Can you live with our future,& legacy left over an unjust war???(Updated)

"1. Iraq was aggressive towards its neighbours for example invading Kuwait 15 years ago... Did we forget about this already?"

Maybe if Kuwait wasn't stealing iraqi oil, or maybe if the us ambassador at the time didn't give iraq the "green light" to invade kuwait... iraq wouldn't had invaded...

"2. Saddam Hussein gased thousands of Kurds in Northern Iraq."

The Kurds decided to side with Iran during the Iran-Iraq War, which btw was fully sponsored and funded by good ol' usa.

The Kurds, pushed by the us, decided to have an uprising after the gulf war, only to be left high and dry and slaughtered by saddam.

You claim that saddam "gased" thousands of kurds, got any evidence?


And guess who helped saddam to power ?


[edit on 4-11-2004 by Interloper]

Originally posted by Interloper

"1. Iraq was aggressive towards its neighbours for example invading Kuwait 15 years ago... Did we forget about this already?"

Maybe if Kuwait wasn't stealing iraqi oil, or maybe if the us ambassador at the time didn't give iraq the "green light" to invade kuwait... iraq wouldn't had invaded...

"2. Saddam Hussein gased thousands of Kurds in Northern Iraq."

The Kurds decided to side with Iran during the Iran-Iraq War, which btw was fully sponsored and funded by good ol' usa.

The Kurds, pushed by the us, decided to have an uprising after the gulf war, only to be left high and dry and slaughtered by saddam.

You claim that saddam "gased" thousands of kurds, got any evidence?

www.hrw.org...
www.hrw.org...
www.hrw.org...

Chemical Ali on tape said he committed genocide against Kurds.

Iraq did not HAVE to attack Kuwait. I thought Liberals created forums for countries to cooperate. Iraq could have continued talks with Kuwait in Saudi Arabia over oil but chose to attack.

Here's my problem. Liberals want countries to be democratic because democratic countries never go to war. So isn't it worth it to give democracy a shot in Iraq in your eyes? More democracy = more peace in the long run.

"Here's my problem. Liberals want countries to be democratic because democratic countries never go to war. So isn't it worth it to give democracy a shot in Iraq in your eyes? More democracy = more peace in the long run."

In a perfect world where men are born angels, maybe.

Here's the problem. The US claims seeking to bring peace and freedom in the world, yet it has a HISTORY of helping tyrants and dictators topple democratically elected govenments.

To name a few :

1953

Iran � CIA overthrows the democratically elected Mohammed Mossadegh in a military coup, after he threatened to nationalize British oil. The CIA replaces him with a dictator, the Shah of Iran, whose secret police, SAVAK, is as brutal as the Gestapo.


1954

Guatemala � CIA overthrows the democratically elected Jacob Arbenz in a military coup. Arbenz has threatened to nationalize the Rockefeller-owned United Fruit Company, in which CIA Director Allen Dulles also owns stock. Arbenz is replaced with a series of right-wing dictators whose bloodthirsty policies will kill over 100,000 Guatemalans in the next 40 years


1954-1958

North Vietnam � CIA officer Edward Lansdale spends four years trying to overthrow the communist government of North Vietnam, using all the usual dirty tricks. The CIA also attempts to legitimize a tyrannical puppet regime in South Vietnam, headed by Ngo Dinh Diem. These efforts fail to win the hearts and minds of the South Vietnamese because the Diem government is opposed to true democracy, land reform and poverty reduction measures. The CIA�s continuing failure results in escalating American intervention, culminating in the Vietnam War.

1961

The Bay of Pigs � The CIA sends 1,500 Cuban exiles to invade Castro�s Cuba. But "Operation Mongoose" fails, due to poor planning, security and backing. The planners had imagined that the invasion will spark a popular uprising against Castro -� which never happens. A promised American air strike also never occurs. This is the CIA�s first public setback, causing President Kennedy to fire CIA Director Allen Dulles.


1971

Bolivia � After half a decade of CIA-inspired political turmoil, a CIA-backed military coup overthrows the leftist President Juan Torres. In the next two years, dictator Hugo Banzer will have over 2,000 political opponents arrested without trial, then tortured, raped and executed


1973

Chile � The CIA overthrows and assassinates Salvador Allende, Latin America�s first democratically elected socialist leader. The problems begin when Allende nationalizes American-owned firms in Chile. ITT offers the CIA $1 million for a coup (reportedly refused). The CIA replaces Allende with General Augusto Pinochet, who will torture and murder thousands of his own countrymen in a crackdown on labor leaders and the political left.


1981

Iran/Contra Begins � The CIA begins selling arms to Iran at high prices, using the profits to arm the Contras fighting the Sandinista government in Nicaragua. President Reagan vows that the Sandinistas will be "pressured" until "they say �uncle.�" The CIA�s Freedom Fighter�s Manual disbursed to the Contras includes instruction on economic sabotage, propaganda, extortion, bribery, blackmail, interrogation, torture, murder and political assassination


1989

Panama � The U.S. invades Panama to overthrow a dictator of its own making, General Manuel Noriega. Noriega has been on the CIA�s payroll since 1966, and has been transporting drugs with the CIA�s knowledge since 1972. By the late 80s, Noriega�s growing independence and intransigence have angered Washington� so out he goes.


1991

The Gulf War � The U.S. liberates Kuwait from Iraq. But Iraq�s dictator, Saddam Hussein, is another creature of the CIA. With U.S. encouragement, Hussein invaded Iran in 1980. During this costly eight-year war, the CIA built up Hussein�s forces with sophisticated arms, intelligence, training and financial backing. This cemented Hussein�s power at home, allowing him to crush the many internal rebellions that erupted from time to time, sometimes with poison gas. It also gave him all the military might he needed to conduct further adventurism � in Kuwait, for example.

Originally posted by slink
Iraq did not HAVE to attack Kuwait. I thought Liberals created forums for countries to cooperate.

This is not a political debate. Plenty of other threads available if you want to discuss politics. Thanks.

Grady,

If invading Iraq is preventing more 9/11's, why is Osama still making movies letting America know that the worst is yet to come? Wasn't the whole purpose of "The War On Terror" to capture him and squash Al qaeda? Success rate=ZERO.

As far as morons go, they would be the people who really believe that dropping radioactive waste everywhere is the right approach. They will also be the first ones to whinge when dirty bombs start going off in downtown U.S.A. If you dish it out, you had better be prepared to take it!

Concern for the enemy? I didn't know that the citizens in Iraq are the enemy. 100 000 dead, but that's O.K because U.S has arrived bringing liberty with her. Now they are free to live in a radioactive battlefield and I'm sure they are jumping for joy. So it is little wonder why more and more Iraqis' are are becoming "insurgents". They are labeled "insurgents" because to call them terrorists would be to admit that U.S is indeed losing the "War On Terror". America is losing because they are fighting a war which cannot be won.

Gradyphilpot,

I am sorry first of all it took this long to get a response,

Me scholar?, not in alot of views and surely my own designs for my educational future have been excessive, they mean nothing in the greater
view......... I understand and with great sadness the misforutnes of war.

War and it's side effects while meant to be disturbing at best, still are not
aceptable to the survival of man and peace, NOW that is was what I was expected to say right? Well sometimes I know war cant be avoided, However if you are going to begin taking lives wether they be spirited by evil or good intentions/souls you must think and know for what reasons and the reasons must be righteous.....

I believe while free Iraq from Saddam had it good intentions , the motivation behind geting congressional approval to go to war was not jusified or in my opinion and others opinions as well, These are the simple facts I offer here, and why I pleaded for the return of this thread to the open descusion forum, and not letting it only be accessed by those few who dont have those privaleges, There where and aren't WMDS in Iraq,
The IAEA cant verify it, the US intellegence cant verify it, the US President
can not verify it , the soldiers dying and innocent civilians dying can not
verify the presence of the WMDs either, from a little over a month after
the war started and increasingly since....sadly there has been no justification for this war.....only a policy shift, while a noble cause in it's self
has the continued results of the crimes I have repeated over and over here.

The crimes although grossly detested, by all parties involved are still going
on. The innocent until proven guilty backbone of our constitution has gone the way of the dodo bird in Iraq, US soliders are holding prisioner hundreds , if not thousands without due process, this is not liberal, democratic, or even republican in issue it's a simplified human fact where in are entiteled to the basic right to defend themselfs and face their accusers.
It should not be denied the Iraqi people being held either, as soon as our flag hit there soil and the occupation process was in force, we became responsible for the safety and well being of those for whom where in our charge and protection.


It then became our laws that where in fact being executed in lew of no afirmed Govermental constitution our heads in power in Iraq. So in the abscence of laws and goverment, while yes an intrum was established , they where not voted for at the time, when we hit the ground our laws
should have temporarily hit the ground with us, if only to keep our own soldiers in legal lines. That has not been done, Illegal imprisionment becomes illegal when you deny the right to a fair trial.

The simply fact that the International Court says some of these prisoners
do not fall under the Gueneva Convention, make them a civilian criminal system responsability, Then give them due process........

Now lets move on to innocent lives lost, and this in itself is a touchy issue.
There are acceptable terms of innocent life lost, IE calateral damage, tru but you as well as I and every person who grew up either living with vets
or active combat ready personel in their families will tell you , innocents are not killed mostly by calateral damage reasons, they are killed sometimes by human faults like, adernal glands running on over charge causing shoot first ID later deaths, or what about those few who are themselves a military inside the military who have their own intentions , theft , robbery, looting, rape, murder, and any number of attrocities kill, injure and mame hundreds if not thousands, and the fact is hidden till one day a guy who did these things leaves a blood soaked letter explaining why he blew his head off, over these crimes 5, 10, or 20 years later......Nam related suicides exceeded kia's recently did you know that? You know who told me VA hospital, who is now treating a father n law crippled with dreams and mental tortures of buddies blown away sights of innocents killed, soldiers stealing from dead people there valuables.


I believe as do alot of remorseful Vets I have talked to and counciled personally , this is a war that was unjustified before it's undertaking it was
presented the way of WMD;s to push it past us and congress, the real objective was Saddam and Saddam alone, and many a time has restraint and policy restriction prevented all out war against this man .....congress prefered the choice of peaceful negotiations and sanctions, Bush didnt like that so the hint of Regan's follies of selling weapons to Iraq was twisted to a Saddam made the WMD;s and they where about to be deployed, and that lie shall scare this war as badly but not worse than the attrosities commmitted during it ..........


Well, I have rambeled sorry and thank you for your input. I respect it and some of it I agree with and thats why this thread is here to mix all the views and boil them down to a way commonly agreed to , to stop further problems like we have today......Thank you

Slink , interloper .......True to fact this is not a political issue, however


I havent forgotten you either, thank you however I have no comment except to say your debate has sparked intrest in further review.

You both have placed alot of information out there and before I comment I wish to look into it further but, thank you for your information who knows maybe it will enlighten me in a way I may learn something I dont know yet.

It's only fair of me to give consideration to all things here and know and understand your points as well as my own and the others who I have already answered thank you for your patients and I will comment soon.


I will consult some others whom have spoken rather firmly against me on other issues whom I know to be very careful to pick apart my comments to see if they have any input as well so that I know I have interpreted your information to the best intrest of pure truth and conversation.


Nothing better to test truth than a person who wishes to prove the flaws in your analysis..........



Thank you for your input as well



[edit on 4/11/2004 by drbryankkruta]

Umm. doc i'm not a really an educated man but it was my understanding that the US fired the first shots at the axis forcesin wwII. Dosn't that make this the same as Irag today?

Originally posted by Karl der Grosse
Umm. doc i'm not a really an educated man but it was my understanding that the US fired the first shots at the axis forcesin wwII. Dosn't that make this the same as Irag today?

OKAY then why did it take Japan attacking pearl to get the President to declare his war intentions ......I'm not saying we didnt dabble in others agenda's but fired the first shot NO I Dont think so.....


THAT BIG BULLY GERMANY did most of the work starting it.

[edit on 4/11/2004 by drbryankkruta]

FDR declared his intensions when he order US naval vessel to attack German vessel attacking the US t Convoy's bering arms to GB. As early as 1940 US vessel attackes German U-Boats. Inthis ever exbanding sphere of influence into International waters a clear breach of the international laws of war.

Originally posted by Karl der Grosse
FDR declared his intensions when he order US naval vessel to attack German vessel attacking the US t Convoy's bering arms to GB. As early as 1940 US vessel attackes German U-Boats. Inthis ever exbanding sphere of influence into International waters a clear breach of the international laws of war.

Then I'm seeing Germany as aggressor, attacking us ship running supplies they at this point were not shooting Germany was, the supply boats were being sunk before the order , FDR as respondant right, he ordered the attacks on German vessel to quail attacks on supply boats,I quess that means the US didnt shoot first running arms and supplies doesnt put us in the agressor shoot first side , it puts us in the giving aid and comfort to an ally slot.........

international states that if you are transporting arms to a belegerant you are a fair target. IE. that merchant vessel is no longer neutral.

Originally posted by Karl der Grosse
international states that if you are transporting arms to a belegerant you are a fair target. IE. that merchant vessel is no longer neutral.

Target probably , but that is differnt than fired shots , aiding and abedding an allie is not firing a shot. it is the support of a lesser equipt. friend.

I HAVE NEW MATERIAL .......Thread update 4/11/2004 come see the new stuff it's interesting, provocative,,,,and ANTI_WAR

no doc check your history the US violated international law by attacking German U-Boats. You attack subs with depth charges. They [USA]sank at least one U-Boat. If you are transporting arms to a nation that it involed in a war You are a legal target for its enemies.If are protecting them and then are attacked you are still the aggressor. The US lost a DD too. War wasn't declared. What was FDR up too?? Think Doc.

International law.... Partisans.... By internatioal law partisans [ ie.Iragi's fighting against occupation troops] can be executed and are not entiled to a trial.If you are not wearing a uniform of your country this is also the case.

Originally posted by Karl der Grosse
International law.... Partisans.... By internatioal law partisans [ ie.Iragi's fighting against occupation troops] can be executed and are not entiled to a trial.If you are not wearing a uniform of your country this is also the case.

Do you mean to tell me that innocents are not being held, there was a teen hoes father pleaded for the release of his son, who was incarcerated
in a group round up by mistake, he was not an aggressor at all. People
can be accidently arrested during large group situations and just be victims of bad timing and wrong place, and with reasonable dought. All who are there are not guilty , our law allows for due process time constraints for a reason, even the mighty Americans make mistakes........They deserve to be
proven to have committed acts of aggression not just got caught up in a fluid situation.

Originally posted by Karl der Grosse
no doc check your history the US violated international law by attacking German U-Boats. You attack subs with depth charges. They [USA]sank at least one U-Boat. If you are transporting arms to a nation that it involed in a war You are a legal target for its enemies.If are protecting them and then are attacked you are still the aggressor. The US lost a DD too. War wasn't declared. What was FDR up too?? Think Doc.

You know what to attack any US citizen or vessel was an act of war in that case and FDR was justified in declaring a war like response, It is not a violation to respond to aggressive actions that result in death's of your citizens..........

The USA is responsible for its people. I agree. But in signing this agreemen between nations the US accepted the responsibillity to keep its people out of the areas the compatants were fighting in and to keep those who wanted to profit out of it, not protect them or help them make a profit. IF GB couln't protect these ships it is not the USA's respondibillity or right to do it. Hmmm... it sound to me lik your defend the USA' right to to interfere in the rest ok the worlds proplems jus to make a monitery profits.

Now if this outrages you what would you write in a letter to congress to make them stop the war. Better yet would you even write them at all?

What good would that do...??? We've just told Congress that we agree with the president by re-electing both him, and the Republican majority in BOTH houses of Congress... That sent a much louder message than any of the letters in the world...

Those of us who didn't agree with this madness are now still doomed to suffer the legacy of it...and there is absolutely nothing we can do about it...