95 replies to this topic

[davy]

fraser,
No need to apologise to me as I did not take any personal offence (although I do read the Sun amongst other papers).
I just thought that things were starting to get slightly out of hand and that the reasonable arguments, from both sides of the issue, would get lost if the thread deteriorated into a slagging match.
Just my opinion.
davy.

[cepheus1]

frase.....I promise not to leave the *r* of the end of your nick if you don't leave the *1* of the end of my nick

Now, with regard to your post in response to mine!

You "feel sorry for the pro war people"! I appreciate your sympathy, but do not require it thanks! Why should people having a different view to you require your sympathy?

Do you really seriously believe that a persons knowledge of history would guarantee that their beliefs on this war would agree with yours?

And it is a hugely arrogant statement to assume that individuals that have a different point of veiw to yours do not have as good - if not better knowledge of history

I don't actually read any papers - too biased and trashy for my taste - but I actually quoted Julie Birchill writing for the Guardian, so accusing me of having the knowledge of "an average Sun reader" was rude to me and very insulting to Sun readers.

I enjoyed reading the passion in your argument and both admire  and respect your strong views.

All I was doing was adding some balance to a thread with a well argued point of view from a very passionate and articulate journalist. If you know anything about Julie Birchill you will know that she was born into a home that was hugely anti-american and her upbringing pre-disposes her to your point of view. The fact that she wrote the words I quoted in my post are all the more credible knowing the details of her past! IMHO

Anyway, I hope you can appreciate and respect my point of view


Peace and love




(Only kidding with the above smiley...couldn't resist it)

[pete1312]

I personally have a very serious dilemma over the war:
I'm not sure whether to watch it on BBC or Sky :wink:  

Sorry about that, but I just thought I'd try to introduce a little bit of humour into what is certainly not a humorous subject.

Excellent arguments have been posted above on behalf of both sides. Regardless of political, economical, historical etc opinions, in my own personal humble opinion, this earth is (or would be) a far better place to live without the likes of the following sharing it with us:

Saddam Hussain
Osama bin Laden
Adolf Hitler
Idi Amin
Attila the Hun
Genghis Khan
etc, etc

Some may well wish to add Blair & Bush to the list. I personally don't regard them in the same category, despite their various faults.

Just my 2p :!:

[Gunslinger]

Ariel Sharon should also be added to the above list.

[fraser]

Gunslingers comment is the a basis of my argument. Sharon is worse than many in that list, Saddam included. Yet we never hear anything about him, plus the US arms their facist military (yes, the dictionary definition of facist fits the current Israeli government, isn't it ironic, don't you think?) and gives them bazzilions in aid.

They are also responible for most of the anti-US sentiment in the middle east, and have more blood on their hands relating to 9/11 than the Taliban ever did.

[Gunslinger]

Its nothing to do with oil?????

Quote

PROTECTION FOR OILFIELDS  
 
The US military has drawn up plans to protect Iraq's oilfields.


The aim is to prevent a repeat of 1991 when Saddam Hussein set Kuwait's oil wells on fire.

A leaked document said the US wants to make the protection of Iraq's oilfields "issue number one".

The leak came after Secretary of State Colin Powell promised a US military occupation of Iraq would hold the oilfields "in trust" for the Iraqi people.

Many people opposed to war in Iraq say it is about the control of oil.

This is because Iraq has the world's second biggest oil reserves after Saudi Arabia.  
 
 
 
Oilfields run from north to south
 
 

There are huge fields from Mosul in the north, down to Baghdad and Basra in the south as well as in western Iraq.

Under current rules Iraq exports around 1.5 million barrels of oil a day, but analysts believe this could easily be increased to around six million barrels..

If Iraq were to set the fields alight, as happened in the last Gulf war, then a major supply of the world's oil would be cut off with potentially catastophic effects.

The US, already the world's largest consumer of oil and dependent on imports, says it will need an additional six million barrels of oil a day by 2020.
 
 
 
 
Last Updated: 10:24 UK, Thursday March 20, 2003

From SkyNews

[Vector]

It's everything to do with oil   , oh and killing saddam :wink:

[Coolboy1982]

guess what I voted...
[Hint: Look at my Avatar]

[squall]

Operation human shield... send in the Americans!

Seriously though, i don’t think we should sit back and let Saddam get on with it, but i think we have now pushed to far in Iraq, town by town would have been safer for the troops.

I don’t think this is a one off campaign either, Afghanistan was first, and probably north Korea.


Apart from freeing the people of Iraq, and giving them (potentially) a democracy in my view are as follows,
1. Remove Saddam, stable government, example to the middle east etc etc.
2. Start of stabilisation of region, Israel Palestine will have to be addressed in depth to.
3. Boost world economy by gaining Iraq’s oil supplies. America doesn’t have to control the supplies for the stock market to go up, and inevitably oil prices to fall. I do believe Iraq’s democracy will eventually control oil supplies, and in the mean time funds generated will be kept in trust as promised. Boosting the stock market would go a long way to off setting the cost of the war.
4. Mr bush has personal reasons to, assassination attempts on his father and wife etc etc.


I know there is no one reason in there to go to war, but all in all, and the others that are out there which i haven’t talked about are a compelling case for Mr bush.

As for Mr blair, he is a man of morals, i think he wants the world to be a better place and if it takes a short term war...

One things for sure though, the middle east and long term, Africa etc aren’t going to go away, middle east was a problem before this war, and before 9/11. Its right to fight terrorism and all but the causes have to be tackled to.

To look at it in a different light would anyone call William Wallace or the Bruces terrorists for fighting the English. etc etc. the list goes on. The different is that the west is now considered civilised, whereas the middle east is less developed, but with a much higher level of technology than we had in the middle ages, we cant force a civilisation to be like us, just teach and hope they listen.

[superkingdave]

dont you think that the americans would have carpet bombed most of iraq if all they cared about was getting rid of saddam and getting the oil.... they would have lost a lot less troops but killed more civilians... this makes me think that for once the americans might actually have good intentions.
the reason they took the oil fields first is because they are iraqs lifeblood and if saddam got them set on fire the rebuilding of iraq would have suffered a severe setback

[SANDMAN]

Some questions to ponder over.

> 1. Q: What percentage of the world's population does the U.S. have?
>
> A: 6%
>
> 2. Q: What percentage of the world's wealth does the U.S. have?
>
> A: 50%
>
> 3. Q: Which country has the largest oil reserves?
>
> A: Saudi Arabia
>
> 4. Q: Which country has the second largest oil reserves?
>
> A: Iraq
>
> 5. Q: How much is spent on military budgets a year worldwide?
>
> A: $900+ billion
>
> 6. Q: How much of this is spent by the U.S.?
>
> A: 50%
>
> 7. Q: What percent of US military spending would ensure the essentials of life
> to everyone in the
> world, according the UN?
>
> A: 10% (that's about$40 billion, the amount of funding initially requested to
> fund our retaliatory attack
> on Afghanistan).
>
> 8. Q: How many people have died in wars since World War II?
>
> A: 86 million
>
> 9. Q: How long has Iraq had chemical and biological weapons?
>
> A: Since the early 1980's.
>
> 10. Q: Did Iraq develop these chemical & biological weapons on their own?
>
> A: No, the materials and technology were supplied by the US government, along
> with Britain and
> private corporations.
>
> 11. Q: Did the US government condemn the Iraqi use of gas warfare against
> Iran?
>
> A: No
>
> 12. Q: How many people did Saddam Hussein kill using gas in the Kurdish town
> of Halabja in 1988?
>
> A: 5,000
>
> 13. Q: How many western countries condemned this action at the time?
>
> A:0
>
> 14. Q: How many gallons of agent Orange did America use in Vietnam?
>
> A: 17million.
>
> 15. Q: Are there any proven links between Iraq and September 11th terrorist
> attack?
>
> A: No
>
> 16. Q: What is the estimated number of civilian casualties in the Gulf War?
>
> A: 35,000
>
> 17. Q: How many casualties did the Iraqi military inflict on the western
> forces during the Gulf War ?
>
> A: 0
>
> 18. Q: How many retreating Iraqi soldiers were buried alive by U.S. tanks with
> ploughs mounted on the
> front?
>
> A: 6,000
>
> 19. Q: How many tons of depleted uranium were left in Iraq and Kuwait after
> the Gulf War?
>
> A: 40 tons
>
> 20. Q: What according to the UN was the increase in cancer rates in Iraq
> between 1991 and 1994?
>
> A: 700%
>
> 21. Q: How much of Iraq's military capacity did America claim it had destroyed
> in 1991? A: 80%
>
> 22. Q: Is there any proof that Iraq plans to use its weapons for anything
> other than deterrence and self
> defense?
>
> A: No
>
> 23. Q: Does Iraq present more of a threat to world peace now than 10 years
> ago?
>
> A: No
>
> 24. Q: How many civilian deaths has the Pentagon predicted in the event of an
> attack on Iraq in
> 2002/3?
>
> A: 10,000
>
> 25. Q: What percentage of these will be children?
>
> A:Over 50%
>
> 26. Q: How many years has the U.S. engaged in air strikes on Iraq?
>
> A: 11years
>
> 27. Q: Was the U.S and the UK at war with Iraq between December 1998 and
> September 1999?
>
> A: No
>
> 28. Q: How many pounds of explosives were dropped on Iraq between December
> 1998 and September
> 1999?
>
> A: 20 million
>
> 29. Q: How many years ago was UN Resolution 661 introduced, imposing strict
> sanctions on Iraq's
> imports and exports?
>
> A: 12 years
>
> 30. Q: What was the child death rate in Iraq in 1989 (per 1,000 births)?
>
> A: 38
>
> 31. Q: What was the estimated child death rate in Iraq in 1999 (per 1,000
> births)?
>
> A: 131 (that's an increase of345%)
>
> 32. Q: How many Iraqis are estimated to have died by October 1999 as a result
> of UN sanctions?
>
> A: 1.5 million
>
> 33. Q: How many Iraqi children are estimated to have died due to sanctions
> since 1997?
>
> A: 750,000
>
> 34. Q: Did Saddam order the inspectors out of Iraq?
>
> A:No
>
> 35. Q: How many inspections were there in November and December 1998?
>
> A:300
>
> 36. Q: How many of these inspections had problems?
>
> A:5
>
> 37. Q: Were the weapons inspectors allowed entry to the Ba'ath Party HQ?
>
> A: Yes
>
> 38. Q: Who said that by December 1998, "Iraq had in fact, been disarmed to a>
> level unprecedented in
> modern history."
>
> A: Scott Ritter, UNSCOM chief.
>
> 39. Q: In 1998 how much of Iraq's post 1991 capacity to develop weapons of
> mass destruction did the
> UN weapons inspectors claim to have discovered and dismantled?
>
> A: 90%
>
> 40. Q: Is Iraq willing to allow the weapons inspectors back in ?
>
> A:Yes
>
> 41. Q: How many UN resolutions did Israel violate by 1992?
>
> A: Over 65
>
> 42. Q: How many UN resolutions on Israel did America veto between 1972 and
> 1990?
>
> A: 30+
>
> 44. Q: How many countries are known to have nuclear weapons?
>
> A: 8
>
> 45. Q:How many nuclear warheads has Iraq got?
>
> A: 0
>
> 46. Q: How many nuclear warheads has US got?
>
> A: over 10,000
>
> 47. Q: Which is the only country to use nuclear weapons?
>
> A: the US
>
> 48. Q: How many nuclear warheads does Israel have?
>
> A: Over 400
>
> 50. Q: Who said, "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things
> that matter"? A: Dr.
> Martin Luther King, Jr

[awarner]

Now on the news is claiming that an uprising is underway in Iraq
so what does that now tell people?
I am not posting my views and this is just a question.

[benzo]

Quote

Now on the news is claiming that an uprising is underway in Iraq  
so what does that now tell people?  

Don't believe everything you see on TV, especially in war time. Propoganda is a very powerful tool.

Who knows what is really going on in Iraq.

Benzo.

[Gunslinger]

I wouldnt believe a lot of what is said and shown through the medium of popular media.  Especially at war time.  Much of the media industry is under the control of government aides / supporters and therefore will on MOST OCCASIONS provide the public with Biased opinions and reports and will report facts which the government want the public to hear.

[awarner]

Quote

Who knows what is really going on in Iraq.

Benzo.

Thank you Benzo
Exactly none of us here do, thats why this topic makes me laugh
it's just going round and round in circles and not getting anywhere
except Pi****g each other off.
For all concerned let everyone agree to dissagree
Where did you all get you information from??
Err the media? say no more believe what you want
and keep this site politics free.

PS Gunslinger you say the same as Benzo but you also posted a quote earlier,
where did you get that from? the media by any chance?

Peace or war to everyone, what ever makes you happy.

[Big Ron - No Longer a Mem]

I'd like to point out the difference between a "reason" and a "pretext" - a "reason" is WHY you're doing something, whereas a "pretext" is juat a handy excuse to justify something you intended to do anyway. Bush's administration contains most of the members of a "think-tank" which proposed invding Iraq back in the 1990's, and ALSO proposed a new and dangerous concept of "pre-emptive attack". Now they're in government, and have the power to put their plans into action. The "reasons" they give for invading Iraq seem to be mainly linked to events that were either ignored at the time (use of WMD's back in the 1980's) mere assertion (claims that Iraq is linked to Al Quada, that they intend to hand-out WMD's to terrorists - which they've NOT done in the last 12 years since Gulf War 1) and that the "Axis of good guys" is "simply enforcing the UN's will" (despite their inability to get the UN to endorse the invasion, and their declared intention to exclude the UN from rebuilding).  Oddly, Saddam's nationalist Ba'ath party got its start opposing the relatively benevolent British control - The Iraqis had a revolution that threw out the interfering Brits, and killed off the pro-Brit King. Now the aim seems to be to wind the clock back to the 1950's, but THIS time with the USA telling Iraqis what their foreign policy will be, and locking up anyone who opposes it. In fact, a situation much like that in Egypt (which recieves the second largest helping of US aid - like all US aid, it's mostly guns -  after Israel.) In Egypt they hold elections in which you can vote for any candidate... providing the US doesn't disapprove of them, in which case they get locked up in gaol.

Democracy, civil rights and so on seem to mean one thing for the USA, and something quite different for everyone else. ONLY Americans seem to have "inalienable rights". The constitution, as it's currently applied, does NOT apply to foreign nationals.

[dan.peterson]

awarner:

Quote

say no more believe what you want and keep this site politics free.

- Having established a community based around what is basically only a piece of plastic, it is hardly damaging to have one or two threads on what is possibly more serious than the lack of SMS character counter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The two sides of this debate seem to have little common ground, yet both offer convincing arguements, hope this helps.

  1. Even if it is about de oil, does this stop the overall effect on the Iraqi people of removing Saddam being a positive one?
2. Even if we did sell Iraq weapons, (possibly even WMDs), does this then stop the overall effect of removing these weapons of oppression from being a positive one for the daily lives of the Iraqi people.
  3. Even though the real global peace process should start in Israel, is this a reason to deny the Iraqi people the chance to liberate themselves?

Yes I agree whole-heartedly that the motives seem wrong. Geopolitics is never conducted by Saints- sadly it has to be done.

BUT. Is that a reason to "Stop the war"?

NO it is a reason to pursue this conflict to the end, then organise another march of millions to take up the cause of post war reconstruction for a just handling of oil revenues, a just resolution to the Palestine situation, and most importantly to demand from America that she uses her role as the global hegemon responsibly in the long term interests of more than just her voters.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The pro/anti war rift is more one of rhetoric and possibly priorities than one of actual disagreements about the facts of the matter. Global power on the scale that America wields is an ugly thing, but the anti war camp have to engage with the arguements rather than sit back and throw rhetoric and hyperbole from the sidelines a la Sandman.

No one pretends the US are saints, but whilst the bigger picture is often proselytised, it is easy to lose sight of the smaller picture - the effect on the daily lives of the Iraqi people. -

It is quite some arogance to deny them this chance of increased quality of life, and expectations just because the motives are not pure enough.



.

[cepheus1]

Well said dan.peterson

[mashkhan]

Dan.Peterson, admit it, you were looking for an excuse to drop in "proselytised" ; )

[dan.peterson]

Hell yeah, (although still trying to work out how to say it at the moment.)