I want everyone to tell me what you think of the Iraqi war. Tell me whats wrong with it, whats right, and future problems. You can also speculate. Basically this is all about the war, anything about it.
However, you should be well edjucated on the subject. It's not really appropriate to say "Were killing people so it's good". That kind of a statement shows poor education and lack of understanding. I will respond to everything with what I know, I am extremely educated on the subject.
Note: this is a repost of something i wrote in response to a game preview. For those who have already read it, don't bother reading it a second time because nothing has changed.
--UNJUST--
The weapons of mass destruction, even the ones that they did find, only had a range of about 200 miles and posed no imminent threat to the United States, as Bush would have you believe. Additionally, it seems that we changed the reason for war about 3 times. Initially, it was a "fight against terrorism", then it became a "search for weapons of mass destruction". After we didn't find any weapons, it ended up being convenient for the U.S. to "liberate the Iraqi people" in order to give the illusion of justification. In reality, it is either a fight for control of oil, or a way for Dubya to avenge his father's inability to finish the war in 1991. Nevermind the fact that Bush himself is the one who was too chicken-shit to finish the first war in the face of Democratic opposition to it, thus placing Iraq under the current "tyranous rule".
Honestly, the biggest reason that I question the validity of the war is the complete lack of support by the U.N. (aside from Tony Blair, and we all know how his constituants feel). While politics and the military cannot ever be run by simple majority rule, it seems to me that when 90% of the world and a good majority of your own people are against your cause, it might be best to take a step back and ask yourself if the war is neccessary. I mean, for Christ's sake, the Germans are opposed to war? That has to say something right there.
The United States has fallen into such a state of panic following 9-11 that we are willing to sacrafice all of our freedoms (and obviously those of others) in the name of homeland security. Bush, using scare tactics, led us to believe that anybody who isn't with us is against us. And obviously is sending a message that rag-heads, as I'm sure he would call them, are the evil of the universe that must be rid (sounds like another famous crusade to me <cough>holocaust<cough>. Why else would we be attacking Iraq in the first place in the name of anti-terrorism and preventing WMD's, when Korea has already come out and admitted to having nuclear technology that it is willing to sell to the highest bidder (including terrorists)?
Very early in the march towards war, Bush was presenting a direct link between Al Quida and Iraq. Bunk I say! The greatest link, in terms of one benefiting from the terrorist attack, is George Bush himself, because the state of panic that has ensued following 9-11 has simply made the American people more susceptable to anything Bush presents in the name of national security, regardless of whose rights are trampled on or who has to die.
I'm not going to judge about that but I DO think Kirby is wrong. America's wrong, Irak's wrong, everyone's wrong. But when Bush asked Saddam to give his weapons away, he lied about it, "I don't have any" 3 timasor something on international tv. He knew he'd have a war when he diddn't gave 'm. He knew Bush knew he has them (he probably bought them from america) and he still said he diddn't have them. If he was not going to use them, in ANY way, why did he lie about having them, if he could have prevented war and pain/loss of his people? It doesn't matter if he was a harm to america with those weapons. The guy want's his war, no matter how. If they diddn't wait, he'd probably kill alot more of his own people, and do other stuff to get his war. The guy's dangerous to the whole world, not just America!
I believe the war on Iraq is based on oil. Lets face it, other countries such as North Korea, Iran, hell, even the USA have weapons of mass destruction. Bush is just using an imaginary threat to gain control of the worlds most well known and most potent oil, based in Iraq.
Bush is just one man. Why should it be decided by a select group of democrats that war should start. There must be a couple of thousand interium government members, but what about the millions of innocent Americans, Brits, and any other nationality who oppose this war? The European Union said "no, there shouldn't be war", after the UK failed to pass a vote. But Blair and Bush attacked anyway. So technically, at least on Britains behalf the war was illegal.
Eek, just read Kirbys post, its pretty much the same
Edited by the Author.
n/a
Pete Nattress Cheesy Bits img src/uploads/sccheesegif
Registered 23/09/2002
Points 4811
27th August, 2003 at 06:05:34 -
war was perfectly just. i'm not a bush sympathiser in the least but saddam was a dangerous, psychotic tyrant and the people of iraq are better off without him, even if some don't realise it yet.
"What about the hundreds of innocents accidently killed by his American Forces? "
Don't forget the British troops.
"Say you're hanging from a huge cliff at the top of mt. everest and a guy comes along and says he'll save you, and proceeds to throw religious pamphlets at you while simultaniously giving a sermon." - Dustin G
What do Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden have in common? America gave them weapons and support and screwed them later when things didn't look so good.
Why Iraq and not North Korea? Iraq has oil. Oil is money. While America threatens regime change for a country that hasn't got the capabilily to attack them with any force, a country that does have WMDs and openly admits it is subject to diplomatic talks. Why? Diplomacy doesn't give you control over oil reserves. Running the country does.
Sure, I'm glad that Saddam isn't in power anymore. He did terrible things and you cannot deny it. However, America isn't innocent either, and neither is half of the British government. There was no need for the war, and it was justified on false 'evidence' which caused death outside of the Middle East as well as inside it.
What do Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein have in common?
a) America put them in power!(Or hired to fend of communists in the case of Osama)
b) America gave them billions!
c) America gave them advanced weaponry!
d) America didn't like how they used their advanced weaponry.
e) America stabbed them in the back.
f) America eventually "took" their advanced weaponry away.
Unfortunatly this made them enemies, and in the case of 9-11, Osama got even. I wonder if/when Saddam will get even?
I can however understand why Saddam attacked Kuwait - I'd be pissed off too if a country was drilling under our border to steal our oil.
I can understand why the people of Iraq are angry at americans. They rose up when requested, and received no help, which resulted in thousands of deaths. It's not this war that bugs them, it's the result of the first one....Basically they no longer trust the "backstabbing americans" that let so many of them die.
P.S. I heard somewhere that Canada has an immense oil reserve deep beneath it. Although I know nothing about that, I recall hearing it's either the largest, or almost largest in the world.(something like 3000km across) Whether that's true or not I don't know, however.
I think the oil reserve thing in Canada is true. But yeah, you said what I said in greater detail
n/a
Pete Nattress Cheesy Bits img src/uploads/sccheesegif
Registered 23/09/2002
Points 4811
27th August, 2003 at 14:01:01 -
""What about the hundreds of innocents accidently killed by his American Forces? "
Don't forget the British troops."
well, that's war for you, isn't it.
and i'm quite frankly sick to death of hearing all this cock about the "Dodgy Dossier". even if it was "sexed up", who cares? the war's been and gone. let that be the end of it.
Quote "What do Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein have in common?
a) America put them in power!(Or hired to fend of communists in the case of Osama)
b) America gave them billions!
c) America gave them advanced weaponry!
d) America didn't like how they used their advanced weaponry.
e) America stabbed them in the back.
f) America eventually "took" their advanced weaponry away. "
This is all completely correct- its ridiculous!! of course one day it was always going to blow up in americas face. I cant believe America funded training and weaponary for Osamas Kru - surely everybody is wondering why the hell bush is in power - all i can say is thankgoodness that he can only be in power a few more years
"the war's been and gone. let that be the end of it."
In my eyes, and I'm sure that I'm not alone in this opinion, the war continues. Bush stated yesterday that he intended to "stay the course" in his "fight against terrorism" by keeping forces in Iraq. Again, this takes us back to the reason for the war in the first place, which has changed several times -- and now seems to have come around full circle. More soldiars have been killed in Iraq since Bush declared victory and it became a peacekeeping operation than had during the battle itself. The war continues, it's just not called war any more.
Advertisement
Post Reply
Edited by the Author.
