|
Post by DarkAngel on Apr 1, 2004 20:20:04 GMT -5
I personally vote for 3...As i explained in another thread, Bush focused entirely on the wrong reasons for war. However, i think America should REALLY get out of Iraq soon....seeing those picture of the desicrated (s.p?) american soliders killed reminded me of Somalia...600 americans have died in the war, the VAST majority after major fighting was over
|
|
|
Post by stalin on Apr 1, 2004 20:33:59 GMT -5
Ok, I think that the US had absolutly no right to invade iraq. Sure, they were mistreating their civilians... just like Saudi Arabia (but why would we invade them, they give us oil.) Sure their govt is corrupt, just like China's (but why should we invade them, they are in the WTO.) Sure they could be looking into making nuclear weapons, just like the rest of the world (but why should we invade them, they arent in the middle east.)
|
|
|
Post by DarkAngel on Apr 1, 2004 20:37:38 GMT -5
Man i wish i had point giving powers because i would give you 10 right there...that was good stalin
|
|
|
Post by SuperBassX84 on Apr 1, 2004 21:07:18 GMT -5
Dammit, can't vote for more than one.
I do think Saddam was a major threat, but the war would've been much better received had that been only part of the reason, instead of the ENTIRE focus. Oh well.
And I heard about the desecrated soldiers in Baghdad. My Mom called me and told me about it. She then stated her wish to have it turned into a parking lot. Heh.
Part of me almost thinks that'd be a good idea....
|
|
|
Post by Static Burn on Apr 1, 2004 22:26:54 GMT -5
I'm between 1 and 3. I do think that it was neccesary.
As for America getting out of Iraq soon, that may not be entirely possible. If we just leave now, it'll be an anarchic wasteland as opposed to a country. Fact is, we're there now, and now that we're there we have to stay.
|
|
|
Post by piñata on Apr 2, 2004 10:30:38 GMT -5
I think Dark Angel should get points just for starting this thread, but also extra credit for stating Option #2 so well -- unjust is exactly the word I would use for this war. Not only does it violate international law, but it's also an attempt to force democracy on another country -- and forced democracy makes about as much sense as having the death penalty for suicide.
Whether we like what's going on in Iraq or not, it's none of our damn business (and if you're going to say Saddam and Osama are linked somehow, don't -- it's bullsh!t and even the people who are spreading it know that).
I do, however, feel that the problem of the desecrated civilians (I wasn't aware they had desecrated soldiers as well, but those four civilians were local boys -- the company they work for is about a forty-five minute drive from my house, so it made the local papers right away) would best be solved with missiles. Either that or a quick and brutal statement -- you take four of our civilians, we round up and publicly execute four of your civilians.
|
|
|
Post by DarkAngel on Apr 2, 2004 10:58:23 GMT -5
I totally agree pinata... totally...maybe i can get...15 points in total, im stuck at 5 now ![:-/](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/undecided.png)
|
|
|
Post by SuperBassX84 on Apr 2, 2004 11:38:01 GMT -5
Hahaha. Pts? Agreed.
10 pts for DA!
|
|
|
Post by DarkAngel on Apr 2, 2004 15:49:21 GMT -5
SCHWEET! POINTS! I wuv woo bass!!!
|
|
|
Post by omeguz on Apr 3, 2004 4:23:41 GMT -5
If we just leave now, it'll be an anarchic wasteland Opposed to the prospering wonderful haven it is now, with US occupation. Gimme a break!
|
|
|
Post by DarkAngel on Apr 4, 2004 14:54:06 GMT -5
*gives omeguz a break*
There, happy?
Actually if the US leaves now, it wont be a wasteland, the governmetn would be overthrown and there would be a civil war...fun
|
|
|
Post by SuperBassX84 on Apr 4, 2004 15:18:22 GMT -5
I'ma agree with Static and DA on this one. It's not the greatest place right now with us there, but if we leave, it's only gonna get worse. MUCH worse. At least now there's some semblance of Law and Order. If we leave, that all goes straight down the sh!tter.
|
|
|
Post by Static Burn on Apr 7, 2004 16:05:46 GMT -5
Interesting facts I picked up while watching a press conference with Rumsfeld Iraq has a population of approximately 25 million. Of those, there's an estimated 1,000-6,000 (.004%-.024%) that are actively fighting US occupancy, many of them because they have been coerced into doing so by resistance. The majority of Iraqis are pro US and are glad to have American troops there, as they have steadily increased the quality of life in Iraq.
|
|
|
Post by Elfie on Apr 7, 2004 23:51:12 GMT -5
Sovereignty of nations is a great principle, until one realizes that it essentially says that if one takes over a country and uses brutal militaristic suppression of its people, one should be left alone by everyone except the nations inhabitants, who of course are unable to fight back because the are facing brutal militaristic suppression.
Sovereingty of nations gives cruel dictators a pat on the back by basically saying that if you are cunning enough to take over a country, by whatever tactics, the world won't care. After all, you got it fair and square, which is just wrong, in my opinion.
Now I know what the response to this argument is. Why don't we invade here, where the situation is worse, or here or here or here? Simply put, the US chose to invade Iraq. Seeing as I sincerely doubt that the US would have changed course no matter what, the question for every other country became, do I support this war, even if the American reasons aren't just, so I can make a difference for the people of Iraq, or do I stand on principle to keep those floodgates closed, even though people will continue to suffer? Its a really tough call.
In the end, I support the war, not because of WMD or Al Qaeada, or oil or political gain, but because those lives we're saving in Iraq right now, I can count them. I'm not going to let those people die because in the future something bad 'might' happen because of the precedent I'm setting. And besides, I can always change my mind about the precedent later on, but I can't bring them back to life after they're dead.
|
|
|
Post by SuperBassX84 on Apr 8, 2004 16:53:58 GMT -5
15 pts. to Elfie.
w00t and double w00t on your exceptional (as always) post, Elfie.
|
|
|
Post by Static Burn on Apr 8, 2004 18:44:07 GMT -5
One theory that I've heard, although I can't speak for the validity of it, is that Bush's real intention was to overthrow Saddam and help the Iraqi people, but he had to overplay the possibility of WMDs in order to get the necessary support to do so.
|
|
|
Post by Elfie on Apr 9, 2004 11:59:25 GMT -5
I'm not sure I believe that. That would put him as more of a bleeding heart liberal. He's always struck me as someone who would believe that as President of the United States, his duty is solely to the people of the United States. I'm not sure I agree witht that to the extent that some people take it. The most notable occured when the notion of giving aid to African countries to help combat HIV/AIDS came up and someone wrote in on CNN and said that its not our obligation to help any country but our own. I'd say its our duty to help those who can't help themselves, and trust me, a subsistence farmer in Africa does not have the resources to procure HIV/AIDS medicine from countries like Canada and America.
I'd be interested to hear the other side of that story if anyone believes strongly in it, or even if you just want to play the devil's advocate. Its one of those few arguments where I have been unable to get my head around both sides. The isolationist policy just seems greedy, but I think I'm missing something.
That said, Bush strikes me as one to follow a more isolationist policy. He does not like the UN and troops are only venturing outside America when its in America's interest, hence the reason why America choose to invade Iraq while waiting to send troops to Liberia. War is always a question of politics, at least in the US, and the politics Bush plays make me doubt the validity of that as apparently you do too. I have read in Newsweek though that Blair supported the war for that very reason, even though it was unpopular, which I have tremendous respect for.
|
|
|
Post by DarkAngel on Apr 11, 2004 14:30:15 GMT -5
The thing that bothers me the most about Iraq are the Shiites (sp?). Under Saddam, they were brutally repressed, and were unable to practice the religion. The US comes in, overthrows Saddam. Now, they can practice their religion, and are going to have a large say in how the future Iraq is run. They should be grateful to the Americans, but are they? Of course not. They decide to form militias and start a war against the Americans! Oh joy! The stupid Iraqis can't stand to have the Americans in their country, even if they are trying to help.
|
|
|
Post by Elfie on Apr 15, 2004 23:07:56 GMT -5
It is too bad, and despite what left-wingers tell us, the UN would have met the same irrational resistance. A UN building in Iraq was bombed by the Iraqi resistance against America early in the war.
|
|
|
Post by SuperBassX84 on Apr 15, 2004 23:58:03 GMT -5
Middle-Eastern Resistance Types = Insane.
[radical psycho rant] I think, in order to beat them, we have to THINK like them. SO, we release Charles Manson and Piñata DEEP in their territory with a small army of convicted felons. Better yet, I like Piñata, so he stays here. We attach bombs to ALL the psycho criminals and Manson. If they come to close to our own people - KABOOM!!! If they finish their mission - KABOOM!!! If they don't - KABOOM!!! Either way it'll take out MORE than enough resistance, and rid the jail system of many, many overdue executions! [/radical psycho rant]
|
|