Guest TSCRYPTO Posted March 19, 2003 Report Share Posted March 19, 2003 Absolutely against it. Its prosecution is based on lies, hypocrisy, sensationalism and speculation. Need we forget that it was the US who gave Saddam the go-ahead to gas the kurds in the late 80's and then tried to pin it on Iran? Need we forget that if the US were so concerned about dictators and those who suffer under them they would go after the junta in Burma, the represssive and corrupt regimes of Yemen and Saudi Arabia and of course Zimbabwe? Need we forget that NO concrete evidence of the existence of WMD's has been provided? Need we forget that containment has worked over the last ten years and that there is no evidence of Saddam having ties to AQ? Need we forget that the Arab League has unequivocally opposed the war and the resulting military occupation / puppet government? Need we forget that Ariel Sharon, only a few weeks ago stated that the US should not stop at Iraq, but should continue through to Egypt and Syria? Need we forget that the US has propped up and supported most (if not all) of the worlds most repressive regimes? (Remember Noriega - the US's no. 1 guy in Central America - the US invaded the country, not to free the citizens from a drug-dealing tyrant, but because he was days away from blowing the lid in his drug dealings with the CIA and DEA - do a google search - there is plenty of information about this). (Remember Marcos of the Philippines - referred to by Washington as "our kinda guy"). Need we forget that war and a US military occupying force slap bang in the middle of the ME will only further radicalise thousands of muslims, already angry at the US's policy re. Israel and of course the represive ME governments noted above? Need we forget that contracts for the "re-building" of Iraq have already been awarded - to US companies only? Its just another exercise in economic imperialism, which has been a part of western capitalist governments since the time of Christopher Columbus. This war is WRONG Anyone with a modicum of common sense can see that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest madu Posted March 20, 2003 Report Share Posted March 20, 2003 And the testing of new military systems and technology?? I mean extensive testing. That's what USSR (CCCP) did in Afganistan when they were at the top of their military power and had just developed a series of new military might.. Testing testing.... One-two, one-two!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest capt_janeway Posted March 20, 2003 Report Share Posted March 20, 2003 Hope their Smart bombs are a bit more reliable than our Smartphones were! :roll: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Myke Posted March 20, 2003 Report Share Posted March 20, 2003 so uh TSCRYPTO, you think sadam should stay in power? containment has worked the past 10 years? you mean keeping sadam in iraq? yes.. it has worked quite well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Anonymous Posted March 20, 2003 Report Share Posted March 20, 2003 i want to be able to be in the anti war camp but i cannot support that view. i cant believe that the war is about oil when twelve years after the first war there is zero us involvement in the kuwaiti oil industry. someone in this topic claimed that containment has worked... has it worked for the thousands of iraqis killed by saddam since then? on weapons of mass distruction... it would be very easy for saddam to prove that he has no wmds and he needs no extra time to do it... a comment i heard once comes to mind... a lie takes time to fabricate but the truth only takes moment to tell. when the south africans wanted to stop their nuclear programme they opened the country up to inspectors and allowed them to do their job. if saddam had done this we would have no problem. also i notice that some people are cussing any one who supports war... i would expect that the majority of people on this board are intelligent people who have considered the arguments intensely and just because they have come to a different view to you does not mean, as tscrypto implies, that they do not have a modicum of common sense Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest superkingdave Posted March 20, 2003 Report Share Posted March 20, 2003 some people give arguments that are just bush bashing or anti american. i do not believe these arguments are valid in this situation... you either think that the war is justified or not... however much of a toolspank bush is, if he is doing the right thing then he is doing the right thing and past misdemeanors should not come into the equation. i believe that war is necessary and i just hope that it is completed with as little bloodshed as possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TSCRYPTO Posted March 22, 2003 Report Share Posted March 22, 2003 No Myke... I am all for Saddam being excised from the ME political landscape, but this is the wrong way to go about it... Read my post - this war is not about overthrowing a dictator - if this was the case then the US would be expressing this goal world wide - instead it prefers to create and prop up tyrants. The long term ramifications of this war are terrifying. Not just for those in the ME, but for the world as a whole. Note too that this war is a huge display of political and military muscle and it sends a clear message to the rest of the world - International conventions and law mean nothing to us - we are a law unto ourselves - DONT FCUK WITH US. This conflict is only the beginning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest vampyre69 Posted March 22, 2003 Report Share Posted March 22, 2003 i said jesse a pass me ma shotgun, i'sa gunna git me soma them iwaqi's for dinna and cook us a saddam spitroast. Dem boys r gunna know my name when i'sa git my hands on em Leroy Delaway yes siree theysa gunna know that for a while screamin' it while I be roastin' the asses on the fire. Seriously now I said yes but again I'm not sure everyone's doing it for the right reasons we should have done this a very long time ago, becuase now weve got all thos pop idol saddam look-a-likes to kill too, just in case we don't get him. Although I would say it's more an invasion than a war at the moment and I hope it stays that way - a war is when they start blowing our asses up in return. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cepheus1 Posted March 22, 2003 Report Share Posted March 22, 2003 When you look back at the common sense and progressiveness of arguments against American intervention in Vietnam, Chile and the like, you can't help but be struck by the sheer befuddled babyishness of the pro-Saddam apologists: 1) "It's all about oil!" Like hyperactive brats who get hold of one phrase and repeat it endlessly, this naive and prissy mantra is enough to drive to the point of madness any person who actually attempts to think beyond the clichés. Like "Whatever!" it is one of the few ways in which the dull-minded think they can have the last word in any argument. So what if it is about oil, in part? Are you prepared to give up your car and central heating and go back to the Dark Ages? If not, don't be such a hypocrite. The fact is that this war is about freedom, justice - and oil. It's called multitasking. Get used to it! 2) "But we sold him the weapons!" An incredible excuse for not fighting, this one - almost surreal in its logic. If the west sold him the weapons that helped make him the monstrous power that he is, responsible for the murder of tens of thousands of Iranians, Kurds, Kuwaitis and Iraqis, then surely it is our responsibility to redress our greed and ignorance by doing the lion's share in getting rid of him. 3) "America's always interfering in other countries!" And when it's not, it is derided as selfish and isolationist. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. 4) "Saddam Hussein may have killed hundreds of thousands of his own people - but he hasn't done anything to us! We shouldn't invade any country unless it attacks us!" I love this one, it's so mind-bogglingly selfish - and it's always wheeled out by people who call themselves "internationalists", too. These were the people who thought that a population living in terror under the Taliban was preferable to a bit of liberating foreign fire power, even fighting side by side with an Afghani resistance. On this principle, if we'd known about Hitler gassing the Jews all through the 1930s, we still shouldn't have invaded Germany; the Jews were, after all, German citizens and not our business. If you really think it's better for more people to die over decades under a tyrannical regime than for fewer people to die during a brief attack by an outside power, you're really weird and nationalistic and not any sort of socialist that I recognise. And that's where you link up with all those nasty rightwing columnists who are so opposed to fighting Iraq; they, too, believe that the lives of a thousand coloured chappies aren't worth the death of one British soldier. Military inaction, unless in the defence of one's own country, is the most extreme form of narcissism and nationalism; people who preach it are the exact opposite of the International Brigade, and that's so not a good look. 5) "Ooo, your friends smell!" Well, so do yours. We may be saddled with Bush and Blair, but you've got Prince Charles (a big friend of the Islamic world, probably because of its large number of feudal kingdoms and hardline attitude to uppity women), the Catholic church (taking a brief break from buggering babies to condemn any western attack as "morally unacceptable") and posturing pansies such as Sean Penn, Sheryl Crow and Damon Albarn. The words aren't mine unfortunately...they came from the pen of Julie Birchill writing in The Guardian - but there is a lot of sense written there - IMHO. Go back and re-read some of the posts in this thread - it's almost as if she has read some of these responses and answered them :) No right-minded person would say they agree with war - innocent people WILL die - but there is a bigger picture! Don't be an ostrich Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest fraser Posted March 23, 2003 Report Share Posted March 23, 2003 Cepheus, you suggest that people should not be an ostrich. Fine. Could you please pull your own head out of the sand, and take a look at the dictatorships and "regimes" that the US actively supports. Of which Saddam used to be a member. The US has done this before. In Panama, they managed to get a CIA agent into the presidency there. When he displayed a little bit of national pride and backbone, going against orders, they fell out with him and the US declared war with the country. The USA actively supports barbaric regimes such as Saudi Arabia and Israel. The support of these regimes is responsible for 99% of anti-US sentiment in the middle east. Al Qaeda have stated this is why they attack America (nothing to do with Bush's "they hate freedom and democracy" facist-propaganda lies). If they truely wanted to prevent terrorism and fight for freedom and democracy, they would be the logical places to start. Saudi Arabria treats women just as badly as the Talliban (if not worse), yet have you ever heard that fact in our news media? They are considered allies because they do business with us. The governments attrocites against the local populations are brushed aside, while we focus on similar traits in a "regime" that doesn't do business with us. There is a directly proportional relationship between a person's history knowledge and their beliefs in this war. The more you know, the more you are against it. I can understand all the pro-war people's logic...based upon the information available to them in popular media, then yes, I'd agree that war was required. However, if you happen to know a bit more than the average Sun reader, then the hypocracy, lies and propaganda are plain to see. I feel sorry for the pro-war people. They are no different to the German people in WW2. They also believed that the war was neccessary and backed it. They didn't know the real motives behind it, and they certainally didn't know what was happening to the Jews when they got on those trains. It's not all about oil. It's about many different things. Of which the plight of the Arabic people is not one of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest davy Posted March 23, 2003 Report Share Posted March 23, 2003 Calm down guys. We live in a democracy where people are permitted different points of views. NOTHING is achieved by slagging off people whose views happen to differ from your own. This is a friendly forum so lets see if we can keep it that way. davy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Monolithix [MVP] Posted March 23, 2003 Report Share Posted March 23, 2003 I don't see anyone slagging anyone else off, a bit of heated discussion is good all round imho. fraser clearly has done a lot of research and hopefully he can open some other peoples eyes. Keep it up people :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest davy Posted March 23, 2003 Report Share Posted March 23, 2003 Mono, imho heated discussion is not good when one side or the other throw blanket insults at the other side of the argument. I quote: "Anyone with a modicum of common sense can see that", and "If you know a bit more than the average Sun reader etc" These types of phrases are or could be insulting/offensive to a large number of people. To use such language imho only serves to lessen the impact of the argument being put forward. davy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Monolithix [MVP] Posted March 23, 2003 Report Share Posted March 23, 2003 As soon as people start giving personal insults or take them personally then something will be done... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest fraser Posted March 23, 2003 Report Share Posted March 23, 2003 If you know a bit more than the average Sun reader etc Sorry, I did not mean to suggest anything about Sun readers with that comment. I singled out the Sun as it is very much pro-war, completely ignoring any argument against the war. Newspapers should not be like that, they should be impartial and present the reader with the information to make their own decissions. The main problem with modern media news is when people restrict themselfs to a few (or one) sources. News media exists to make profit, and that is done by increasing circulation. The media has no respect for fact, hence all of the sensationalism. It simply makes them lots of money, as stories about war, paedophiles, the monarchy and drugs sell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest davy Posted March 23, 2003 Report Share Posted March 23, 2003 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cepheus1 Posted March 23, 2003 Report Share Posted March 23, 2003 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) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pete1312 Posted March 24, 2003 Report Share Posted March 24, 2003 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 :!: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gunslinger Posted March 24, 2003 Report Share Posted March 24, 2003 Ariel Sharon should also be added to the above list. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest fraser Posted March 24, 2003 Report Share Posted March 24, 2003 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gunslinger Posted March 24, 2003 Report Share Posted March 24, 2003 Its nothing to do with oil????? 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Vector Posted March 24, 2003 Report Share Posted March 24, 2003 It's everything to do with oil :) , oh and killing saddam :wink: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Coolboy1982 Posted March 24, 2003 Report Share Posted March 24, 2003 guess what I voted... [Hint: Look at my Avatar] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest squall Posted March 24, 2003 Report Share Posted March 24, 2003 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest superkingdave Posted March 25, 2003 Report Share Posted March 25, 2003 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now