Do you want a war on Iraq?

Black Hand said:
Once again i'm asking that this thread be closed because NOTHING good will EVER come of it. If anyone wants to hear my personal opineons about this pm me.

If you ask me it's going pretty well right now. I don't see any reason to close it.

It started well on about 4 other forums too, if everyone is in agreement with this then fine but this thread isn't worth anyone leaving the forum over and thats what this could be risking.

I can only see this leading to bad things. I beleive the American government is going to risk the lives of it's citizens just to gain a foothold in the Middle East. As soon as the invasion begins, there will be biological, chemical, and other attacks (possibly including nuclear attacks) attempted on our country. I'm fairly sure many Americans will be killed along with all the Iraqis being killed in the following months and years, while the government leaders will be hiding in their bunkers safe from everything.

At the very least, this will result in the exchange of Saddam for another fascist in Iraq, just like what happened in Central and South America between the 60s and the 80s.

If there was the option "I DON'T CARE! Bush will fuck around no matter what anyone says." I would pick it.

I don't watch the news. It's all bullshit. What they decide won't mean a damn thing when this is all over. If there's a war, I won't be taking part in it, one way or another.

You know what the really stupid thing about this is? it seems that the majority of the US people (according to polls anyway) honestly do believe that Iraq did have direct ties with 9/11 attacks. I love the US's "Gotta get someone back for this" attude.

Oh yes, and WHY IN THE NAME OF [Your deity of choice] IS THE BUNCH OF SUCKS WE CALL THE (Australian) GOVERMENT DECIDING THAT WE NEED TO BE A PART OF THIS?

Vietnam: Part II

Ct_red_pants said:

Vietnam: Part II

No, that was Afghanistan. This is Vietnam: Part III.

It ain't anywhere near over in Afghanistan. Not even close. Things can still go to shit there on a microsecond's notice. The U.S. will never be able to leave that country. There will be U.S. troops there for as long as there is a U.S.

Iraq will be like Afgangistan but with about 100x the problems keeping rival factions from raising hell.

If the U.S. wants to be the world's cops, and unpaid cops at that, have at her I say.

not quite.. the united states doesn't even need ground troops anymore to win a war.. in vietnam we were fighting in a hostile terrain which our troops were untrained to fight in..

i wish people would also look at propoganda by BOTH the united states AND iraq before thinking the united states government is a bunch of violent malicious bastards. saddam is VERY good at making the united states look bad.

the war is imo somewhat out of bounds though.. the united states is exaggerating a possible threat as a means to make a use of the billions of dollars we spend anually on our military. not to say iraq is in no means posing a threatening stance, violating UN regulations in order to build up a military force (nazi germany, anyone?)
seems to me this was why the UN was established in the first place and they should take some sort of active role against saddam... diplomacy can work, but actions speak louder than words, and this is in some cases necessary.

i think we should resolve wars as opposed to starting them. a war in Iraq will enrage people around the world and inspire more terrorism

the_Danarchist said:

I can only see this leading to bad things. I beleive the American government is going to risk the lives of it's citizens just to gain a foothold in the Middle East. As soon as the invasion begins, there will be biological, chemical, and other attacks (possibly including nuclear attacks) attempted on our country.

Somebody doesn't realize how many chemical, biological, and nuclear attacks are attempted on the United States during the average work week.

Your average Western world citizen is in no more personal danger now than they have been at any time since the beginning of the Cold War.

Ct_red_pants:
Oh yes, and WHY IN THE NAME OF [Your deity of choice] IS THE BUNCH OF SUCKS WE CALL THE (Australian) GOVERMENT DECIDING THAT WE NEED TO BE A PART OF THIS?

That goes for a lot of governments, including mine :-(

I haven't read the other threads so forgive me if the following has been said already...

"Saddam is a bad man and we all know he has weapons of mass-destruction".
> The same goes for Bush...

"Saddam has used these weapons against his own people".
> So using it against other people (like Iranians) is fine, but if you use it against your own it unacceptable?!

"Iraq has broken UN resolutions"
> Israel has broken far more, lets bomb the smeg out of Sharon...

"There is strong evidence Iraq has clear connections with Al-qaeda"
> Sure... just like America has strong evidence Bin Laden was behind the 11-9 attacks... IF THE EVIDENCE IS SO CLEAR, WHY NOT SHOW IT!!!!! WHERE THE SMEG IS THE EVIDENCE!!!!!!!

"Powell said: blah blah..."
> 'Unfortuanally' mister Powell was unable to present any VERIFIABLE information, making his story worthless.

"Violence is the only way"
> American bombing on Kosovo lead to nothing but senseless killing and destruction. The country was eventually liberated by the (mostly anti-american) people without the use of violence.

"If we don't stop Saddam now, he will strike back with nukes. Aluminium tubes have been found! They could be used for the cooling element of a nuclear power plant! clear evidence!"
> ah... so... where's the plant???

"Iraq should prove it doesn't have any of the biological weapons *cough*they-got-from-america-in-the-80s*cough*"
> So Iraq is quilty until proven otherwise? That sounds a bit... un-american to me.

In short: America has no right to attack Iraq!

Arioch said:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2854189.stm

God speaks out against war.

O_o

Heh.

Lüt said:

O_o

Heh.

wheee

If America is at war it could enforce the Sedition Act

16 May, 1918
The U.S. Sedition Act

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
United States, Statutes at Large, Washington, D.C., 1918, Vol. XL, pp 553 ff.
A portion of the amendment to Section 3 of the Espionage Act of June 15, 1917.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SECTION 3. Whoever, when the United States is at war, shall willfully make or convey false reports or false statements with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the military or naval forces of the United States, or to promote the success of its enemies, or shall willfully make or convey false reports, or false statements, . . . or incite insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty, in the military or naval forces of the United States, or shall willfully obstruct . . . the recruiting or enlistment service of the United States, or . . . shall willfully utter, print, write, or publish any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the form of government of the United States, or the Constitution of the United States, or the military or naval forces of the United States . . . or shall willfully display the flag of any foreign enemy, or shall willfully . . . urge, incite, or advocate any curtailment of production . . . or advocate, teach, defend, or suggest the doing of any of the acts or things in this section enumerated and whoever shall by word or act support or favor the cause of any country with which the United States is at war or by word or act oppose the cause of the United States therein, shall be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than twenty years, or both....

Wonder if the Act encompasses threads that go to post hell? :P

Well the whole "war on terrorism" thing sort of failed, so now he needs a "war on Iraq" to distract people from all the rest of the crap he's causing.

I wouldn't say that the war on terrorism failed really. It's not like we've stopped looking and FINDING lead terrorists, along with other countries. It only seems as though it failed because the media has decided to move on to other things.

If american news is right but we do nothing about it lets flash forward 100 years. North korea made nuclear wepons and sells them to every contie on the market for nickels and dimes. Iraq has nuclears missles and they attack america starting a nuclear war.
one year later its the sontage again. If other contries news are right fast forward 100 years. North korea china and cuba make an allience china sends 250,00 soldiers to cuba demanding that america disarm. North korea launches nuke at America
one year later, stone age.

either way i think were all screwed.

In 100 years alot of the governments will change and all of the current leaders will be dead. Cuba will most likely become a capitalist country after Castro dies. If I rememeber correctly China and North Korea aren't exactly buddies. In conclusion, I don't think we're all screwed, but maybe your spelling is.

I can only see this leading to bad things. I beleive the American government is going to risk the lives of it's citizens just to gain a foothold in the Middle East. As soon as the invasion begins, there will be biological, chemical, and other attacks (possibly including nuclear attacks) attempted on our country. I'm fairly sure many Americans will be killed along with all the Iraqis being killed in the following months and years, while the government leaders will be hiding in their bunkers safe from everything.

For some reason I don't think these terrorists have been waiting for us to attack Iraq. If they have the tools to pull it off, I wouldn't be surprised if they've already attempted it, have planned/are planning it/, or would do it reguardless of us invading Iraq. The reason we don't experience as many attacks as, say Israel, is because of the location. They have to bring all of their crap overseas without being caught, setup an attack without being caught, and execute before being caught. I think the government has a pretty firm hold on things (at the moment anyway) [/B][/quote]
You know what the really stupid thing about this is? it seems that the majority of the US people (according to polls anyway) honestly do believe that Iraq did have direct ties with 9/11 attacks. I love the US's "Gotta get someone back for this" attude.

Really? From what I've heard there is only a minimal amount of evidence that indicates Iraq supporting Al-Qaeda as far as setting it up. It's obvious that Saddam would support the idea though, seeing as how he praised the attack afterwords. Although there may not be enough evidence of him actually supporting them financially or through 'artillary', do you really think he wouldn't love a chance to get at the US in anyway possible?

Arioch said:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2854189.stm

God speaks out against war.

I never knew God was so crafty.

And this is something that gets me thinking. People complain about anti-war sentiment because family members or people they know are overseas and are going to be involved. I don't understand this logic. I mean, it's not like the soldiers have a choice about going to war, they have to go if they are ordered. One would think that these people would be a little more concerned about there loved ones- instead they are upset with anyone who questions if these soldiers should be put in harms way in the first place.

My brother just entered the army as a mechanic. After he finishes his training, if all of this is still an issue, there's a pretty good chance they are going to send him over there. As much as I dislike him, I wouldn't be particularly happy if he died over there as a result of some sort of retaliation by Iraq. If anything, I'm rather displeased at the decision that would send my brother, and others like him, into what could be a dangerous situation when there are other ways of handling it, or there is more support that could be gained.

Man, Bush should win the prize of the best actor (or best hypocrite) of the universe! He telling that he´s concerned about the Iraqi people because of Saddam makes me ROFL.

Black Hand:
"Pacifists like to beleave that by giving a lion steak it will become a vegetarian."

Agressors like to believe steak is not something to share but to fight and kill over. The strongest lion is always the right lion...

Ralphis:
I wouldn't say that the war on terrorism failed really. It's not like we've stopped looking and FINDING lead terrorists, along with other countries. It only seems as though it failed because the media has decided to move on to other things.

First of all, there is NO evidence whatsoever linking Al-qaeda to the 11-9 attacks. Second: two weeks after the attacks America offered Afghanistan the opportunity to give them Bin Laden. If they did, the Taliban regime would be left alone (to suppress, torture, and kill the population). This shows America didn't (and still doesn't) care about Afghanistan. Third: it is not just the media, Bush and his friends planned it this way. Bush hasn't even mentioned Bin Laden for months now... Forth: in contrast to popular believes Afghanistan is not liberated. People are being suppressed, tortured and killed by new leaders under supervision of the American militairy. Never in the history of this country have women been raped as often as they are now.

Cuba will most likely become a capitalist country after Castro dies.

Castro is extremely popular amongst the Cuban people; if there were to be a democratic election, he would easily win it. I do not believe Cuba is the hell it is said to be. Sure people have sober lifes there, which to us spoiled westerners seems unacceptable, but it is not like they are not dying on the streets...

sargebaldy:
saddam is VERY good at making the united states look bad.

So is Bush...

m0l0t0v said:

First of all, there is NO evidence whatsoever linking Al-qaeda to the 11-9 attacks.

uhh sure there isn't, if you ignore video testimony by members of al qaida admitting they did it... and about 50000 pages of documents found in al qaida caves...and that the fact that the hijackers all happened to be in al qaeda... not to mention some basic circumstantial evidence such as the fact they're one of the world's largest terrorist organizations and had bombed the world trade center in the past.

don't tell me there's NO evidence whatsoever

sargebaldy said:

not quite.. the united states doesn't even need ground troops anymore to win a war.. in vietnam we were fighting in a hostile terrain which our troops were untrained to fight in..

? doesn't matter how precise your bombs are (and lets face it even the laser guided stuff screws up) you can't secure Iraq without ground troops.

Doesn't look too good. With over thousands of troops deployed in the gulf and the military all poised for just a single sign of the paper, all signs lean to the inevitable; brutal and swift bombing. The quicker/more intense the bombing, the better for Bush, Cheney and his Jewish lobby. We have to understand that Bush himself is under a lot of strings; mainly from his constituencies. Plus the so called revolutionary tax cut points in this direction too. I don't know, but I also get the impression that even without the wagdog "I'll even eat your shit" Britain and Australia, US has the strength and perhaps the resilience to tackle this situation unilaterally. War sucks, but its inevitable.

sargebaldy:
uhh sure there isn't, if you ignore video testimony by members of al qaida admitting they did it... and about 50000 pages of documents found in al qaida caves...and that the fact that the hijackers all happened to be in al qaeda... not to mention some basic circumstantial evidence such as the fact they're one of the world's largest terrorist organizations and had bombed the world trade center in the past.

don't tell me there's NO evidence whatsoever

1: the video tapes only show Bin Laden and others talk about the WTC attack. Never do they testify taken part in it. If the whole world is looking for you, claiming you killed thousants of course you're going to talk about it. Records of such dialogues prove nothing.
2: 50000 pages that could be blanc for all we know. America isn't willing to share any socalled clear evidence, making it completely worthless to the rest of the world
3: The hijackers were moslim fundamentalist, but no verifiable evidence has been revealed to show they were part of the Al-qaeda network. Furthermore: all but one of the hijackers were from saudi Arabia, yet no action was taken in this country.
4: [edit] On the previous bombing: "the Muslim cleric from Egypt who resided in New Jersey, and several of his followers were indicted in connection with this plot and were charged with conspiracy. The case went to trial in September 1993, and four suspects were convicted in March 1994." Again no verifiable evidence was presented linking them to Al-qaeda...[/edit]

People blamed Bin Laden for the Oklahoma bombing, but it turned out he wasn't involved. When Erric Harris and Dylan Klebold killed 14 people in the Columbine Highschool people blamed Bin Laden again... He has become the scapegoat for all America's terrorist problems.

Afghanistan was an easy target and Bush had to point the finger at somebody. America was so eager to blame Bin Laden it didn't really matter if he was responsible or not. The saddest part is the real terrorist could be laughing their asses of on some tropical island...

I'm not saying Bin Laden/ Al-Qaeda didn't do it, they probably did, but that doesn't justify the killing of thousants and thousants of people just get revenge. If you're going to have a massacre the least you can do is get your facts straight.

m0l0t0v said:

1: all I can find is the bombing of the WTC by two americans: McVeigh and Nichols...

They were not involved in any WTC attack, unless they moved it to Oklahoma.

sorry about that fodders, looks like I mixed things up a bit. You are quite right (as always). will correct my previous post (and get MY facts straight :-P)

Well, I don´t know how far I can go, since I am a person who always hesitates to make clear statements not to hurt anyone´s feelings, which is a weakness of mine, anyway...

I am not very optimistic...

It is that obvious. A president who was pushed by the oil industry (maybe not even elected in a correct manner) who is totally fixed in getting control over the second oil producer in the world. He says: Saddam is evil. Bush use the word "evil" in almost every sentence he utters. He use "evil" to describe all and everything that is not compatible with his extreme conservative views. I am afraid, that Bush will convert the USA into a kind of pre-fascistic state, give it 4 more years.

As far as I have understood, the USA always were a civilisation being able to develop in almost every direction. I think, this will end with Bush he will increase the distance between the mass of the population (let´s be bold and call it "scum") and the upper class.

I hated the spanish leader Asnar for his trial to pull the sinking oil carrier in front of the portuguese coast, to save the Spanish from the oil and to let the poor fellows in Portugal have the dirt. Asnar is totally asocial and has no honour at all.

I hate Tony Blair for his disgusting blow job to Georg Bush, it is sad to see how he leads his country into national prostitution. Good to see, that most of the people in England think in a different way :)

I hate Georg Bush for all and everything I know what he did, but at last because he exposes his people to the intense hate of the whole world and all the terror acts to come. Have you ever asked yourself why there were no more terror acts since the September 11th? If there is terror outside of the brain of Georg Bush, where is it? What about the terror the USA pays for in (let´s list all countries of the world and pull a few out of the list later) Africa?

And I doubt that the USA will come away with this and I truly think that this will mark the beginning of the down-way of the country.

Nearly all my friends are living in the USA or England (it is sad, that I don´t have more than one or two friends in real life). I hope, that the terrible development in the USA will be corrected by ...anything... and the good people will become free from being hostages of the mad and the really evil.

Funny, how it is possible to draw similarities between the current Iraq crisis and the Suez crisis back in 1956.

Back then it was Britain that wanted to start a war on Egypt to gain control of the Suez canal (money was the goal), covering that by saying that "they wanted to stop the fighting between Israelis and Arabs". And like now, the other European countries (with the exception of France) did not support this action.

The result was that Britain lost a great deal of prestige - naturally, that's what's going to happen to the US unless this Iraq undertaking does have positive results in the end, which I and a lot of my buddies doubt (for the US has never really done anything good in the Middle East afaik - only furthered their own interests and always leaving behind scorched Earth and misery).

The difference is, among other things of course, that while Britain was so weak (economically) back then, the US is still very strong and will be able to pull this off without support if necessary, but I still think it'd be a step down the path that could eventually lead to the fall of the US of frigging A - it's only a matter of how much prestige the US will eventually lose.

If Bush does want regime change in Iraq, surely he would be better served by sending in the Supreme Court? After all that's what enabled a regime change in America?

fodders said:

[Invasion checklist]

Rofl, nice one Fod.

Im 18 that meens if there is a war.I might be drafted.Bush is trying to make his dad happy.I think that he needs to pull that pine tree out of his but and calm down.

No, i don't want war. Period.