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.
Pete, the fact that Saddam Hussein has no vehicle to transport the weapons anywhere near the U.S. or Britain. You must also look at the following fact.
All the people of Iraq have a right to defend. Certainly, we never hope that way will be with Weapons of Mass Destruction. However, why is it ok for the United States to possess 30,000 nuclear warheads, enough to destroy the planet 3 times? Furthermore at the end of the cold war Russia wanted to make peace with us and asked us to eliminate all of the nukes and weapons of mass destruction. The answer we gave was no. Russia thought we would help them after they collapsed like we usually help countries after we invade, take, and leave. There was no help, and the weapons race was escalated even more.
I would also like to point out that taking out Saddam has only escalated terrorism in the area. Martyrs are ready to take there life, to take out Americans and British people with there lives in the name of Saddam Hussein. The simple fact that we invaded Iraq, and Afghanistan only strengthens terrorism.
How? After Gulf War 1, we left and Osama Bin Laden started Al Queda or "The List". It's called the List because he originally used a notebook to write down all of the people who joined his group, now Al Queda has a little deeper meaning in the eyes of it's members. Anyways, we will eventually leave Afghanistan and Iraq and the same thing will happen again. In Iraq it might not be Al Queda, but it will be a group of people with a potential for much power. Consider the fact, there has to be a place somewhere in Iraq where Hussein setup plans like this, and left some money. A member of the Hussein Family/ government once said if Hussein was killed he will make September 11th look like a picnic(anyone remember who that was?).
Finally I leave you with the following fact/opinion. How is DEFENSE disarming other countries? We are not an international police and we have no right to be. We are in some cases 3 generations above countries in terms of military technology. The Defense is on the borders, in the airports, the seaports, and in our cities. I recently went through an Airport and it still seemed very easy to slip in weapons. A few months after September 11th a police officer(as part of his job) was to slip past security with weapons on him. Security didn't get anything on him and he had numerous weapons on him including guns. How he did it is a mystery to me. Nonetheless, using a sophisticated team, distractions, and other tactics I see it as being very easy to get into a plane unnoticed and with weapons. Combine this with the fact that most nuclear powerplants and other hazardous facilities have little to no security and you can tell that we have done almost nothing in the way of security.
Please correct me if Im wrong on any of this, there might be an error with who said something, or a slight difference in one of the facts but as far as I know everything is 100% True.
By the way, Ann Coulter is by far the stupidest person alive. I have never seen someone who could stretch the facts more, and actually get a crowd. Perhaps it's her aggressive namecalling.
Pete Nattress Cheesy Bits img src/uploads/sccheesegif
Registered 23/09/2002
Points 4811
27th August, 2003 at 17:36:07 -
DEC, are you saying we should have done nothing? even if saddam didnt have WoMD, he could well have had in a few years. then what? the world truly would have been at risk. the antics of Bush & Co are tame in comparison to those of a manic terrorist.
i think we ARE an international police. we have to be. the UN are toothless, they're going to be the League of Nations all over again. they've already shown they're useless, totally unable to prevent the american war. like it or not, america is the police now.
It doesn't matter whether or not he had WMDs. He still wouldn't be able to carry them over in a missile to America. When 90% of people are against your cause, and you violate the Constitution and UN agreements then your definitely in the wrong. And speaking of Saddam having WMD's in a few years. So far we have found no evidence of WMD's nor the mass production of them. We have, however found some chemicals, gases, ect. Nonetheless, even if he was a threat why would we disregard North Korea the way we did and go straight for Iraq? The U.S. has no right to be an international police. Every country has a right to do whatever the hell it wants. If we can do it, so can they. When 90% of the people are for our cause, including the UN, then fine we will invade. The Way I see it there is a lot lies and not a lot of truth.
Also keep in mind that we invaded Iraq, setup a government, and left. That Government is basically in Turmoil right know. Al Queda is coming back too. More people are joining because they are intimidated by us. The best way to tackle this problem is not to go in with guns and tanks. It's with Inspectors, money, and patience. What needs to be done, is we need to show people around the world that the U.S. is not about killing and stealing oil. If we helped the people and didn't leave until the job was done, we would be in great shape.
You can't put out a fire with Gasoline. Like I said, the more we go in and "try" to stop terrorism and WMD's the more people pursuit it. I also want to state the fact that the recent tax cuts were by far the worst thing Mr. Bush could of done at that time or any time after 9-11 thus far. We are now half a trillion dollars in debt. It will take decades to recover from this. People are estimating debts near 3-4 trillion by 2008. I don't see where he is trying to take this country. But it seems to me it's one bad decision after another.
I appreciate the fact that you all have not sworn and are all intelligent and educated on the subject.
Here's an article I wrote about why the war was wrong. It is pretty left-wing, but at the same time my approach accepts the good intentions of everyone on every side. You'll probably find my attitude a little less violent, a little better informed and a lot less opinionated/prejudicial than most:
I of course believe that all war is wrong. However, in a world such as ours, the immoral acts of one country do sometimes force other nations into other immoral acts to counter it. The argument ceases to be 'was war right' but becomes 'was war the best option under the circumstances? Was it the lesser of several evils?'
And that question none of us can answer, because of our governments. None of us will hear the truth from America, any more than we would hear it from Saddam. Both have agendas, both are trying to make their case sound strong. So personally, I didn't get involved. And as it turned out, with us living in truly democratic countries, it clearly didn't matter what we thought anyway.
I am a little surprised at the scale of the obsession that grew in the Coalition with getting Saddam gone, though. He's been deposed, he's out of the country, but they still won't rest until he's dead... Hmm. Even though Blair (and most probably Bush) would almost certainly lose the elections next term because of it, they still went to war. Were it because of oil, I'm sure it could be handled better. Were it to bring Saddam to justice, well... from what history teaches us, America doesn't seem to do much unless it gets something out of it. Few countries ever do. The nuclear threat was almost certainly given some spin, although apparently no outright lies were told. 45 minutes? Well 45 minutes after war was waged, did you see America getting nuked? Oh LOOK! THE GREAT DUSTCLOUDS!! <sarcasm>
Ahem, exactly. In the face of war from debatably the most powerful nation on the planet, nuking them would have been a very good idea... so why, if he had the means, did Saddam not do it? He certainly wasn't trying to AVOID war.
So the actual motive behind it is a mystery to me. The incredible fervor with which the coalition has squashed Hussein's regime just seems like such obscene overkill.
Needless to say, I highly doubt Blair or Bush will get re-elected next term. So I suppose this war may actually have deposed THREE world leaders, not just the one
191 / 9999 * 7 + 191 * 7
Pete Nattress Cheesy Bits img src/uploads/sccheesegif
Registered 23/09/2002
Points 4811
28th August, 2003 at 06:00:00 -
"It's with Inspectors, money, and patience."
sorry, but i disagree. patience means time, and time is something we don't have. north korea has already slipped between the yank's fingers and i think that should be the only one. all over the world, dangerous countries with dangerous leaders, all with spites against the west, are gathering strength. god knows, in 10 years they could have chemicle weaponary, and that would be disastrous. we must make the first strike.
"He still wouldn't be able to carry them over in a missile to America."
and that's a bit of a selfish attitude isn't it? what about israel, or europe? surely you wouldn't want to see you county's allies have to suffer whilst you sit at home and become itionalist again? look what happened when the USA did that last time.
ever since WW2, up until 1990, america was figthing communism. just because they didn't use tanks or guns, didn't mean they weren't fighting. and they won. so why they can't do that again is beyond me.
Pete: That's wrong, america shouldn't be the world's police. It's kind of like saying "you have a stick, now I must shoot you!" because America greatly outpowers all the other countries with its technology.
Dec: Canada has a 3.5 trillion dollar debt. By 2008 you'll almost be catching up with us!
Dines: So personally, I didn't get involved. And as it turned out, with us living in truly democratic countries, it clearly didn't matter what we thought anyway.
Canada's people(96%, 74%, 52% - slowly went down as it occured it would "strain" US/Canada relations) said they did not want the war, so our politicians listened, and did choose to not join the war.
Pete: Israel can defend itself. It has an immense army, and nuclear and chemical weapons. If Iraq had attacked it, Israel could have disposed of them almost as easily as the US did(easier if they had used Nukes), though I think the US would have helped Israel, as they have in the past.
I agree that if the US should have removed Saddam Hussein from power, but they shouldn't have waited so bloody long!
Up here in canada we are lucky. The news is fairly unbiased(CBC anyway) and it provided insight into how both sides were lying(but the US more, since it had to convince people the war was just).
I guess we have to pay for that though. After taxes(on $54,000) my mom only takes home $24,000. Doctors get from $100,000 - $450,000, but after taxes take home about $35,000 - $125,000.
Here's a tip for the US: Don't go 3.5 trillion dollars in debt!
Edited by the Author.
Kramy
Pete Nattress Cheesy Bits img src/uploads/sccheesegif
Registered 23/09/2002
Points 4811
28th August, 2003 at 13:01:04 -
kramy, it's more like "they have a gun but i have a bigger gun".
who would you suggest does the policing then? china? or the UN? or uzbeckistan...?
Why do you need to police them? America isn't policing Israel or North Korea is it? Why do they have to police Iraq?
America seems to be fine about leaving Afghanistan to fend for itself, and they're doing a horrible job. Almost nothing has changed there, so why aren't American forces there, helping the people that want help? Iraq doesn't want American forces, but Afghanistan did. They want a nation free from warlords and constant fear of attacks. Iraq wants a nation free from Americans.
I wonder why Bush is so intent of keeping the soldiers in Iraq instead...maybe the oil?
Your analogy is flawed. No WMD's have been found yet. If WMD's are found though, it would be correct.
Blah, edit feature won't let me edit my own posts.
Edited by the Author.
Sometimes anyway....odd.
Edited by the Author.
Kramy
Pete Nattress Cheesy Bits img src/uploads/sccheesegif
Registered 23/09/2002
Points 4811
28th August, 2003 at 13:20:55 -
israel doesn't need policing; it's not a threat to world peace. and the yanks could never risk nuclear war with Korea... that's what happens when you leave it too long.
Uh, America is not evil Nazis. We aren't that bad DAVE C. Just because you see us as lying killing fools doesn't mean thats the way we are. There are lots of descent people in the U.S., but our president sucks. And I can tell you right know, I don't think he will be re-elected.
The problem with any nation policing the world is culture.
A good example is a woman in some country like Afghanistan or somewhere like that who was going to be given the death sentence for having sex before she was married. America and several other western agencies have since tried to step in and stop this going ahead.
However, although in our Western society such a thing may seem uncalled for, in THEIR society it is the norm. It's part of their way of life, their beliefs system and their culture. Who is any other nation to say that's wrong? Which nation, if any, should DEFINE what is right or wrong. Does America really have any right whatsoever to yell "Us!!"
That would be like the UK saying 'we dissagree with the Death Sentence, and so we order America to stop the death penalty in all states'. No nation can have that right unless the nations being policed agree to it.
I find it ironic that when America had a policy of Isolation, everyone wanted them to police the world. Now that they are, everyone wants them to go home. There's no pleasing some people is there?
Like that one guy that said. "American's are the evil nazi's of this millenium" or something like that. That is called a stereotype my friend. Just because some people live in america, that makes them nazis? How about everyone who speaks out against the war? Are they nazis too? If America was such a nazi county, don't you think we would own Canada by now?
And as far as a war for oil, I really don't care, because I myself hate cars. Don't ask me why, its long and I'll have to start ranting.
And one more thing, why is it that we get topics such as this on a site that is based on creating games? How is going to help anyone create games? This might tend piss people off and make them stop making games. So therefor, can we try to can it on the "America sucks" stuff. I personally do not like America very much, but it is my county and I have lived here my whole life. So anyways, lets just move away from this topic, please?
An old account of mine, recently cleared out. It's a blast to the past, the age was marked as 14 when I found it. If you know where to look, you can track me. Au revoir.
I think it is unjust.
Bush is spending all of our tax money on a war that has lasted a year for crying out load. How much more of our tax money will he spend?
Advertisement
Post Reply
Edited by the Author.
