To everyone against the Iraq War

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 05:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by RedWhiteandBlood
They are better oppurtunities for oil in the Gulf of Mexico and ANWAR. Yet they didn't pursue this. Why?

Because it wouldn't pass the US Senate, as has been evidenced already in 2003. The Iraq war was easily passed as noone dared to vote against it for fear of looking either unpatriotic and a terrorist appeaser.



Originally posted by Jedi_Master
Litle is not alone in that distinction. Between the time Saddam Hussein boosted his bonus payments to the families of Palestinian terrorists and the March 20, 2003 launch of Operation Iraqi Freedom, 28 homicide bombers injured 1,209 people and killed 223 more, including at least eight Americans. These bonus checks were handed out at ceremonies where banners proclaimed the friendship of the PLO’s Yasser Arafat and Saddam Hussein.

Nevermind that your president's best friends the Saudis did exactly the same thing and paid thousands of dollars to the families of suicide bombers. By the way, that is just moral support for the Palestinian cause, it doesn't buy terrorists any weapons, ammo, or explosives as by the time their families get it, they are DEAD.




posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 07:06 AM
link   



Nevermind that your president's best friends the Saudis did exactly the same thing and paid thousands of dollars to the families of suicide bombers. By the way, that is just moral support for the Palestinian cause, it doesn't buy terrorists any weapons, ammo, or explosives as by the time their families get it, they are DEAD.


That's actually a great point; the relationship the US has with Saudi Arabia is at best "ignoring their grave human rights violations", and at worst "supporting their human rights violations". Ever seen how women are treated in Saudi Arabia, compared to in Saddam's Iraq? Sure, the latter wasn't perfect, by any means (or even "good"), but there was a lot more personal freedom available to most woman than in Saudi Arabia - even in today's SA.

Once more we're seeing how one man's terrorist (in as much as the allegations of Saddam financially supporting Palestian fighters) is another man's freedom fighter. But what did Saddam do to suddenly make it so urgent that we invaded in such a manner? The excuses used seem rather less than viable, surely?

And the "you people" silliness? Please. I suppose I thought we'd gone beyond such inanity.



posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 07:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tinkleflower
Once more we're seeing how one man's terrorist (in as much as the allegations of Saddam financially supporting Palestian fighters) is another man's freedom fighter.

Corrections:

1. Anyone who blows up innocent civilians doesn't remotely qualify as freedom fighter.
2. Saddam didn't support the terrorists, but their family. Some may argue that payment to the family adds motivation, yet this conveniently ignores that Israel usually flattens the homes of the families as well as that it is nowhere to be noticed in the motivation of people who become suicide bombers.



posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 07:26 AM
link   
1. That's the point, perhaps. It's perception - the point of view obviously depends upon which side of the "fight" that person is supporting. It's not difficult to see how a suicide bomber fighting for the perceived injustices against his nation might be deemed a "freedom fighter" by his supporters, and a "terrorist" by his opposition. And whether or not we like to admit it, civilians have always been killed during conflicts ("legal" conflicts or otherwise). The Allies are guilty of the same; the only difference is we deem it acceptable loss because our government supports the military action therein.

2. See above; Providing financial support to the families of "fighters" killed in (insert conflict here) is not a new idea. The US has provided support to participants in various conflicts (and on various "sides"); where is the line drawn?

Again, I'm not disputing that Saddam was a dangerous man, nor that he needed to be removed at some point (though his people should have had more say in this). But the reasons we gave for going in just don't satisfy.



posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 08:17 AM
link   
Many of us never said that Bush did 9/11... we are aginist the war because bush lied ... a lot and the war so far is not worth it... we are just creating more terrorist...



posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 09:45 AM
link   
There are some things that amaze me as well.

1. The inability for many to see through the eyes of anyone beside themselves. The concept of 'Suicide Bomber' is horrific, but I am aware of the fact that they do not have access to aircraft carriers and tactical nukes and MOAB's. I can't see myself surrendering everything to a militarily superior invader I perceive to be a mortal enemy. I would exhaust every option before I gave up.

Is it at all possible that Saddam's way may have been the only way to bring stability to Iraq and it's surrounding region at this point in time? I don't know the answer to that, but there are so many variables we don't understand or are not even aware of. Iraq and the Middle East do not exist in a vacuum.

2. The inability for many to see how the actions of the U.S. may have caused the problem they are now fighting. The U.S. has been meddling in Middle East affairs for a long time. If there are many in the U.S. who believe that this has not all been for the benefit of the Middle Easterners, I'm sure even more Middle Easterners also feel this way. Many of them are TERRIFIED of the U.S. and its intentions.

I'll stop with just two for the time being.

As to Jedi Master's request to get our stories straight, I say this. I think it is of much more importance that those who are executing this war to get their stories straight. They are the ones whose actions are destroying the lives of thousands right now. They are the ones who have the information and decide what is made available to the public and what is deemed classified. With all the insanity and misinformation and conflicting stories and overwhelming conflicts of interest everywhere, how can you expect us all to know exactly what the heck is going on? Do you really know what's going on? Do you think you have all the information?

Not everyone with two good eyes sees clearly.

I don't think the U.S is all bad and its current enemy is all good. I think there is good and bad on both sides and that right now the bad is having their way.



posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 10:47 AM
link   
To me it all boils down to this

We went to war with Iraq, because we think they might have them
But we won't go to war with North Korea, because we know they have them

I would love someone to explain this logic to me, oh I'm sure some of you will try. But you can't because there is no logic to it at all.



posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 12:07 PM
link   
For everyone confused about saddam's link to terrorists and terrorists organizations here's a link that can explain it very clearly.

Saddam's terrorist buddies



posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 02:25 PM
link   

I can't see myself surrendering everything to a militarily superior invader I perceive to be a mortal enemy. I would exhaust every option before I gave up.



Being a vet myself, I support any action in which our troops are called to duty.

Having said that, I'm torn about the war in Iraq. For there to be peace in the Middle East, Sadaam had to go. No way around that one. Oppressive dictatorships do not equal peace. However, I think the pretext we used to invade Iraq was pretty weak. We had bad intelligence. The Russians announced that Sadaam was planning terrorist strikes against US interests as well, so we weren't the only ones with bad intelligence.

I'm extremely happy that Sadaam is gone, but I would have liked to see a more solid reason for doing it. For me, the 17 UN resolutions Iraq ignored was a better pretext for the war than the possibility of WMD.



posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 02:36 PM
link   
The problem is that there are other equally dangerous and equally opressive states in the middle east. SA is just one very good example and if you are unwilling to stand to your 'friend' over things they are doing wrong, then you have no cause to stand against anyone else for the same things....

There was no cause to go to Iraq, whatever cause clearly can be shown to be at best hypocritical(knowing past actions/inactions) and at worst blatent imperialism.

However, as Ghandi said evil always fails, good always wins over evil and so those incharge of this travesty of human endevour may face their day in court. I just wonder if "I was only following orders" will be allowed this time?



posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 03:15 PM
link   
Passer By just what are you suggesting, that we either fight every nasty government in the region at once or are you suggesting that we just throw our hands up and say the world sucks and there's nothing we could or should do about it. Now I know people on this site believe all things are equal but I have info for you in the real world things are not equal and never have been or never will be. Yes we support the Saudi's why because they sell us oil but we also support the Israeli's why because they are an outpost of democracy in a region dominated by tyranny. Now here I believe is the way things hopefully will go in the Mid East eventually the Iraqi people will eventually as they beginning to do now govern themselves and this may take some imagination on your part but just try to imagine a mid east where democracy has taken hood this enables not only the United States but also the new free Iraq to take a stronger approach to the Saudi's and the region as a whole don't you think there is a better chance with saddam gone and a democratic Iraq for the entire region to progress towards democratic government?

[edit on 19-6-2005 by danwild6]



posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by danwild6
Passer By just what are you suggesting, that we either fight every nasty government in the region at once or are you suggesting that we just throw our hands up and say the world sucks and there's nothing we could or should do about it. Now I know people on this site believe all things are equal but I have info for you in the real world things are not equal and never have been or never will be. Yes we support the Saudi's why because they sell us oil but we also support the Israeli's why because they are an outpost of democracy in a region dominated by tyranny. Now here I believe is the way things hopefully will go in the Mid East eventually the Iraqi people will eventually as they beginning to do now govern themselves and this may take some imagination on your part but just try to imagine a mid east where democracy has taken hood this enables not only the United States but also the new free Iraq to take a stronger approach to the Saudi's and the region as a whole don't you think there is a better chance with saddam gone and a democratic Iraq for the entire region to progress towards democratic government?

[edit on 19-6-2005 by danwild6]


What I am suggesting is that whenever one group of people tried to spread democracy and freedom, or civilizatrion, or church - or anything that is not already present in a system the results are always, bare none, tragic. Regardless on the euphimism you put on the endevour, whether it be freedom and democracy, or spreading the good word of God,, it is always for power. If we pay attention there is a lesson here. What is going on is not what you think it is, and it certainly isn't what the offical party line is. Whether it is about Oil, or regional strtegic location, or searching for the first mario brothers game I don't know, that doesn't matter to me as much as so many people being unable to even think through questioning the offical line.

Now, either way - let me ask you why did America go into Iraq. Honestly. From the very being of your being are you telling me with all the evidense that has shown since the first war drums were beaten that you beleive what was done there had anything to do with freedom or democracy?



posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 03:59 PM
link   
Yes I do believe that is the ultimate goal of the US in Iraq. It's just not a simple matter of going in there to steal all the oil or install a new dicator friendly to the US. It is about bringing the rule of law to the mid east in a similar way we brought it to europe and japan at the end of the second world war. It has been a defining part of the american psyche ever since the founding of the nation that all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights. I would be the first to admit that we haven't always lived up to our ideals far from it. But also I know what the Bush administrations wants out of Iraq and ultimately that's legitimacy and that will only come with a truly free democratic and independent Iraq. You may question the motives for the war and you have every right to but ultimately and Bush knows that success will only come when the last US troops leave Iraq with a free and democratic government.



posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 04:01 PM
link   
Precisely.

The governemnt conditioned people to think they acutally care about democracy in Iraq, or any Middle Eastern country at that. I find it amusing that people acutally believe that our governemnt genuinely cares about other countries well-being, without an alterior motive.

I have asked many people, straight out. "Do you really give a hoot (used a diff word) about Iraq or Iraqis?" Most people...admittingly...say...not really. Yet, these are the same people that will cry spread democracy! What exactlly is so good about Democracy? Did anyone watch the interview that what's his name (NBC or CBS anchor) did with Vladimir Putin? Putin basically challenged and criticized our form of government....and honestly....most of what he had to say made COMPLETE sense, and made the interviewer choke on his own criticizims with no rebuttal to Putins.

Go figure a reporter who probably prepared for this interview for weeks, was left speechless...without words to respond to answers to his own questions.


Originally posted by Passer By
Now, either way - let me ask you why did America go into Iraq. Honestly. From the very being of your being are you telling me with all the evidense that has shown since the first war drums were beaten that you beleive what was done there had anything to do with freedom or democracy?



posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by danwild6
It is about bringing the rule of law to the mid east in a similar way we brought it to europe and japan at the end of the second world war.....you may question the motives for the war and you have every right to but ultimately and Bush knows that success will only come when the last US troops leave Iraq with a free and democratic government.


You cannot force a democracy; not least upon a nation whose culture is so radically different from ours that most of us Westerners simply cannot grasp those differences.

Let the people decide - NOT the US (or any other occupying) government.



posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 04:24 PM
link   


I find it amusing that people actually belive that their government actually cares about other countries well-being, without a alterior motive.

Maybe we do have an alterior motive just like we had an alterior motive for the rebuilding of europe after WWII. But if the success of that alterior motive is also dependent on the success of the more wider public goal of liberty freedom and prosperity well I don't think that's a bad thing.




I've asked people do they actually give a hoot about Iraqi's or Iraq

Well I don't know who you hangout with but everybody in this house deeply cares about Iraq and it's citizens. Someone once said "there can't exist an island of stability and prosperity in a sea hopelessness and despair"(I think it was BONO).If we are ever going to build a better world we are going to have to start caring or more people are going to suffer from terrible tragedies like or worse than the one on 9/11.



posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 04:25 PM
link   
I dont think that was bush's first thought when entering iraq to make it a free democracy. In my opinion i think bush knew sadam was harmless in the way of wmds and it was just a way to get into iraq as north korea has them and bush wont go near it. Sadam did need to be taken out but bush shouldn't of used wmds as a reason to remove him there was other cause for removing sadam then hidden weapons of mass destruction if the reports were true and confirmed before the united states went in i doubt the war would of started as quickly.



posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by RedWhiteandBlood
Your ideas have been very lame on the subject of how to defeat Islamic Terrorism. So far, here is what you've presented. I am going to go through each one, and with logic defeat it.



With one gigantic swoop of super logic I shall show you how lame your post is. Connect Saddam and 9-11 directly. I dare you. I double, no quadruple dog dare you. Please, by all means, show me where Saddam had one single thing to do with America and the 9-11 incident? How is going to war with Iraq defeating Islamic terrorism. You do realize that even Saddam was disgusted with OBL, dont you? Logic? More like closed eyes.



posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 04:34 PM
link   


You cannot force a democracy, not least on a culture so different from ours that westerners cannot understand.

But we have I give the example of Japan. Japan had no democratic tradition pre-1945 did they but look at them now they wouldn't do it anyother way.




Let the people decide

You really don't believe that Saddam would just have left come on didn't the kurds attempt to choose and how about the Shiite after the gulf war you really can't believe that such a choose would ever be allowed? You fooling yourself in believing that Saddam would have ever left power voluntarily.

[edit on 19-6-2005 by danwild6]



posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 04:39 PM
link   
I agree darkfollower I think since Bush was going to war anyway he should have made his arguement based on regime change. It wouldn't have gotten any farther in the UN but would have had more weight to it afterwards especially when the full scale of saddam's war crimes came to light.





top topics
 
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join