The War in Iraq, good or bad? speak your mind here!
- Thread starter Gunwing
- Start date
- Status
DingBat said:
Yes, it's clear. I myself am a moderator of a large internet-forum so I have plenty of experience dealing with issues like these and being in 'your shoes' so to speak. However I fail to see the personal attack that you speak of. If you are refering to my statements of sympathy regarding DU they were genuine, and my last paragraph comparing him to a member of the Iraqi insurgency is far from a personal attack in my book. I do realize that 'my book' is not the norm here, and I will adhere to the guidelines set up by the owners of the forum. I just want to make it clear that it wasn't written with the intention of functioning as personal attack. More of a hopefully thought-provoking (in contrast to just provoking) comparison.
I never stated that they were directly related. I thought this was made obvious when I wrote "speaking of Iran". And to answer your question: Yes, it is puzzling, atleast for those that bought the official reasons for going to war since the dots does not connect. It warrants some suspicion as to what the U.S long term plan for their involvement in Iraq is really about.
Well, the Shah did make some good reforms like extending suffrage to women, but on the whole the terror under SAVAK was much worse than what the current Iranian administration is conducting. There are lots of Iranian people in Sweden and I have often discussed this. Bear in mind that they are people that have left Iran because of the oppressive islamic regime.
The continuation and consistency of American foreign policy post WW2 is very obvious and unquestionable, atleast to me. Sure, the world is in many ways very different from back then, but the general tendencies and driving factors are the same. You should read the series of theses called "The Geographical Pivot of History" by British geographer Halford Mackinder. They were written in 1904 but are still very accurate in their description of Eurasian geopolitics.
Upvote
0
hachichin said:
I don't think there is, or can be, such as thing as an "american foriegn policy" that covers 50+ years. What you get instead is a foreign policy for 2, 4, or 8 years (if you're lucky).
Upvote
0
the war in Iraq is an illegal war.
You cannot, not even the world's superpower as is being demostrated to us now, create a stable society and democratic system in a country where people are willing to strap bombs to themselves for their religion. Bush invaded Iraq without the support or acknowledgement of the UN, he ( or the current government if you'd prefer ) claimed that Iraq was in possesion of weapons of mass destruction, the UN inspectors didn't find any but they still invaded and they still have not found any weapons of mass destruction to this date.
One of the main reasons Bush invaded was for revenge. The Iraq gulf war anyone? and who was the current president at that time? George's Daddy , who messed it up so bad they had to pull out just like in Vietnam.
And those people who believe the excuses ( notice excuses, because their are civilians being slaughtered because of dictators in the middle east) like " They got nuclear weapons" or "we're invading them for human rights!" then open your eyes because i don't see the usa "liberating" countries like North Korea who are up to their chins in nuclear weapons and their human rights are on the floor, jeez, there are so many countries in the same situation but no, let's invade Iraq,without any proof that they have weapons of mass destruction,You know why? Oil, of course, but we've been over that.
I'm british and you know what? i'm annoyed that the government which i voted for is sitting in the Usa's (government) hand and acting like their puppy.
well , you got my opinion , continue.
You cannot, not even the world's superpower as is being demostrated to us now, create a stable society and democratic system in a country where people are willing to strap bombs to themselves for their religion. Bush invaded Iraq without the support or acknowledgement of the UN, he ( or the current government if you'd prefer ) claimed that Iraq was in possesion of weapons of mass destruction, the UN inspectors didn't find any but they still invaded and they still have not found any weapons of mass destruction to this date.
One of the main reasons Bush invaded was for revenge. The Iraq gulf war anyone? and who was the current president at that time? George's Daddy , who messed it up so bad they had to pull out just like in Vietnam.
And those people who believe the excuses ( notice excuses, because their are civilians being slaughtered because of dictators in the middle east) like " They got nuclear weapons" or "we're invading them for human rights!" then open your eyes because i don't see the usa "liberating" countries like North Korea who are up to their chins in nuclear weapons and their human rights are on the floor, jeez, there are so many countries in the same situation but no, let's invade Iraq,without any proof that they have weapons of mass destruction,You know why? Oil, of course, but we've been over that.
I'm british and you know what? i'm annoyed that the government which i voted for is sitting in the Usa's (government) hand and acting like their puppy.
well , you got my opinion , continue.
Upvote
0
I don't believe this was a reason. Perhaps you are thinking of Afghanistan?masasa said:
Not a direct reason although it has been stated that Saddam did allow al-qaeda into Iraq.
Perhaps, but on the other hand... No way. Perhaps the CIA, British intelligence, and the U.N. all wanted to make the world support the war? As they all confirmed weapons of Mass destruction - making a threat to Saddam which half the countries didn't follow through with. Only a select few... Mainly U.S. Britain and Australia kept their word.
Now I know most of you people from other countries mainly focus on USA in this war... But sorry they aren't the only people in it so let's not focus on them... Okay? Thanks.
Yes this is a valid point as a whole 3% of US's oil comes from Iraq... /sarcasm off
I'm not gonna get to involved in this thread as there will never be a true civil discussion on this but I believe you get my point. I'm not really on one side of the fence but I will defend generalizing statements thrown around.
Upvote
0
kfnguy2 said:
Oh come on, the other countries behind the US in this war are countries which are in the us's pocket, so whatever they decide to do , the others will do the same, so it is ok to focus on the USA.
Upvote
0
Jono said:
I'm not sure I'm remembering the same Gulf War that you are. I'm thinking of the one where the allies achieved all their objectives in a few days.
It was out of respect for the wishes of the arabic members of the alliance that Iraq was not invaded the first time. Or so I always believed.
Now, Bush Jr may have invaded to avenge "daddy", as you say, but the current conspiracy theory on that is that Saddam may have attempted to have the senior Bush killed. Or so the story goes.
Upvote
0
It may have partially been revenge on Bush 43's end. I remember a speech before the war where Bush 43 mentions that Saddam tried to "kill my dad".
He was referring to an attempt on Bush 41's life in Kuwait in the early ninties. Which was later proven to be radicals from Kuwait, not Iraq.
Now for my disclaimer: Of course I heard all this before the war so my facts may not be totally correct
He was referring to an attempt on Bush 41's life in Kuwait in the early ninties. Which was later proven to be radicals from Kuwait, not Iraq.
Now for my disclaimer: Of course I heard all this before the war so my facts may not be totally correct
Upvote
0
kfnguy2 said:
Actually there has been research done on this and it concluded that a relatively large chunk of the U.S population really believed that Saddam was in part responsible for 9/11. The polls were taken right before the invasion. The percentage was especially high among FOX-viewers (who could have guessed?).
Saddam hated the islamist fundamentalists and would never have co-operated with them during his time as dictator. He regarded those kinds of movements as threats, not potential allies.
The U.N? Get your facts straight. And why shouldn't we focus on USA when they were the main initiators, the leader of the "coalition of the willing"? You think we should discuss the 300 danes positioned in southern Iraq, or the small team of Japanese soon returning home? Come on.
You have to look at the power politics involved. This is not just about the Iraqi oil even though their reserves are the second largest in the world. By having a strong military presence in Iraq (14 permanent bases currently under construction) they can indirectly (or directly if push comes to shove) control the other countries around the Gulf. This is where the majority of the World's remaining oil happens to be located. Iraq is not considered holy land by the muslims and is thus more politically suited for bases than Saudi Arabia where they previously were located.
Upvote
0
![[-project.rattus-]](/data/avatars/s/0/161.jpg?1568638684){kind=avatar}
Too lazy to check up, but from what I think to remember:kfnguy2 said:
Most of Iraqi oil is not yet made accessible, due to the trade embargo imposed by the UN, which prevented Iraq to sell it's oil, except some minor "oil for humanitarian aid" programmes.
So, while the US oil and gas ressources are dwindling, Iraqi oil springs have been relatively well conserved. So I assume that, once the situation is stabilized, much more oil will be from Iraq than today. The only question that remaisn is: who's going to benefit from it?
On a sidenote: No matter which side "wins", i guess both would not fully procalamte their conveyance rates to maximize the profits and keeping the price per barrel high...
Upvote
0
Further proof that Iraqi citizens love the presence of Western powers and see us as their liberators:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/05/06/iraq.main/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/05/06/iraq.main/index.html
Upvote
0
DingBat said:
Yes, exactly. I asked these questions, but apparently it didn't help.
So, the US lied to its people by saying that military actions in Iraq would cease in a couple of years. And Rumsfeld continues to lie to the American people by telling us that US troops will leave next year (he's been saying this for years now).
Upvote
0
Zeddifoul said:
My question is why is it that when people do protest about the war like some people are trying to do Bush or as I should say the current goverment go out and use force to shut them up? I don't know if any of you saw it but the day after bush wen't into office on his second term he ordered the national guard armed with armored cars and water hoses to basicly attack a freindly demonstration agenst the war. Alot of people after that for just talking about how they don't like the war have been called out by pro war supporters to the FBI and oddly enough the TV show Americas most wanted!? WHAT THE HELL IS UP WITH THAT!?
Please continue...............
Upvote
0
this brings up another point...I'm a registered democrat but am more a moderate. All the neo-hippies these days are all about saying that Iraq was about oil. They are only partly correct and that is for all the wrong reasons. America has contingency plans for everything from a war with canada to a nulcear showdown with whatever other country has them. We also have plans to deal with countries that effect oil supply. If something geopolitical happens, we'll deal with it.Jack said:
Problem is is that we only get around 10-15% of our oil from the middle east and like him or not, saddams regime was in check. He was under relative control and couldnt do very much(besides kill his own people of coure)
And i also supported the war in Afghanistan but its just been horribly managed...an absolute shame because we missed some good opportunites. Right now we have barely made any head in Afghanistan since when the invasion was over
Upvote
0
Gunwing said:
Dude, do you live in a place that saw massive demonstrations? I live near/work in (and worked in during the anti-Invasion demonstrations) San Francisco, where the demonsrations were massive and dragged on for about a week. The "peaceful" demonstrators are fans of such tactics as:
- Attempting to block the SF/Oakland Bay Bridge. This bridge is one of only 3 ways from the SF peninsula across the Bay (I'm not going to count driving ALL the way down the penninsula and around the Bay, that's not practical, the same with going North over the Golden Gate and around that way, you'd be going at least an hour out of your way.), and by far the busiest. I'm guessing here, but I'd say that tens of thousands of people EASILY commute over that bridge daily. Oh, and they only like to block it later in the day, not to block the morning "to work" commute, but to block the afternoon "back home" drive. This would create a rather dangerous situation on freeways that and bridges that are already overcrowded and dangerous enough.
- Attempting to charge into and close down the Port of Oakland. Well, they found out the hard way that when OPD sets up barriers, you don't cross them... They're used to handling gangsta types and are more than happy to subdue and remove people for things like criminal trespass, since they're less likely to get shot at. You don't want to play games with OPD. They've all seen some hairy ****. Port of Oakland is very vital to the economy here.
- Lastly, fire hoses are useful for things like when the SF protesters decided it would be cool to puke on the steps of the Federal Building. No, I'm not making this up... they would do things like drink a gallon of milk, let it settle a bit, then puke it back up because the milk would then smell REALLY rancid.
Also, at the time I was working a job with a commission bonus program. The anti-invasion protests cost me money, money I really needed.
If they'd be kind enough to forward me the $200-$300 they cost me, along with whatever they cost me in future protests as they happen, I'd be happy to allow them their little games. I'm fine with them protesting, but don't try to screw up my life if I don't agree with you.
Overall, I think what we're doing in Iraq is going to end up being a positive thing.... if only the Iraqis could get it together and form a freaking government.
Someone mentioned the UN. What is the UN going to do? They're absolutely powerless to stop ANYTHING from happening. Go read up and watch some interviews with people like Kofi Annan about what went down in Somalia and Rwanda. When the commander of UN troops in Rwanda told Annan that he was going to raid extremist weapons caches, Annan first informed the Rwandan government (who openly supported the extremists) about the commander's plan, and then forbade the commander from taking any action (because he was afraid someone would get killed).
Yep, that sure stopped the atrocities.
I do think, though, that the operations in the Middle East aren't being handled properly. There are huge constraints on what our forces can and can't do (though less than if it was a UN operation... the troops actually get to carry loaded weapons since we're calling the shots) that aren't helping matters any.
Upvote
0
What the hell? I remember Coalition forces being successful in Operation Desert Shield/Storm.Jono said:
Upvote
0
Yeah, sorry got my facts wrong there, must have been the conspiracy theory about saddam trying to kill the senior bush as Dingbat pointed out, but my main point and opinion stands uncorrected.
Upvote
0
I find it ironic that there are people who are progun and hate anyone who supposedly is trying to "take" their 2nd amendment rights away, yet these same people support and ENCOURAGE the US disarming other countries's nukes. Using a progun platform, couldn't you argue that every nation has the right to bear nuclear arms to deter any other countries aggression? is it right to go into places and take away people's stuff based on assumptions and rumor?(just trying to make everyone think)
Upvote
0
- Status