:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77

I've made that mistake (accidently) before, but not here. What I quoted was indeed said by cmdrpatty, though referring to Kitsunegari's post. I didn't do a double quote because it's against the ATS T&C.

[edit on 5/18/2005 by djohnsto77]




That's cool by me! I don't think it's a sign of "ididocy".

But realistically speaking there may be more ididots amongst the Proprietors of pro-war sites than amongst the Proprietors of anti-war sites.



posted on May, 18 2005 @ 06:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by WeBDeviL
For the war in Iraq.

1) Support the removal of Saddam Hussein and his genocidal ways.

So your admitting its because you didnt like their government?


2) Support the war because in FACT, WMDs were found by Dutch troops back in late 2003. It WAS covered in the news, however, it was later downplayed. Secondly, it is OBVIOUS Saddam has WMDs. He used them in the first Gulf War, against Kuwait, and against the Kurds. No denying that.

He had WMD's, no denying that.
What those WMD's where is a diffrent matter. nuclear project was KIA.
Chemical weapons existed but most of them where destroyed and the rest being destroyed.
The missiles to fire these where being run over by bull dozers.



posted on May, 18 2005 @ 07:14 PM
link   
I am against the war in Iraq for the following reasons.

a) The war is unjust.

b) It is being fought in a strategically erroneous manner

I consider these to reasons to be intertwined with one factor contributing to the other. The premise upon which this war was initiated, WMD, was found to be the result of doctored intelligence. This means that the conflict was initiated due to unnacceptable demands being made upon Iraq in much the same manner as Hitler used in Austria, Czechoslovakia and Poland. Another similarity is the chopping and changing of the initial motivations as each reason provided by the Bush administration is fount to be incorrect. Now the official reasons for this conflict have become that generalised and ambiguous such that the public has largely lost interest.

The strategic error I see in the Iraq conflict is the greatest shame of this crisis in my opinion. Our troops are fighting an unwinnable battle through the failure of the high command to learn its lessons from previous conflicts.
As in vietnam allied forces are fighting against an enemy who does not materially suort his own war effort. The support for the insurgents war efforts comes from benefactors who are, largely, unidentified and militarily inaccessible. As a result of the lack of action taken by the command in isolating the insurgents from their providers allied soldiers are placed in a position of unnacceptable risk and it seems that nothing is being done to improve their plight. Once again the PBI (Poor Bloody Infantry) is left to improvise some form of safety on its own.
Personally I believe that the removal of Saddam Hussein's despotic Bath regime was all along more suited to the capabilities of allied special forces rather than an all out military confrontation. It was quite obvious that the Iraqi military would be swiftly overrun by the vastly superior forces pitted against them and history shows us that in these instances the enemy will continiue to fight undrground. To defeat the insurgency in Iraq it is neccessary for the allies to go underground and beat the enemy at their own game.

The reason this is not being done seems to be tied in with the high levels of influence that major corporations have upon government policy. There is more money for Lockheed Martin, Enron etc in a drawn out conflict rather than a swift and efficient surgical strike at the vipers head.
Perpetuation of ths conflict deludes the gullible and relatively powerless governments into believing that it is neccessary to field ever more advanced and expensive equipment onto a battlefield where it began with total domination in the first place.

I just think that it is tragic that so many have to perish to line the already bulging pockets of big business.



posted on May, 18 2005 @ 07:25 PM
link   
I 100% support Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan and continuing operations there. The week I was getting out of the Navy the Cole was struck, and almost re-enlisted because of it. I've had dreams of how I would mount bin Ladens head on my mantle ever since. I was seething when there was no formidable reprisal by Clinton - that spoke volumes to me. I preceded to follow every report of him & his band of 40 thieves from then on(kept the clippings), Newsday & The Post were very consistent on updates after the Cole to pre-9/11. Then came that devastating day in the city and there's no going back.

However I do not support Operation Iraqi Freedom but I care deeply for our troops there that had no choice but to follow orders, hoping they come home or be reassigned to a more legitimate initiative, unlike the false bravado of those few on top that never risked their a$$ to defend this country, desperately seeking deferments & taking full advantage of their privileged status. My laserbeam focus & conviction refuses to be conveniently diverted like others, no apologies. I long for the day the cowardly UBL, Al Qaeda, Taleban, and all their rotten scumbag allies behind the Cole & 9/11 are forever wiped clean from the face of this good Earth. I absolutely 100% DO support Operation Saudi Freedom & the routing of the United Arab Emirates and would gladly endure market consequences. I refuse to put on a blindfold and be mislead because of others greedy agendas and grave mis-loyalties that are instrumental to spawning new legions of Al-Qaida scum every day. Emirates princes were present at bin Laden's camps providing support and were the reason we didn't make a move that would have saved thousands of Americans, Saudi royal money was funneled to 9/11 hijackers in the US that many seem to quietly dismiss or conveniently forget. Everyday, behind the veil our oil dollars get redistributed and help fund the Mutawwiin who teach the greatness of Wahhabism advocating our destruction to ever more impressionable minds. They are not our allies, don't be fooled and don't let your budget dictate your vigilance.

[edit on 18-5-2005 by Vajrayana]



posted on May, 18 2005 @ 08:13 PM
link   
(1) Yes


(2) Many reasons, mainly because it had to be done and Iraq was the best chance at success.





top topics
 
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join


Haters, Bigots, Partisan Trolls, Propaganda Hacks, Racists, and LOL-tards: Time To Move On.
read more: Community Announcement re: Decorum