Are You For Or Against The War In Iraq?

Originally posted by Carseller4
The World Trade Center was originally attacked in 1993. For 8 years, the US policy was to treat terrorists as common criminals, to be taken care of by the justice system.

9/11/01 changed all that, instead of waiting to prosecute them after they attack, we took the attack to them.

The hell it was. For over a decade think tanks, and planners had been pushing books on the subject of a major terrorist attack INCLUDING with planes - no one listened. No one listened to the likes of Marcinko and other CT EXPERTS such as Wegener who had been engaging jihadist aresholes for years. Day late and a dollar short.

Doesn't help much when you train, equip, and finance the bastards in the first place. And taking the attack to them? No, we defined ourself to the entire damn jihad market! There should have been no media, no invasion BS. The men who have been trained in CT (DELTA, DEVGRU) for years should have been unleashed on the SOB's while ODA teams provided constant targets. Instead we do everything arse backwards because the men in charge are playboy swinging, desk jockeys, who sneer at the knuckle draggers and get off on sending chess pieces into historical glory, while Venture firms make million dollar deals and insure retirement from oil and contracts! Patton would have been proud. Babylon in three weeks. Dumb #es everywhere.

Get on your knees, look between your legs, give a big kiss, look in the mirror - thats us.

I opposed this war before it started for many reasons.

I served in the Gulf during operation Desert Eagle, where we spent 10 years bombing the crap out of Iraq. When I was there, we werent even too worried anymore about Iraq, we were watching the Iranians more because they started becoming alot more active. I knew there were no WMDs as Bush claimed there were in Iraq. We practically destroyed most of it. So I knew WMD were a lie.

I also knew that our forces were simply not in the kind of shape needed to fight an efficient war. Clinton's time in office saw a slow, steady deterioration in the military of morale, ethics, priorities, ect. I knew that before we could even consider a campaign anywhere, the damage done during the PC-mad 90's Clinton army needed to be undone, that things like pride, ethics, discipline, respect, and military bearing needed to be re-instated and morale brought up. We see the effects of that in Iraq with such things like Abu Ghraib, which to me is a sign of breakdown in cohesion, respect, and proper training on the Geneva conventions. When I first enlisted in 91, the Geneva conventions was taught extensively and ingrained into our heads. By the time I got out under the Clinton admin, we were spending time in "sensitivity training" classes instead, where we learned new policies about "offending people with bad language" instead of the Laws of Warfare.

I am also an isolationist. As far as I am concerned, as soon as the Soviet Union fell, NATO should have went the same way. All our forces in Europe and then Asia should have been brought home. I was opposed to the NATO campaign in the Balkans. That should have been left to the EU to deal with. I did not want to be stationed in Germany, and most American soldiers simply wanted to get stationed back home.

I also did not and still do not believe Saddam was ever a threat of any signifigance to the US, or even his neighbors. WE decimated him. He was dust. All the money and blood spent on this whole war was simply not worth removing someone of little value. There are far bigger thresats to the safety of the US that should have been dealt with. Eventually, Saddam would have regained his power and gone after Israel and Iran again (and I say, do you think I really care?) or he would have collapsed or been overthrown. He could have waited.

Of course, I cant really be lumped into the anti-war camp on this board, since alot of anti-Iraq war people on here are also vehemently anti American. I did not oppose this war because I hate America, I oppose this war because I love America, and this war is not good for us. I also do not believe that Democracy and Stability are ever possible in the Middle East, not with the current mentality. If they want to live under religous or secular tyrants, let them, its not my business.

But that money and all those soldiers over there would be off much better here at home. At least here, we appreciate having our soldiers around, and their country needs them at the Mexican and Canadian borders, not in Iraq to draw gunfire from religous crazies while the Axis of Cheney and his Haliburton panzers loot the oil fields and get even richer.

Originally posted by the_oleneo
Again, I stated this to you: I don't think you truly grasp the reality of every economy around the world is entirely dependent on oil.

In addition, right down to the marco-economic level. Your life.

Such are the ways of the human civilization.

[edit on 5/19/2005 by the_oleneo]

My question still stands.

Originally posted by Parmenides
If you were in no position to start war why not support the Czech and let them fight?

How could we support them?

For "Peace in our lifetime"? You were commited to the them. If you can't fight and fullfill your obligation, why betray them?

We couldnt fufil the obligation. simple as that.

Originally posted by WeBDeviL
devil -

Perhaps...I don't believe the rhetoric, I'm afraid. Though I do not follow blindly, and I will say this: This war was fought with some militaristic blunders, which anyone could have pointed out.

Also, the justifications for war could have been better if they were really lying. But the simple fact that they posed things that would seem so blatantly false raises a question: What if it's the truth?

-wD

If it is the truth then I'd be ashamed of not believeing my government and take back everything I said.


[edit on 26/02/2005 by devilwasp]

Originally posted by the_oleneo
That is a very simple-minded and very narrowed view, completely absent of any understanding of the larger geo-economic and geo-political matters on the planet.

Not all oil is based on people driving their vehicles. It's much more than that. Obviously you aren't exactly well-schooled.

So you are telling me that people can drive their cars without oil?
The car is an example of what oil is used for, i know full well that oil (and its distilled fractions) is used in many more applications and that without it there would be many things we couldn't do or would have to do differently. Our economy is oil based, and this is a major problem with our economy, no matter how many oilfields we secure now the oil will run out, and even if it some how doesn't if we don't start using less of it we are going to destroy the planet anyway.

Originally posted by the_oleneo
Well, if you are ready to live the life of pre-industrial 19th century lifestyle[...]

Stopping our dependence on oil would not send us back to the pre-industrial 19th century lifestyle, infact by your own statement you seem to lack knowledge of what powered the industrial revolution, coal.
The fact is that we could replace oil as a means of powering cars, producing electricity, the basis of plastic and many other things it is now used for, there just doesn't seem to be much political will to do it.

As for the 'well schooled' comments, you have absolutely no idea of how well, or not, I was schooled. The fact that you seem to be willing to allow your government to kill people to contnue an unsustainable way of life (not necessarily your way of life) seems pretty uneducated to me.

Originally posted by cmdrpaddy
So you are telling me that people can drive their cars without oil?
The car is an example of what oil is used for, i know full well that oil (and its distilled fractions) is used in many more applications and that without it there would be many things we couldn't do or would have to do differently. Our economy is oil based, and this is a major problem with our economy, no matter how many oilfields we secure now the oil will run out, and even if it some how doesn't if we don't start using less of it we are going to destroy the planet anyway.

No, the major problem with our economy (yours or mine, respectively) is run by people schooled in various methods and means of which to use different energy sources to maximize the bottom line: profits. It's not just the government or the corporation, it's the people BEHIND 'em.

Originally posted by cmdrpaddy
Stopping our dependence on oil would not send us back to the pre-industrial 19th century lifestyle, infact by your own statement you seem to lack knowledge of what powered the industrial revolution, coal.

Woe to my poor knowledge. Of course, coal was the primary source of energy before oil. However, it is poisonous and toxic to us and to the environment.

Originally posted by cmdrpaddy
As for the 'well schooled' comments, you have absolutely no idea of how well, or not, I was schooled. The fact that you seem to be willing to allow your government to kill people to contnue an unsustainable way of life (not necessarily your way of life) seems pretty uneducated to me.

Your previous comments suggested to me the appearance of being narrow-minded. The above comment of yours reinforced it.

Originally posted by cmdrpaddy
The fact is that we could replace oil as a means of powering cars, producing electricity, the basis of plastic and many other things it is now used for, there just doesn't seem to be much political will to do it.

The problem here is that political will doesn't fit into a democratic equation. Corporations run our economy. No producy cars and planes, no producy jobs. Everything works hand in hand. A board of Directors for a corporation IS NOT going to seek expensive alternative means of doing business, such as a main assembly line building tansmissions, - when a transmission runs on transmission fluid, when that means does not exist.

Who is going to pay for it?

Without the government stepping in and MAKING corporations find alternative methods - it's not going to happen until one of the big boys figures it out and profits from doing it. Corporations and inventors have always led the way in doing business simply because they have R&D money from PROFITS to do just that. So will we eat up all the oil first - yes and go synthetic while doing it.

Another main point here on the war against Iraq is the surrounding statements of peak oil. Although we are not at peak oil, and these debates are used to distract from the real Venezuela, OPEC foreign policy issues, one should see clearly that oil will of course run dry.

Why would anyone think that the war in Iraq against a dictator we have placed in power and sanctioned, on the seond largest oil field on the planet, would not be over oil? Liberating Iraqi's has got to be the worse excuse out there seeing that we sold the nerve agents to Sadaam who used them, not to mention the slow starvation our sanctions had caused on the Iraqi's over a decade. Liberation was just a justification to seize commodities that are running dry.

China is going to be using unprecedented amounts of oil over the next fifty years. if we did not seize Iraqi oil that would've provided too much power to OPEC in the eyes of washington, (especially those who will profit before the wells run dry). Why do you think there has been an all out race to build a pipeline through Afghansitan and to seize up all oil contracts from former soviet satellites like Kazahkstan and Uzbekistan? Why do you think The soviets have taken their own initiative to strengthen ties with Iran, an OPEC member, and nationalise their own oil fields?

Every economist knows China is going to be the major consumer and everyone is scrambling to get a piece. I don't feel sorry for the dillusional hare brains that believe all the CA propaganda. Thats why there is harvard and yale as compared to community college. Thats why there is the War college as compared to NCO school. There are the leaders who want the power and glory and have been educated how to get it, and there are the suckers who believe in, and justify what they are sold.



[edit on 20-5-2005 by vincere7]

1. No, I'm not in support of attacking Iraq.

2. Because there was no threat to the US, and I believe in a strict noninterference policy. Let the rest of the world settle their own problems. It's not our job to police the world, nor to get involved in their problems. I'm down with the Prime Directive.

[edit on 20-5-2005 by Moe Foe]

I am totally against the war on Iraq.

We should never attack o go to war unless we are attacked first, and then only to defend ourselves. We killed a million Iraqies(most of them children) during the sanctions. We then killed 100,000 people since the second time w went to war on them. THIS IS THE USA, we are not supposed to do things like attack another country for profit and to put bases in a strategic area. This is the act of an evil godless country.

We helped arm them, and were there buddies. Since then the government in the first Iraq war decided we had to have those resources secured for our future use. Kuwait used to be part of Iraq and Saddam asked our permission to invade that country, he was our puppet and we gave him the green light just to set him up.

What we have done to those poor people is a LOT worst than what Saddam did to them. Saddam never used depleted uranium on his people. He did not starve his people to death and deny them medicine for neary ten years.

We have accomplished only death destruction and made the orld a much more dangerous place. This is what these monsters that are running things want. If we have a terror attack(actually done by another country but our own) it will give them carte blanche to fleece the US of our wealth and finally the blind patriots will sell out the rest of our freedom. Americans being able to ask hard questions and hold the governments feet to the fire has been a big problem for the people that really run things. They want this to end and with it any freedom and power any of the common people around the world may still hold.

We are headed for dark times my friends, a modern Dark Ages. The middle class will disapear, freedom will disapear forever and will never come back. We have been set up and as soon as someone commits a big terror act on the USA martial law will ensue, the terror alert will go to red and you will need a reason for leaving your home and will need to have your papers in order.

1. Im against it

2. because firstly I am not a stockholder and secondly it is obviously wrong and twisted.

I am against war in Iraq. And since we're talking about it I'll allow myself to point out some facts.

1) By starting this war, the anti-Iraqi coalition - US, Great Britain, Australia and Poland - have committed a crime against peace. Not to mention the fact that UN Secy.-Gen. said that the war in Iraq is illegal.
2) By stealing, the crew of the Polish ship ORP Xawery Czernicki has committed war crimes. By torturing prisoners, the American and British soldiers have committed war crimes.

In short: the US, Great Britain, Australia and Poland are criminal countries. Too bad that they won't be judged by the Hague Tribunal.

Just out of interest, where do you live AtheiX?

DO I SUPPORT THE WAR

Price of mobilisation of the coalition of the willing - 16 billion
Ongoing costs - 82 billion and counting
Saddam caught in a hole like a rat - Priceless

For everything else there's Mastercard

Originally posted by accidental tourist
Saddam caught in a hole like a rat - Priceless

Not priceless for me. I'd rather have seen him dead by a .308 rnd (box for less than $20.00) by a DELTA sniper, not alive and kicking with a $200 billion tab.

It's definitely not priceless. It's costing us a fortune, and for nothing.

costofwar.com...

originally posted by LoneGunMan
What we have done to those poor people is a LOT worst than what Saddam did to them. Saddam never used depleted uranium on his people. He did not starve his people to death and deny them medicine for neary ten years.

No he just executed anybody that looked at him!

He may not have used depleted uranium on his people, but in 1988 Saddam used poison agents against the Kurdish town of Halabja near the Iranian border and when the US quizzed him over this he tried to blame Iran.

I would say that was alot worse than we will ever do to the Iraqi public!

Saddam was a massive threat to the world and he proved that from 1980 to 1988 when he repeatedly used chemical and biological weapons against Iran(Iran also used them). Saddam still remains the only man in history to use a nerve agent on the battlefield after in 1984 he launched Tabun filled aerial bombs into Iran.(One drop of this colourless/odourless nerve agent WILL kill a human)!!!!!


The reasons we were given to go to war by Blair/Bush were wrong, but that does not mean we should not have went to war.
Saddam needed to be taken from power and only the US/UK had the balls to do it!

Good on you Mr Bush!!!!!

So we should invade a country, kill hundreds and re-raise the country as we see fit because we dont like the way its run?

A B-2 and a tomahawk would have sorted him, a US or UK sniper team could have killed him from over a mile away.

Yet instead we kill and destroy to remove one man....one man!

Originally posted by devilwasp
So we should invade a country, kill hundreds and re-raise the country as we see fit because we dont like the way its run?

A B-2 and a tomahawk would have sorted him, a US or UK sniper team could have killed him from over a mile away.

Yet instead we kill and destroy to remove one man....one man!

Saddams regime was not ONE MAN!

If only Saddam had been taken out there were plenty more people willing to step up and continue his murderous ways. His sons were more than capable of running Iraq and were easily as evil as Saddam.

I agree that most of his followers could have been taken out by airstrikes/SAS/Delta Force etc, but that would have not left Iraq as a democratic state which it will be when we leave!

Originally posted by MickeyDee
Saddams regime was not ONE MAN!

No, but he was the head that kept them together and in line, remove that control and the old rivalry will come back.
If not, another few tomahawks or snipers would sort them out.

If only Saddam had been taken out there were plenty more people willing to step up and continue his murderous ways. His sons were more than capable of running Iraq and were easily as evil as Saddam.

A few more sniper shots or tomahawks would have done it.

I agree that most of his followers could have been taken out by airstrikes/SAS/Delta Force etc, but that would have not left Iraq as a democratic state which it will be when we leave!

What makes you think they want democracy?