Topic: war in iraq

[kennyb27]

One of the problems I have with those who disagree with Bush is that they aren't anti-war, they are anti-Bush.  They are still upset with November of 2000.  When Clinton bombed various countries in the Middle-East (without the approval of the UN), no one was yelling at him and running out on the streets to protest.  People need to stand behind their President in times like this.  Imagine what would've happened in WW2 if we didn't stick behind Roosevelt then Truman?  What about if England didn't stick with Churchill?  Or what if we just decided to live with appeasement then?  We'd all be speaking German because the nations of the world would continue to grant land to Hitler who just decided to expand.  You can protest against the war, but get some reasons besides "Because Bush is stupid" or some ignorant remark like that.

[baberg]

Quote
Originally posted by: The Omen
Many subjects, such as economy, appear to me to change almost on it's own, in which case the pres. gets the blame or credit.

The federal budget, which is drafted by the president and approved by Congress, has a lot of influence over the economy.  In that budget are tax cuts to stimulate the economy, incentives for new businesses to open, military funding so that contractors can employ more people, and so on.  But in mid-year, the person you're looking for with respect to the economy is Alan Greenspan, who determines the federal interest rate.  So yes, the president actually has a lot of direct influence over the economy.  And as for indirect influence, we have factors such as the security of the country, confidence in the leadership, uncertainty about going to war, etc.  A strong leader will make people believe investing money is a good thing.  A weak leader yields more saving and less spending.

Quote
Saddam is a dictator.  His people have been tortured.  He is unopposed because of his guerilla war tactics.  He has invaded a country the size of my thumb.  He's gassed the kurd's.

Syria's government is a dictatorship.  Syria tortures political prisoners.  These Iraqi "guerilla war tactics" are simply tactics that go against the established rules of war, just as the USA went against the established rules of war during our Revolutionary War.  Saddam Hussein has not invaded a country in 13 years, and even then, was tacitly approved by the US.  Our "Partner in Peace" Saudi Arabia (from which 15 of the 19 September 11th hijackers came from) let 15 schoolgirls burn to death because they were not properly dressed to be in public.  Oh, and Osama Bin Laden is Saudi Arabian.

Why are we attacking Iraq again?

Quote
As for weapons of mass destruction., Hans Blix has stated , in his final report, that there is still no proof that Iraq has destroyed their chemical weapons.

...and there is also no proof that they did NOT destroy their chemical weapons.  Nor have they found any "smoking gun."  But now I guess we'll never know, because the inspectors were not given their chance to finish the job.  Any weapons found in Iraq now will bear the suspicion of being planted by coallition forces.

This war is about distracting people from a failing economy.  This war is about diverting the public's anger from an enemy we cannot kill (Bin Laden) onto one we can (Saddam Hussein).  This war is about the incredible monetary gains that can be made, mostly by companies who contributed to Bush's campaign.

This war was set in motion in March 2002.  Saddam had no choice - Bush had already made up his mind.  "F___ Saddam. we're taking him out."

[nolimit19]

my family is from canada on my moms side and they are all dentists.....i dont remember if dental care is in the samne situation as normal health care there, but from everyone i talked to....both people from canada, and people in that field....most agree that its not the best system to have.....i used to be for that, because everyone can have health care and all that, but its like communism because u diont get rewarded for being a better doctor....there are all fixed prices and thats that. the point is though...canada isnt any more democratic then the us....

as for the coperations in the us.....i totally agree that they have too much power and that the campaign finance reform needs to happen...mccain didnt win the elections for a reason.....actually the reason is people are too dumb to vote for him....he was heads and above a less shadey guy the bush or gore.

and although i am not the biggest fan of bush, the people that are against the war are just bush haters/republican haters.....just as the other dude said no one protested clintons wars. democrats (maybe not all) are haters.

[nolimit19]

Quote
...and there is also no proof that they did NOT destroy their chemical weapons.  Nor have they found any "smoking gun."  But now I guess we'll never know, because the inspectors were not given their chance to finish the job.  Any weapons found in Iraq now will bear the suspicion of being planted by coallition forces.

This war is about distracting people from a failing economy.  This war is about diverting the public's anger from an enemy we cannot kill (Bin Laden) onto one we can (Saddam Hussein).  This war is about the incredible monetary gains that can be made, mostly by companies who contributed to Bush's campaign.

This war was set in motion in March 2002.  Saddam had no choice - Bush had already made up his mind.  "F___ Saddam. we're taking him out."

sorry abot the double post but this is the first decent argument i have heard against the war......but i still have to say i am supporting bush until there is proof that he screwed up....just listen to logic

starting a war to distract the american public from a failing economy doesnt make that mush sense to me.....for one, the economy was already heading down when clinton was 1st in office....the market fluctuates and thats a fact....presidents can do things to make it improve, but there isnt that much bush can do at this point anyways.

bush knew that before the war there would be public backlash....and all though i do think most people agree with the war....i doubt he will get re-elected just because of the assosiation that bush was around during some of the harder times......and him going to war didnt help him out either. and i dont think he is stupid. americans have never really liked war.....we have opposed almost every single war that we have been in the past century. so why would he go to war??? people arent forgetting about the bad economy.....i hear in on the news all the time. and there is all the worry about the national debt and blablabla....i dont think bush was looking for a fight, but time will tell and i think that if time proves bush was wrong like many people have been saying, he will go down as the worst and most dishonest president of all time.....but it just seems too outrageous to me.

[kennyb27]

Quote
i dont think bush was looking for a fight, but time will tell and i think that if time proves bush was wrong like many people have been saying, he will go down as the worst and most dishonest president of all time.....but it just seems too outrageous to me.

That is extremely outrageous.  In a poll released by Harvard (I think it was Harvard, which by the way is a liberal university) stated that he was presently ranked as the 17th best president in the history of the US.  His father was just under him at 18th.  Oh, and Clinton: 22nd.  17th is most definitely a far cry from worst.

[ThePerm]

aamericans dont hate the french...however we have playfully made fun of them since ww2 for giving up to germany. Its not hatred at all. The thing that really has been going on between us and france recently is that france criticised america. And here we find is that they have helped us. IUt shows their criticm is invalid and that they are actually covering themselves up. Just liek in godzilla, france made godzilla and like they seem to do as a pattern is cover it up.

[The Omen]

Quote
...and there is also no proof that they did NOT destroy their chemical weapons. Nor have they found any "smoking gun." But now I guess we'll never know, because the inspectors were not given their chance to finish the job. Any weapons found in Iraq now will bear the suspicion of being planted by coallition forces.

This war is about distracting people from a failing economy. This war is about diverting the public's anger from an enemy we cannot kill (Bin Laden) onto one we can (Saddam Hussein). This war is about the incredible monetary gains that can be made, mostly by companies who contributed to Bush's campaign.

12 years is not enough time to finish the inspections?  They found millions of litres of chemical weapons, in 98.  So what exactly happened to them?  Oh, that's right, the inspectors were kicked out.  I wonder why? We've already found thousands of chemical suits, what were they for, the prom?  And as we speak, there are sites being dug up that are believed to be chemical weapon hiding spots.  What will you say when it's proven?

And if you're so afflicted with A.D.D. to not notice the failing economy, just because of war, then chances are you're below the average i.q.  I notice the economy, and you know what?  It'll get better, like it always does.  It's cyclical.  

As for Bush and his cohorts going for monetary gain, everything in this world is based on gaining something, even if it's not the main reason.  Does that mean Saddam should stay in power?  Of course not.  Also, you say we couldn't find and kill Osama, but as far as I know there haven't been any attacks here in the U.S. since 9/11.  And it's not like ALqueda aren't  planning anything.  So I think the operation , so far, has been rather successful.  Syria and Saudi Arabia are problems, agreed.  Where did I say we shouldn't attack them? I don't trust any country in that region.  If I had my way, I'd go to Syria next, but we know that can't happen.  We can't attack everyone.  It's not feesible, and you know it.  But Syria 's goverment, and Saudi Arabia's goverment, are different for the fact that they feign being friendly towards us.  We wouldn't attack a supposed ally, even if it's a ruse.

F Saddam, we're taking him out?  Indeed.  

[nolimit19]

"That is extremely outrageous. In a poll released by Harvard (I think it was Harvard, which by the way is a liberal university) stated that he was presently ranked as the 17th best president in the history of the US. His father was just under him at 18th. Oh, and Clinton: 22nd. 17th is most definitely a far cry from worst. "

well i dont think that he is the worst at this point, but he could be if he is lying his ass of.....which like i said, i dont think he is. i am glad that there are people on this board that at least listen to reason....not all these people blindly saying this war is about oil.  

[baberg]

Quote
Originally posted by: The Omen
We've already found thousands of chemical suits, what were they for, the prom?  And as we speak, there are sites being dug up that are believed to be chemical weapon hiding spots.  What will you say when it's proven?

So a nation is not allowed to own chemical suits to protect itself against weapons?  I bet Canada has chemical suits in their hospitals and their military bases, even if they have no chemical weapons.  It's called "preservation of human life" and is hardly proof of chemical weapons.  And it can never be "proven" to me that Iraq has any WMD after this invasion.  Any evidence that is found will always bear the suspicion of being placed there by coallition forces.

Quote
And if you're so afflicted with A.D.D. to not notice the failing economy, just because of war, then chances are you're below the average i.q.  I notice the economy, and you know what?  It'll get better, like it always does.  It's cyclical.

ADD has nothing to do with it.  How many news stories have been devoted to the economy in the past 2 weeks?  What about this SARS illness that's shut Hong Kong down?  Investigation of the Space Shuttle Columbia?  How about information on Afghanistan's new government?  You give the average American far too much credit.  

But yes, the economy will get better.  The economy got better after the Great Depression, too.  But I sure don't want to live through something like that based on the promise "It'll rebound."  Saying "the economy will get better" is like saying "the medicine will kick in eventually."  Yes, it's good to know that the pain will go away, but nobody will focus on improving the economy during wartime.

I grow weary of this debate.  I've had it far too many times with far too many people swayed by US propoganda.  The fallout of this war will be felt for decades.  It will produce a rift between Europe and the US.  It will anger all Arab nations and unite them against the US in a way never seen before.  It will reinforce the concept of the US as an aggressive imperialistic nation who gives the middle finger to the world when they want to do something.  It will create thousands of orphaned children, angry at the US for killing their parents, who will turn to terrorism for their revenge.  This war will cause more problems than it will solve.

And with that, I depart.

[simpsonsfan2003]

Hey man America has socialist ideas mixed in with our government. Where do you think Social Security, Medicare, etc came from? FROM SOCIALISM!  

[simpsonsfan2003]

Quote
Originally posted by: The Omen

Where do you reside?  I certainly hope it's not in the U.S..  If you do, i'll personally pay for your one way ticket out of here.

No no my dear friend I live in Honduras and I work in a sweat shop manufacturing Fruit Of The Loom t-shirts that are sold at Wal*Mart for around six American dollars. Hahaha we take your factory jobs hahaha because we work for a lesser pay and make better quality goods because you Americans how do you say half ass everything hahaha You Americans and your Wal*Mart and fast food resturaunts. That's why you are the fatest nation Hahaha all that McDonalds food hahaha you fat nation hahahaha You guys must be proud to be fat hahaha *wipes tears from eyes because I was laughing so hard* but seriously though lose some weight because if you all fell down at once you might throw the Earth out of orbit, or if all the Chinese jumped up at once hahahaha but China is cool though since they hate America. AIDS is a pretty big thing in my country but meh atleast it's not as bad as Africa.

"Ha-ha-ha you a winner ha-ha-ha" -Bart Simpsons Japanese Game

 

[manunited4eva22]

You know who you remind me of? Michael Moore.

[The Omen]

Quote
I grow weary of this debate. I've had it far too many times with far too many people swayed by US propoganda. The fallout of this war will be felt for decades. It will produce a rift between Europe and the US. It will anger all Arab nations and unite them against the US in a way never seen before. It will reinforce the concept of the US as an aggressive imperialistic nation who gives the middle finger to the world when they want to do something. It will create thousands of orphaned children, angry at the US for killing their parents, who will turn to terrorism for their revenge. This war will cause more problems than it will solve.

And with that, I depart.

How long was the fallout from ww2?  Did all those children come and attack us because we killed their parents?  Point being, these people in the middle east hated us prior to this war.  This battle for Iraqis freedom could sway some opinions, and if not, were in the same boat we were in to begin with.  So if we didn't go to war, terrorism would be lessened?  That's a bunch of BS.  Terrorism is getting worse no matter what we do, so we should be pro-active and 'disable' some of these factions when we have the chance.  As far as the chemical suits go, they were found with paperwork on how to conduct chemical warfare, written in Arabic.  Along with the antidote for nerve gas.  But oh, the coalition planted it.  Which 'propaganda' are you being spoon fed >?  I don't even care for Bush as a president, but it doesn't mean I can't agree with some of his actions.  I follow what I believe.  What I believe is what I see.  What I study.  You are just another conspiracy theorist with trust in nothing and even if you see proof, as you stated, you still won't believe.  

By the way, SARS is in the news every hour on the major news stations, so I don't know what you're watching.  Also, in almost every case, the economy improves after war.  I didn't say just sit there and not worry, but if you've got an understanding of these things, you would know that it will get better.  Also, the space shuttle story was on MSNBC just yesterday.  Of course it's secondary, but it's still broadcast.

You know what i've grown weary of?   Your Anti-American rhetoric.  

[Marcus Arillius]

Quote
Originally posted by: kennyb27
One of the problems I have with those who disagree with Bush is that they aren't anti-war, they are anti-Bush.  They are still upset with November of 2000.  When Clinton bombed various countries in the Middle-East (without the approval of the UN), no one was yelling at him and running out on the streets to protest.  People need to stand behind their President in times like this.  Imagine what would've happened in WW2 if we didn't stick behind Roosevelt then Truman?  What about if England didn't stick with Churchill?  Or what if we just decided to live with appeasement then?  We'd all be speaking German because the nations of the world would continue to grant land to Hitler who just decided to expand.  You can protest against the war, but get some reasons besides "Because Bush is stupid" or some ignorant remark like that.

I think your partially right.  Sure, some of the people may be anit-bush, but with Clinton, people actually felt like he knew what he was doing.  However, I do think Bush is doing what he thinks will be best for the world.  I think that he is just trying to prevent another Hitler-esque situation with Saddam which I think it would have eventually led to.  

[kennyb27]

Quote
Sure, some of the people may be anit-bush, but with Clinton, people actually felt like he knew what he was doing.

Sure he knew what he was doing, he was smart enough to bomb Kosovo on the day that Monica Lewinski was going on trial, so guess what the big news story was that night, certainly not Monica.  Haha, ok sorry, but I had to add that.

[cubefreak123]

kenny lol i couldnt agree with u more i mean im srry but clinton is a worm he had an affair then denied it now i must ask u wat kind of a leader is that he represents our country and here he is cheating on his wife and then they didnt impeach him. Im srry i had to say this

[The Omen]

  Hate to burst your bubble, but i'd venture to say 90% of the U.S. presidents have had a mistress.  Does getting caught make it any worse?  JFK, known to be one of our very best pres., had countless affairs that the press knew about, but didn't report.  I guess the press wasn't as intrusive as it is now.

[kennyb27]

I don't recall him lying under oath about it...Then again, maybe I'm wrong.

[manunited4eva22]

He did lie under Oath "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" direct quote.

[The Omen]

  Yeah, he did lie.  They kept asking him to elaborate.  Apparently, the 'kind' of sex he was having wasn't intercourse, thus he didn't count it.  What did you want him to say?

By the way, Saddam may be dead as i type this.

[nolimit19]

he lied under oath and was impeached....just not kicked out of office

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/events/clinton_under_fire/latest_news/238784.stm

he lied and u cant really argue that he didnt.

[Bloodworth]

Alright, let's not get out of hand here. We've allowed an exception to our usual standard of not discussing politics so that people can discuss the war in Iraq.  There's no reason to bring up all this stuff about Clinton.  

[nolimit19]

yes and i thank u for allowing the talk on the war

[baberg]

I'm sorry.  I know that I said I was out of this debate, but I cannot let this go unanswered.

Quote
Originally posted by: The Omen
How long was the fallout from ww2?  Did all those children come and attack us because we killed their parents?

To draw analogies between World War II and this Gulf War II is preposterous.  In World War II, we had a violent aggressor in the form of Adolf Hitler.  He invaded several nations and made his point clear that he would stop at nothing short of world domination.  The United Nations did not exist at that point.  Japan attacked the US without clear provocation at Pearl Harbor.  Only after the US was attacked did they enter into the war, to say nothing of the fact that nearly every non-Axis nation was united in their goal to defeat the aggressors.

Compared to the current war, we have a dictator who has not invaded any country in 13 years.  We have the United Nations formed to solve such disputes (which both Iraq and the United States have blatantly ignored).  We have no attacks on Americans from Iraq.  We entered into this war with a majority of the world (including 3 permanent members of the UN Security Council) decrying this aggressive invasion.

There can be no comparisons between WWII and GFII.

Quote
So if we didn't go to war, terrorism would be lessened?  That's a bunch of BS.  Terrorism is getting worse no matter what we do, so we should be pro-active and 'disable' some of these factions when we have the chance.

You have twisted the meaning of my words.  Terrorism will always increase as people become more and more frustrated with their inability to harm a superpower.  That cannot be helped.  But in going to war, the number and frequency of these terrorist attacks will increase (as opposed to not being aggressive).  Look at this from the Arab point of view: The USA has attacked a nation without provocation and with shaky legal ground.  The USA has invaded Iraqi territory and made the killing of Saddam Hussein their top priority.  The USA is technologically superior to Iraq - they stand no chance against us.  From their point of view, the USA is a bully picking on a weaker kid.

As for "disabling" factions, I refer you again to the fact that 15 of the 19 terrorists on September 11th were from Saudi Arabia.  Do you know how many were from Iraq?  Zero.  Zilch.  Nada.  Thus ends the "stop terrorism" debate - this aggression will do nothing to stop terrorism.

Quote
As far as the chemical suits go, they were found with paperwork on how to conduct chemical warfare, written in Arabic.  Along with the antidote for nerve gas.  But oh, the coalition planted it.  Which 'propaganda' are you being spoon fed?

I did not say that everything was planted.  I said that it will bear the taint of possibly being planted.  Or, the possibility of being pesticides when it's already been widely reported (and believed by most Americans) as a WMD.  

The difference between you and I is that you trust what you read and see in the media.  You believe that the media dilligently works to check their facts on news stories.  You believe that the media cannot be controlled by the government.  I treat everything that I read with speculation.  I realize that the media is controlled by the government.

Quote
By the way, SARS is in the news every hour on the major news stations, so I don't know what you're watching.

It on for a 30-second blurb and then it's back to the live coverage of Operation: Iraqi Freedom with your co-hosts Chuck and Betty, reporting Live via Sattelite on our new Quasi-Opto video phone from AT&T, brought to you this hour by Snickers: When you're invading a country, grab a Snickers!  Come on.  Turn on your TV right now - it will be people talking about the war.  Look at the front page of a newspaper - war headline, and probably nothing but war above the fold.  For the average American, the war is the only thing happening in the world of interest now.  And that's the media's fault.

Quote
You know what i've grown weary of?   Your Anti-American rhetoric.

That's right, call me unamerican.  I have a viewpoint that is different from the accepted norm.  I choose to question the government as is my right and responsibility to do, so therefore I'm unamerican.  When was the last time you heard a news anchor put forth the possibility that the US was not doing the right thing?  Is that truly an objective media?  Or is this just the fallout of September 11th, where criticizing the government became "unamerican"?

I do love America, and I hope with all my heart that no American soldiers are harmed in this war.  I also love life, and I am saddened whenever I hear of civilian and military deaths in Iraq.  They look like pretty pictures, but those are explosions going off on the other side of that camera.  Those are 2000 pound bombs being dropped from 40,000 feet above ground, and there's nothing Iraqis can do to defend themselves.  Tonight, a civilian area where Saddam Hussein and his children were rumored to be meeting was heavily bombed.  Nobody knows how many innocent people were killed tonight.  And for what?  To kill a single bad man and his children.

It's not worth it.

[nolimit19]

"We entered into this war with a majority of the world (including 3 permanent members of the UN Security Council) decrying this aggressive invasion."

i really dont see that as true...the only nations openly opposed to this war, that i am aware of, either have huge investments in iraqi oil, or named north korea. most world leaders that have come out against the war have only done so because they want to make the voters happy. egypt, jordan and south korea are prime examples of this.....jordan asks for a cease fire, but still allows the us the operate out of their country.....all the leaders of the world know that this action is for the best, otherwise they would outright oppose the us. and u see it with civilians from other countries going into iraq to fight with the iraqis. i mean all these countries that are "so sure the the us is going to attack them next" have nothing to lose right??? wrong everyone knows iraq is harboring terrorists and that they financially support al quaida.....as soon as the renagade governements go down, there will be less terorism. the taliban and sadaam where the biggest governments that fit under that catagory that i know of. america is not perfect, and they have done bad things and still are today, but they are no worse then any other government....at least not yet. i think they obviously have the potential to be the worst cuz they have the most power, but that is hardly their fault. anywyas i think the war will be over by juneish hopfully....i say as soon as that happens the us let the un take over from there and let them deal with setting up a governemnt.