POLL: For or against the war on Iraq?

Remove all ads!

Do you agree that the war agains Iraque is necessary. Or do you think it is not. Please fell free to give facts or ideas to support your opinion.


I think it is necessary unfortunately. I don't think war is a good thing at all but Suddam has been asking for us to attack him for quite some tim now. He is a tyrant and needs to be stopped. He has his soldiers visit Iraquie homes and hold a gun to the wife and children and force the men to go to war and kill Americans.

[ March 29, 2003, 06:12: Message edited by: Blackthorne TA ]

Poll Information
This poll contains 1 question(s). 35 user(s) have voted.
You may not view the results of this poll without voting.

Poll Results: For or against the war on Iraque? (35 votes.)

For or against the war on Iraque? (Choose 1)
* Yes, it is absolutely necessary. - 37% (13)
* No, it is foolish and wasteful. - 51% (18)
* No opinion - 11% (4)

 

I think the awnsers to your question are a little too blunt, but anyway...

I think that Saddam needs to have his twisted little ass kicked but I don't think war is the right way. I've been watching the news lately (although I try to stay away from the news, I just can't help it) and I see such crap flowing out of the tube that I can't beleive it. It makes me sick to my stomach to see people happy that they're terrorizing and destroying the lives of innocent Iraqis. The gulf war 1 was nothing but crap. The US did the same thing in Panama just 2 months earlier.

I have here, a quote from Noam Chomsky (read about him at http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/index.cfm) about the Gulf War (1) It has parts (or it may be a whole speech, I'm not sure) of speeches in 1991 from Bush (senior) and rebuttles from Chomsky...
REMEMBER: These are things being SAID by Bush. Most are explanations of what Iraq has done.


Bush: This conflict started Aug. 2nd when the dictator of Iraq invaded a small and helpless neighbor

Noam: The 'crime' has nothing to do with invasions. It's basically duplicating what the US did in Panama a couple months earlier.


Bush: Kuwait: a member of the Arab League and a member of the UN was crushed; it's people brutalized. 5 months ago, Saddam Hussein started this cruel war against Kuwait

Noam: He certainly is a brutal tyrant and a mass murderer, just as he was when the US was openly supporting him as the overwhelming majority of his crimes were commited when he was a friend and ally


Bush: While the world waited, Saddam Hussein sytematically raped and pillaged and plundered a tiny nation, no threat to his own

Noam: At the time of the Hububja atrocities and later atrocities against the Kurds, the atrocities were being carried out with the support of George Bush and Margaret Thatcher.


Bush: He sujected the people of Kuwait to unspeakable atrocities. And among those maimed and murdered; innocent children.

Noam: The attack on the Kurds in Iraq destroyed large agricultural areas as well as killing tens of thousands of people. That gave Bush an opportunity of doing big US agri-business a favor and send credits to Saddam to buy US agri-business exports after they (Iraq) had finished wiping out agricultual areas in Iraq as well as gasing Kurdish citezens.


Bush: Arab leaders saught what is known as an Arab Solution, only to conclude that Saddam was unwilling to leave Kuwait. Others travelled to Baghdad, in an effort to restore peace and justice.

Noam: Some was to concern to evade diplomatic efforts (and they did) was, as they said (from Chief of Staff, Powell) that Saddam would leave Kuwait and put a 'puppet regime' in place, at which point everyone in the arab world would be happy. The US wanted to prevent this (and they expected this).


Bush: Now, we have no choice but to drive Saddam Husein from Kuwait by force. We will not fail.

Noam: The rebelling Iraqi generals requested access to captured Iraqi arms (they didn't want help, they just wanted the US to give them weapons captured from Hussein). They wanted these to help them overthrow Saddam and carry out a popular revolution. That was refused (meaning they were not allowed access to the arms), although Saddam WAS permitted to use machines of war (gunships, etc.) to attack the rebels.


Bush: As I report to you, Air attacks are underway against military targets in Iraq. Our operations are designed to best protect all the coallition forces by targeting Saddam vast military arsenal.

Noam: The Bombers destroyed dams, water supply stations, sewage stations, pumping stations, electrical systems. All that amounts to Biological Warfare and, simply, ask yourself if something similar was done in, say, Boston. People would be dying like flies from desease and starvation... that's Biological Warfare (with exactly the catastrofic effect that they predicted)


Bush: Iraq will eventually comply with all relevant UN resolutions, and then, when peace is restored it is our hope that Iraq can live as a cooperative member of the family of nations (thus enhancing the security of the gulf).

Noam: The rebellion was crushed and the US supported that. The reason is that the US would rather have, what's called an 'Iron Fisted Iraqi hunta' than a popular revolution (and therefore, in the name of stability, had to support these major atrocities).

Anyway, my views on the Iraqi War (today's) are that it is very much like the 1st one. The US has no real business being there and I think they just want the control of Iraqi oil. Assuming you actually read that entire friggin' thing I just wrote, I think that Noam is right on about the reasons for the 1st guld war, and the 2nd is alike.

 

Every American life lost in Iraq is a wasted one. The liberation of the Iraqi people should not be at the cost of American blood, for it is not the job of the American military to liberate all oppressed people, everywhere.

Saddam is a problem for the Arab world. The guy is a ruthless madman. If the other nations in the region ask for our help, as friends and allies, then it should be given as part of a mulit-national diplomatic effort. War should always be the last option.

The lives of American and British soldiers are at terrible risk in the region. They are surrounded by hostile populations who are angry that they are there. I've heard it said that Americans who don't support the war, are not supporting our soldiers who are taking part in the war. Nothing could be further from the truth. For most of us, it is because we value the lives of those professional men and women who are willing to sacrifice themselves in the defense of their country everyday.

So I have this to say to those who are sitting in the comfort of their posh news and government offices, especially the big mouth media commentators who have probably never lifted so much as a finger in their entire lives in the defense of their country, and who believe that it is so worth while for our guys to be dying over there - why don't all of you pickup rifles, head on over there, and help our guys out. They can use all the help they can get, God bless them.

[ March 30, 2003, 06:05: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

Well, I'm not American but I do beleive that if I were, I would not be supporting the soldiers. I'm sure they didn't join the army to pick flowers and give hugs. They knew (or at least they should've) that America is a country that has more wars than any other (in the past century) and there was a veyr good chance that they'd be sent off to promote 'peace and justice for all'.

Peace not war, man

 

That may be, Mystra's Chosen. But it is every person's hope, soldier or not, that his/her leaders will promote "peace and justice." The Iraqi War is a failure of leadership. I have little doubt that the soldiers accept the mission that they have been given and that they will do their best -- even if America's inept political leaders can't.

Peace, Love and Understanding, man.

[ March 30, 2003, 04:04: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

In reference to Mr. Chomsky, he obviously has his Bushes confused. George "W" has never supported Saddam Hussein; that was George "H".
From reading your quotations of Chomsky, he believes that if you have ever done anything wrong in his eyes, then you and your successors are absolutely disqualified from correcting it.
But instead of relying on an ivory-tower type, why don't you check with the Kuwaitis these days? Maybe they have something to say about the liberation of Kuwait.
There comes a time when decent people cannot stand aside and allow a reprobate like Saddam Hussein to continue his depredations. The first time for this was 1991, but George H was an internationalist of the first order, so he did not go on to Baghdad. Much like his tax pledge, he made promises to the Iraqi Shi'ites and the Kurds which he did not keep. Please note that I am not equating the two; but there is a connection between them: George H was not trustworthy as President of the United States.
At least Bill Clinton did the right thing in the Balkans. I wonder what Mr. Chomsky has to say about that?
We now have a President who has decided that Saddam Hussein is the "perfect storm". He has weapons of mass death (ask the Kurds); he supports terrorism ($25,000 to the survivors); his cruel means of controlling his people are legendary (talk to the exiles); and he has waged agressive war against his neighbors (Kuwait and Iran). To forestall a specious agrument, it doesn't matter whether he manufactured those WMDs.
Finally, we are already at war, and were before the invasion of Iraq. This is not a new war; it is a new front in the terror war.

[ March 30, 2003, 06:07: Message edited by: Ravenstar1836 ]

 

If you read the third paragraph of my post, you'll see I already explained the G.H.B./G.W.B. mixup.

As for

If you read the final paragraph of my post, you'll see I try to explain that as best I can.

Sure, I could check with Kuwaiti peoples... but they have nothing to do with this war. It's the northern Iraqi people (aka the Kurds) that I should be asking. They were the ones betrayed by the US after they defeated Saddam and left the Kurd rebels for dead. The US would rather have an iron fisted regime in place than have a popular revolution because that way they know and control who the dictator/leader of Iraq is and will be. If you mean talk to the Kuwaiti peoples about their liberation in 91, then I suppose, yes, the Kuwaitis are grateful but the Kurds were devastated.

I agree with most of your post. I think Saddam needs to be removed as much as the next guy but I also think that the Iraqi people have suffered too much already to have another large scale bombing run in their already depleted country. And I know 'we' are already at war, but that doesn't mean you should just accept it, count your losses and forget about it. If the Iraqi people thought they could trust the US (and I, personally, don't think they can) then there would be riots in the streets and celebrations that the US has come to the rescue. For the sake of the Iraqi people, I hope that the US has learned from their mistakes and is going to watch the Iraq administration closely to make sure that this doesn't happen again in another 10 years. For the sake of the Iraqi people, I hope that Saddam and everyone attached to him is wiped from the earth like feces from the buttocks of the planet.

 

I simply find it interesting.

 

Don't you think you're being a little.. ummm, I don't think there's a kind word for what I'm thinking. People's lives (or lack of life) are interesting? I certainly hope that if someone you cared about was starving, deseased and dying (not to mention being bombed like hell), you would show a little more compassion and empathy.

 

I hope the USA kills Saddam and all the dune-goons who support him.

 

Well Jasper, I do(as I mentioned earlier) think that Saadam should be killed for his numerous crimes and villanous deeds, althoug you said it just about as bluntly as possible...

 

That was my intention
I think the USA should help the innocent people, but everyone who helps Saddam in any way should be killed along with him

 

The iraqis must have a pretty low opinion of their people's intelligence. Why do they keep denying everything that happens? The airport has been taken. "No no no the airport is still under iraqi control" So why are Americans using it? And where are these iraqis that are supposed to be controlling it? Hello iraq your people have brains!!

 

Those brains may have been washed, Shell.

 

Hmm, interesting, so far the results of this poll seem to be mostly even.

 

@Jasper...

The Iraqi people are terrified of Saddam, and they should be! They aren't going to help the US because they don't trust them anymore. The US left em hanging in the Gulf War (first) and they were then beat down by Saddam's remaining forces.

If the Iraqi's help Saddam, it's going to be more out of fear for their (and their families) lives than love for the tyrant.

 

Personally, I was at first against all of the war stuff, but now that it's on, you might as well go support the troops the waste money on useless protests that just delay traffic. On a side not, while casualties are really unneccessary, about 44,000 people die a year from car crashes and I bet that's more than whatever number of soldiers are going to die but I don't see people making such a big deal of car crashes and holding huge rally's to stop all cars from running.t

 

There's laws to prevent car accident but there's no laws to prevent to US from doing whatever the hell they want to the international world (actually, there are laws... but America seems to only invoke the laws that profit them the most).