Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Disorder

Do you want a war on Iraq?

Do you want a war on Iraq?  

67 members have voted

  1. 1. Do you want a war on Iraq?

    • Yes.
      11
    • No.
      47
    • I have not decided.
      9


Recommended Posts

Everywhere you go, all over the planet, people are talking about a possible war on Iraq. Since I feel the war is getting closer rapidly I wanted to see your opinions. Who wants a war on Iraq, and who doesn't? Post your opinions here. PS: I know this subject can be a little sensible, but please don't start yelling at eachother.

My opinion is as follows: I still haven't decided. Resolution 1441 says, if I'm not mistaken, that Saddam must do everything it can possibly do to disarm Iraq. He's doing that really slowly, but even Hans Blix has said that Iraq isn't really cooperating that good at all. There's more that Iraq can do. I also feel that the way the UN is searching for weapons is like searching for a needle in a haystack. But would this justify a war? I don't know. If the US and it's allies will not go to war now, Saddam proofed that UN's resolutions aren't really strict and allow him to continue to mislead the world anyway.

On the other hand, a war on Iraq will cause a huge boom in anti-Americanism all across the world, especially among Muslims. Most of them simply feel they have become the target of the US since 9/11. Terrorism will be on the rise, I guess there's no doubting that. A war on Iraq might also enflame the middle-east, causing regime changes in favor of the people there, so there will be more problems to deal with in comparison with the period before the war. Then there's America that completely isolates itself from the outside world if it decides to go to war no matter what.

Then there are also rumours about suicide army's, and possible other nightmare scenarios, such as the use of ABC-weapons. If Saddam does have those weapons, I believe that he will use them if he sees that he's gonna go down anyway.

To make a long story short, I still haven't decided. What is your opinion? Please post your own opinion first before you start to discuss other people's ideas.

Share this post


Link to post

IMO, something definetly needs to be done about Saddam. Although it should've been done a long time ago. However, I disagree strongly with the way America is going about it. They're saying "We want a war, we don't care what anyone else thinks". It doesn't just affect America (in fact it doesn't really affect America at all) so they have no right to just step in without any UN backing and attack Iraq.

Hey wasn't war supposed to start on the 17th?

Share this post


Link to post

Apparently the bombing was planned on being so severe, that the morale of the people will be crushed. That translates to a lot of innocent people dying. War is like that, brings out the worst in mankind. On top of that, with no UN backing in sight and no leverage for the US to back its claims, war on iraq has not only been vehemently disapproved but now war on Iraq seems ridiculous. For God's sake, even Blix is scratching his head...

Share this post


Link to post

I don't want no war. Why?

Because firstly, I believe that such a war on Iraq will cause an explotion of wars throughout the entire frigging world.

The problem is that a lot of Arabic countries have economic ties to Iraq. If the US suddenly starts bombing Iraq, what would happen? Lots of Arabic countries will find their economy destroyed completely as they can no longer trade with Iraq - that's something that is likely to piss them off so much that you can rest assured that they will use means such as terrorism against the US and anything pro US - even if they might have been friendly towards America before.

Secondly, there are other countries that pose a far greater threat than Iraq. There are other countries with clearer ties to the Al Quaida than Iraq and North Korea possesses nuclear weapons and is governed by some dictator who acts like a spoiled child. Why doesn't the US do something about, say, North Korea?
Because North Korea is far stronger than Iraq and the US doesn't want to lose too many of its soldiers, and maybe America has some deeper rooted interest in having North Korea pose a threat?

On a side note: can anyone explain to me why exactly Bush senior didn't get rid of Saddam when he had the chance back in the Gulf War? I've never really understood why they still left Saddam in charge of that country since it was all too clear that he deserved imprisonment at the least.

Share this post


Link to post
ZarcyB said:

IMO, something definetly needs to be done about Saddam. Although it should've been done a long time ago. However, I disagree strongly with the way America is going about it. They're saying "We want a war, we don't care what anyone else thinks". It doesn't just affect America (in fact it doesn't really affect America at all) so they have no right to just step in without any UN backing and attack Iraq.

Hey wasn't war supposed to start on the 17th?


yeah, saddam does need to be removed/killed. he's one fucked up dictator who certainly shouldn't be in power. i'm certain he does have weapons of mass destruction, and i think the un are pussies to put restrictions on nations than look the other way when it's time to enforce them.

in general bush is certainly being a bit too shovy about it, but a lot of criticism against this war is actually pretty unfounded... saddam is better at propoganda than bush is, and uses scorched earth policies in addition to sticking military targets under civilian buildings in order to get the world media all OMG WTF about it. all in all though, i am not in support in the war, but it is not nearly so unfounded as the media makes it out to be. and i'm tired of hearing things like "bush is evil"... bush is just a regular wealthy american who's good at heart but not too exceptionally bright. and he really needs speech therapy.

Share this post


Link to post
sargebaldy said:

I'm tired of hearing things like "bush is evil"... bush is just a regular wealthy american who's good at heart but not too exceptionally bright. and he really needs speech therapy.

..lol I havent heard those following statements but I find it quite funny.

Share this post


Link to post
dsm said:

I don't want no war. Why?

On a side note: can anyone explain to me why exactly Bush senior didn't get rid of Saddam when he had the chance back in the Gulf War? I've never really understood why they still left Saddam in charge of that country since it was all too clear that he deserved imprisonment at the least.

The UN mandate for the war when he invaded Kuwait didn't authorise invading Iraq after he agreed to a cease fire, when the time limit for him disarming expired the UN should have then enforced resolution 687

Stressing the importance of an early conclusion by the Conference on Disarmament of its work on a Convention on the Universal Prohibition of Chemical Weapons and of universal adherence thereto,...

, to suddenly a decade later, rush to war seems strange and offers itself to the assumption that this is indeed about oil. It seems that Tuesday is when the bombs will fall.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm just so fed up of listening to the USA/Iraq issue. I don't really care anymore.

Share this post


Link to post

It amuses me when people talk about this 'war' being about oil.

You can either have the present system (French and Russian interests paying and protected by a tyranical regime which harms its own and neighbouring peoples) or you could have the other option (American and other interests contributing to a UN trust fund that ensures Iraqi people actually receive the benefits from oil sales when combined with UN-administered regime change). In any case, Iraqi oil is only a small percentage of American and other oil interests.

I am disappointed the UN hasn't advocated a second resolution, but it is hardly surprising when its authority has been undermined by the French and the Russians. I assure you they do not care any more about the Iraqi people than the British/Americans.

A Greenpeace MEP was on Breakfast with Frost this morning moaning about sanctions, actually using that as a reason not to go to war. What? War will result in regime change (which was NOT the purpose of the last Gulf War) which in turn will spell the end for the need of economic sanctions.

Hussein is a danger to himself, to the Iraqi people, to Anglo-Arab relations, and to the world. Even if teh motives were as dubious as some would have us believe (which they are not) I would still support his removal from power.

Share this post


Link to post

I support Saddam's removal from power.

I think possibly Bush could have handled the PR for this better, though... as things stand now I'm not sure it's the right time to be pushing.

So long as sanctions continue, Saddam's propagandists will twist it around to his advantage and our disadvantage, regardless of our original intent. This cannot be allowed to stand, either way.

Share this post


Link to post

My question is, what would Clinton do in this situation? o_O

Share this post


Link to post
ravage said:

My question is, what would Clinton do in this situation? o_O


What situation is that?
George Bush created this situation!

Share this post


Link to post

All hail our great emporer, Bush! The oil must flow, we must have iraq!

that seems to be more like bush's mind set. after all it is a track of endless dessert. i agree sadam is not a good leader. however there are worse leaders and places closer to home that we should focus on.

Share this post


Link to post

I like how people have in their heads so set that "this war is for oil" that they don't hear anything else anybody else says.

Share this post


Link to post

It isn't about oil. It's about Bush trying to compensate for the size of his, let's put it like this, "oil drill", and trying to get re-elected.

Share this post


Link to post
Fredrik said:

It isn't about oil. It's about Bush trying to compensate for the size of his, let's put it like this, "oil drill", and trying to get re-elected.

Yeah he certainly is really popular now isn't he

Share this post


Link to post
Fredrik said:

It isn't about oil. It's about Bush trying to compensate for the size of his, let's put it like this, "oil drill", and trying to get re-elected.

Well let's hope he never gets re-elected - I wouldn't be able to stand seeing his mug in the newspapers for another four-year term.

Share this post


Link to post

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Fredrik said:

It's about Bush ... trying to get re-elected.

Really? Tackling major foreign-policy issues (notably Iraq) didn't seem to help Bush Sr to get re-elected. I think both the US and British governments are pursuing this issue simply because they view it as necessary.

Overall, I pretty much agree with pritch's post above.

Share this post


Link to post

dsm said:
Well let's hope he never gets re-elected - I wouldn't be able to stand seeing his mug in the newspapers for another four-year term.

If anything, having Bush has president has made me more concerned with the political affairs of this country. Hell, I'm probably going to get off my ass and vote in the next election... if only to try and keep Bush out of office.

As far as the war goes, however, I'll admit that I don't have enough information to make an educated decision, but I would have to say that I'm against it, at least in the way that things are shaping out. I'm tired of the US pretty much doing whatever it wants to. I mean, the UN represents the global community, right? I say that the US should wait for the UN to be in agreement on this. If this is truly something that concerns the global community, then the global community should make the decision as a whole.

Share this post


Link to post
dsm said:

Well let's hope he never gets re-elected - I wouldn't be able to stand seeing his mug in the newspapers for another four-year term.


Agreed!
CHRIS VAN HOLLEN FOR PRESIDENT! :D

Share this post


Link to post
ravage said:

My question is, what would Clinton do in this situation? o_O

I think the question would be more like "Who Would Clinton do in this situation?" :P

Share this post


Link to post
DOOM Anomaly said:

I think the question would be more like "Who Would Clinton do in this situation?" :P


Your mom!!!!!1111111

Share this post


Link to post

Shouldn't Bush concetrate on killing Bin Laden? I bet there's gonna be an even bigger attack on the US by Al Qaeda a couple months from now.

Share this post


Link to post
Lizardcommando said:

Shouldn't Bush concetrate on killing Bin Laden? I bet there's gonna be an even bigger attack on the US by Al Qaeda a couple months from now.

You're saying this as if there isn't still a hunt going on in Afghanistan and Pakistan and elsewhere? Do you truly believe two different parts of the armed forces can't all be doing things on their own?

Share this post


Link to post
dsm said:

Well let's hope he never gets re-elected - I wouldn't be able to stand seeing his mug in the newspapers for another four-year term.

I dun have to worry about that. I don't read the newspapers. Hell, I don't even watch the news.

Who's better Gore or Bush? Ayiee.

Share this post


Link to post

Condoleezza Rice: "If Saddam gives you a reason to use force against him, then use decisive force, not just a pinprick. And in the long run, you should succeed in creating a Saddam-free Iraq." (WASHINGTON POST, 8/9/00).

Dick Cheney: "If in fact Saddam Hussein were taking steps to try to rebuild nuclear capability or weapons of mass destruction you’d have to give very serious consideration to military action to stop that activity." (REUTERS, 10/5/00)

Donald Rumsfeld: "We should establish and maintain a strong U.S. military presence in the [Persian Gulf] and be prepared to use that force to protect our vital interests in the Gulf—and, if necessary, to help remove Saddam from power" (co-signed letter to U.S. Congressional leaders, May 29, 1998

Share this post


Link to post

Ok im going to bluntly state this

every forum that ive seen that has discussed this topic NEVER ends well, people leave feelings are hurt and annoying thirteen year olds from duchland run around screaming rnadomly about "bush sucks" (that only happened in one forum)

What i've gathered is that either American ews that i get is biased or built on lies or the other contries news is biased.

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.

now this is just my opineon and i've tried very hard to make it non offensive to everyone that i could.

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.

on a side note people who have escpaed iraq are litterally BEGGING to have america invade even at the cost of there own brothers and sisters

in closing i have this quate made by some guy whos name ill only learn when somone tells me.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×