POLL: Iraq, Yes or No

Remove all ads!

@Dorion:

Unfortunately, we (people in general) tend to have short memory. Coupled with a lack of appreciation for history, this leads to repeating mistakes. This is not only about this topic but with other current issues as well.

 

Saying that the war is "just" about oil is sophomoric -- there's a lot more to it than that. I'll freely admit that there may be some things I don't understand. But the bottom line is this -- Saddam has never cooperated with the UN, not fully, not ever. He violated a sovereign nation in the early 90s. He will do so again. I don't care if he is or isn't in league with Bin Laden. I don't care if he only has 5 biological or chemical weapons. He has been warned, warned, and warned. The first time he expelled weapons inspectors, the entire world should have backed up the UN sanctions, instead of letting him slide. Like I said before, the war will be costly. I wonder what the cost will be if we don't stop him? I, for one, am not willing to find out the hard way.

As for anyone who thinks WW2 would have had the same cost if fought in 1936 as it did fought a few years later, you cannot be serious. Germany had a long time to prepare, research, and train soldiers to use their weapons systems. They were weaker and less prepared in the mid 30s. Fewer soldiers and civilians would have died, that's a guarantee. This same principle applies to Saddam. It's 1,000 lives now versus 1,000,000 lives later. Sucky choice, but's it's what he's left us.

 

I said British yes. Its about time we eliminated a threat that has been around for a good few years.

 

If a war begin only but only America will win. No other country maybe England. But not other..

And not Turkey. Ahhh.....

 

Duh,i hope that in the end Saddam dies,Yankee goes home and i really don't want a kurd nation at all

 

I want that too. Saddam will die. Without war. Only Saddam will die. Or give the control of petroleom to America..

 

American, Yes:

It seems best to get it over with.

What are the alternatives?
Do nothing and wait until Saddam gets nukes?

More and stricter sanctions that will condemn thousands of Iraq's poor children to die of malnutrition?

 

Yeah maybe. The nukes... It will be a danger. For the "WORLD". Not for America. I think America has nukes too. But in the war Bush won't use them.... Saddam must go a 1 way travel..

 

Alright. I've read this topic thoroughly and I feel the absolute need to poke my nose into this. Please read this carefully and with an open mind, please.

***IMPORTANT NOTICE: I am not from Iraq or the surrounding area. I have no special love towards Iraq nor do I support Iraq, and I have no personal vendettas against the United States. I only wish for everyone to listen to both sides of the argument and see that the topic of discussion is not as simple as it seems.***

Okay, with that out of the way, let's begin the pitch.

Topic 1: Saddam Hussein is an evil dictator who oppresses his people.

My thoughts: Yes, I believe Saddam is truly an utterly bad person. Yes, he holds solid dictatorship in Iraq. But he also cares for his people, keeps education running and handles the well-being of the people at least moderately. Iraq isn't like Afghanistan which had only mountains and other rugged terrain with guerrillas running around. It is a country with a running social system.

Also, there's the claim the Saddam uses propaganda and political games to increase his popularity and to taunt the opposion. But that's a given in their situation. They have their backs up against the wall with THE military nation of the globe(the US) and it's allies all ganging up on their small, less advanced country. If "Dubya" were in Saddam's situation, he too would do his best to delay any unjustified attack. And regardless, Bush also uses these same tactics at the very moment, spurring on and on about how Iraq is pure evil and how Saddam must be brought down at all costs. Because humankind is stupid(not insulting USA:nians here, I mean everyone), the people of the States take anything given to them without thinking about it thoroughly. The conclusion: Bush is rallying his people the same way Saddam is rallying his.

Topic 2: Iraq has nukes.

My thoughts: I think this discussion ought to be buryied swiftly and forgotten. The US, too, have nukes. Lots more than Iraq. And neither side will not dare to use them in war(although if forced to make a decision, I'd probably go with Bush launching first). And who exactly gave the Iraqis funds and weapons technology to accomplish this? The US. Now that they've realized that the country they fed has grown strong enough to taunt them, they realise that they did wrong. End of discussion.

Topic 3: Iraq supports the terrorists.

My thoughts: And what proof do they have for it? If they claim that Iraq has plans to unjustly corrupt the outside world and be a threat to world peace(much like they said about Afghanistan, which it never did), they should look in the mirror and seriously ponder: "Who is the real threat to world peace here?"

Why exactly do the USA want to attack then? If I said the reason was oil, I'd get yelled at by everyone here, but luckily enough, I'm not a firm believer in this theory. However, getting the oil supplies and other resources of Iraq is a nice side prize for taking them down. Also, an attack would boost the morale of the people and would serve as a warning sign to the world not to mess with the omnipotence of the USA.

The US are attacking Iraq because they believe that there is nothing in it that causes negative effects for their country. They believe that because of their military and economic power, they are free to alone shape the world as they see fit. Well, we live in a democracy(or at least we should). There are other countries whose added sufferings total much more than the pleasure of the US getting to wipe an insect off of their proverbial windshield. Therefore, I say that the plan to attack Iraq is totally unjustifiable.

World peace is not achieved by destruction, but by construction. The attack, now rather likely(unfortunately), will only further increase the chasm between the US and a multitude of nations around the planet. If they dare to challenge another country in its path(N.Korea comes to mind), I promise that I will strongly protest any further activities of the US government with an even clearer opposition.

Thank you and good night. I hope I didn't offend too many people, but because I know probably did, you are now free to shower me with bottles, bricks, flames and anything mean now.

[ February 21, 2003, 19:50: Message edited by: Ursaj ]

 

Depaara, based on what did you want to attack the Germans in the mid-30s, because they had an advanced army or were training one?? Saying that gives Europe enough reason to bomb America

 

My understanding of the Treaty of Versailles is that Germany was prohibited from have any armed force bigger than, say, a light National guard. They broke that treaty with their military buildup, and on THAT basis they should have been stopped. I'll have to double check my tomes tonight to see if my interpretation of said Treaty is correct.

 

Depaara

According to the treaty of Versailles Germany was not allowed to have an army more than 100000 men. Also, they were not allowed to have armor and airforce. Although, Germans broke the treaty long before Hitler came to power. The development of panzers started in 1927-1928 with secret tests, which took place in Germany and in Soviet Union.

 

Someone posted three topics earlier. I thought I'd respond. (Hiya, Jack and Mathetais! Thanks for the messages.)

We're not going after Iraq for the oil. I thought this was made clear several months ago when I posted an analysis of where our oil comes from. Saddam would gladly sell us his oil right now if we would take it. The fact remains that we don't want it because we don't want to prop up his regime. The U.S. currently receives .8% of its oil from Iraq. I posted the source for that long ago, so do a search of the forum if you want to see it again. Further, no one in their right mind thinks that the U.S. is going to seize control of oil fields for our exclusive use -- the international community and simple fair play wouldn't allow it.

Second, those who say that the ties to al Qaeda (not "the terrorists," because Iraq has definite ties to other terrorists) are tenuous at best are correct. Al Qaeda is more closely linked to Saudi Arabia and Iran than to Iraq.

On the other hand, Saddam is known to be funding other Arab terrorists. He is blatant about giving money to Palestinian terrorists. You know the stories in the press about Palestinian terrorists receiving money for blowing themselves up on a bus or cafe? That money comes from Iraq. This is not secret CIA information, this is what Saddam himself has advertised and made announcements about ad nauseum. If you haven't heard it, then you just haven't been paying attention.

Third, you are correct that Saddam would never risk a direct war with the U.S. But, as Donald Rumsfeld has been pointing out for years, we live in a world full of "asymmetric threats." People will not meet us on a battlefield, because they're not stupid, Kim Jong Il notwithstanding. What they will do is make a nuke and find a way to sneak it into the country.

We know for a fact that Saddam has been trying to build a nuclear weapon. Does anyone doubt that he would slip it into a Western nation if he had the chance and wouldn't be immediately attacked? Hamas, Hezbollah, and a thousand other radical Islamic groups would looooove to take charge of that nuke and sneak it into the U.S. And they could do it, too. We've got thousands and thousands of miles of coastline and borders, and only hundreds of miles are guarded. Hell, I could get a nuke into the country and I'm just some rube from Illinois. The solution, therefore, is to prevent people who would use nukes against us from building them in the first place.

This is why the French position is so cowardly. They are not threatened by any nuke or other weapon that Saddam might develop. Due largely to their heavy Algerian influence, France is not seen as a real enemy outside of the Ivory Coast and a few such places. So France can sit back and feel secure instead of coming to the aid of its (supposed) allies, which are threatened. And then the French take it a step further! They threaten to veto all plans of NATO and the UN in the hopes that its (supposed) allies won't even be able to defend themselves! It's outrageous! I would think no worse of the French than I do of the Spanish, Swiss, or Swedes for staying neutral in a conflict, but France has to take it a step further and try to prevent us from defending ourselves.

I'm in the middle of a city preparing itself for chemical and biological attacks (Washington DC, for those who came along during my long hiatus), and those rat bastards are trying to prevent us from getting to the source of those weapons.

 

Thanks, Boc, I had a response going on that topic when some idjit at blew the breaker down the hall. Stupid kids. I stick with what I said earlier, if the Allies had stopped the treaty violations earlier, then there would have been less death -- the German war machine would not have been as advanced. I say we stop Saddam before HIS war machine advances to a point that Shralp and his family will have to test out the efficacy of their preparations.

 

I must say that your post was rather objective Shralp. I would like to add one point though and that is that Iraq has no nukes now, whatever program he has had is on ice for the moment due to inspectors and the watchful eyes of the world and if the world has anything to say about it he will never get any nukes. That is why the inspectors are there for. I do not think a war where the civilian casualties are calculated at around 250,000 (UN count, if the war is swift and successful from an allied point of view. It might be 500,000 but as I was unsure of the number I went with the lower one.) to stop something that Saddam currently cant do and will never be able to do if the world keeps a proper watch on him.

Another point that is highly importan is that any iraqi goverment with any chance of success needs to come from within, already we can see the problems Kharzai (sp?) has in Afganistan. An foreign appointed goverment just dont work.

There is no need for a war when we are able to make life a hell for Saddam with nosy inspectors poking around everywhere and make sure that he absolutely not get a hold of anything used to create any dangerous weapons. If he says he needs chemical X to make toothpase lets sell him toothpaste and so on. He has been a bad bad boy and needs to be chastined but as there is no need for war we shouldnt go to war to help save Bush the seconds face.

Do not buy all the terror propaganda that the US goverment feeds you, it wants you to be afraid even when there is no logical reason for it. Saddam isnt the only one that uses propaganda, even if you are someone that thinks that was is needed be extremely wary of what the goverment tells you, their main goal isnt to inform you of what is but to make sure you know and thinks what they want you to know and think. The french isnt much better but considering that the will to war comes from the goverment and has been implemented to the population in the US and the opposition to war has come from the population and been enforced upon most of the european goverments it is worth thinking on. Blair is dead politically in the UK after this term, large parts of his own party already wants to depose him. Chirac exhibits the normal french arrogance and almost automatical rejection of anything american but he is doing his job as a democratic leader and expressing the will of the people. Schröder likewise, he is an extreme populist that turns his coat after the wind. Nyrop Rasmussen in Denmark is in a similar seat as Blair and he is facing heavy opposition at home. Silvio Berlusconi in Italy shouldnt need to be mentioned the guy is a extreme right wing semi-facist and mobster whose main reasons for being in power is so he cant be put to trial for his crimes and because he owns most of the media in Italy. Not to mention that no italian goverment should be taken too seriously as they tend to be exchanged atleast every year.

If you think about the situation you should easily see that are ample room to do things without resorting to an extremely costly war, both in economical and humanitarian costs. Not to mention that the lives of the occasional US soldier would also be spared.

One last point is that Bin Laden wouldnt like anything better right now than for the US and UK to attack Iraq without the support of the UN, it is a perfect oppurtunity for him to mislead another generation of arabs into mindless fanatics and terrorists.

 

I'm in the process of moving and can't really spend a lot of time on this, but I have one Nit Shralp.

The US may get a small amount of oil from Iraq but that doesn't mean that oil isn't a part (extent?) of the reason for the US wanting a regime change. First, they could be thinking about the future. Second, there is a very good article in the current Business Week about reducing US dependence on foreign oil that makes the point that since oil has become a fungible world commodity where the US gets its oil is irrelevant. I'd highly recommend the Business Week article to anyone who gets a chance to grab it. The point is that the US may not want to buy oil directly from Iraq but by opening up the flow to other nations that will reduce the cost of oil on the world wide market causing a direct benefit to the US.

FWIW, I don't think oil is the driving factor behind this either.

 

As an update for the actual poll.

It is interesting to see that the majority of American Voters say yes. While the ratio of British and other voters is far different. Obviously, with such a small amount of votes in total, we cannot consider these results accurate for an entire population, but nevertheless they do raise one small question.

It seems that American people are far more keen to go to war than other countries. Now origionally i believed this to be anger stirred up by the WTC disaster, however, as Shralp has pointed out, the links between Bin Laden and Iraq are weak.
It seems to me therefore that there is some sort of major propaganda move in the U.S. I personally believe that the Bush Goverment has taken great steps to persuade the general public that War with Iraq will help prevent future terrorist attacks. I think America is taking the whole situation far too personally.

 

@ Shralp:
Very good posting, but there is one thing you forgot: Attacking Iraq would seriously increase the terroristic danger for all western (using Huntingtons definition) countries.

Remember the second gulf war. The allied military intervention wasn't received well in "Pan-Arabia" and the prolongend stationment (?) of US-troops in Saudi-Arabia had been the last drop of whatever that finally spilled Bin Ladens barrel of insanity.

This time, there isn't even a concrete danger coming from Iraq. An attack will make things only worse by playing into the hands of islamic religious fundamentalists (or is it fundamentals?).

MfG

 

sharlp, you make alot of assumptions, saying that this will happen is nothing more then an assumption made on your part.

your right, saddam would gladly sell his oil to the US right now, but then he also wants an extreme price for it, in taking iraq the US would be able to set its own price after costs.

also, with regards to the money saddam 'blatantly' gives to terrotists, that sum of money is insignifficant, because iraq simply cant afford it, it is minute compared to the sum the US funnels into terrorists and other groups through illegal arms sales.

"You know the stories in the press about Palestinian terrorists receiving money for blowing themselves up on a bus or cafe? That money comes from Iraq"
the press, well woopiedoo, were going to take that with a grain of salt, the actual thing iraq is doing is giving money to the families of terrotists who blow themselves up.

with regards to nukes, saddam is far from making a nuke, he doesnt even have most of the components, and some of these components would be impossible to get without the IC spotting it, we'd be pretty suspicious if a heavy water plant showed up.

"Hamas, Hezbollah, and a thousand other radical Islamic groups would looooove to take charge of that nuke and sneak it into the U.S"
when ever a rogue spear has been recovered from the black marked by operations teams, the average price is $20million (US), the terrotist groups you just mentioned dont have those kinds of funds, and saddam, having spend a few mil building the weapon isnt just going to give it away to an unreliable group who may use it against him to curry western favour.

"which are threatened. And then the French take it a step further! They threaten to veto all plans of NATO and the UN in the hopes that its (supposed) allies won't even be able to defend themselves! It's outrageous! I would think no worse of the French than I do of the Spanish, Swiss, or Swedes for staying neutral in a conflict, but France has to take it a step further and try to prevent us from defending ourselves"
the US is not defending itself from anything, it is causing the wars and then claiming they are the innocent party - that is cowardly, not the position of the french to not aid the US in its crusades.

"I'm in the middle of a city preparing itself for chemical and biological attacks (Washington DC, for those who came along during my long hiatus), and those rat bastards are trying to prevent us from getting to the source of those weapons. "
realllllly, maybe you should look closer to home, most chemical and biological weapons which find its way to the US have come from the US, and on a lesser stance from the old soviet union. the anthrax came from american sources and was smuggled by contacts into the hands of terrorists, and for another note, i wouldnt be so scared of these weapons, the anthrax 'scare' killed 6 people, the common cold kills more then that.
this preperation for biological and chemical attacks is your governments way of keeping you on your toes and making you believe that the way to get back to your normal life is to support them in destroying the world - it is your own governments propaganda, by making you feel vunerable, they get your support. intelligence call it a hyperdermic needle model of the psychological state, they have you so cowed that they can simply inject their propaganda into your brains, and you will believe it.

 

In a way, I think some of our willingness (Americans) to go to war is because of 9/11. We didn't get Bin Laden. Americans may be looking to get 'somebody' for it, regardless of who it is.
Like I've said many times, I don't want a war. I don't think anyone does. But regardless of whether I agree or disagree with my government, I pledge my full support as an American citizen to Bush and our troops.