War - is it worth it?

Originally posted by Spotnick Hot topic!Yes it is.I wonder, how do the american media reported all the con-war demonstration all over the world?Honestly, I must be missing something out there, but what is war going to solve in this issue? Irak (hum, it's spelled Iraq in english I think) is not going to bomb anyone anyday, so what's the use of losing lifes for that, and create a tension between mulism and christianism for the next 50 years ?Who cares about Iraq? Sure, they invaded Kowait, that was not a good thing to do, but now, they won't be stupid enough to do it again.. I'm more scared by the nuts in North Korea than Iraq, and why nobody is caring about that?Live and let live, war is always the wrong answer to any conflict in the world, force them to have peace keepers always on their land, but what's good in declaring war to a people that is suffering from the last war with them already?I'm curious to see all points of view, personally, I hate to see my own country backing the US only to "be nice" in case they would do economic pressures on us, and I'm not too confident when I see Mr Bush stating he's almost doing this because God told him to do so...!Well, COMMENTS!

Hey there Spotty!

First of all, let me say that I respect your opinions. However, I would like to share some of my own.

How's the media in the United States covering the protests? It depends on what you watch or who you listen to. For the most part, from CNN to FOXNEWS, the consensus is that the protests are decidedly anti-Bush and sometimes anti-American. None of the protesters have been reported to call on Saddam to disarm/comply with UN mandates/stop killing his own people.

You are right, North Korea is VERY SCARY. However, world diplomacy is not conducted in a grammar school class room so they don't have to be treated the same as Iraq. Moreover, North Korea is also South Korea's, China's and Japan's problem. The current U.S. policy is to work through those governments in conjuntion with the UN to bring North Korea into compliance with IAEA rules.

I'm troubled by your comment that war is always the wrong answer to any problem in the world. What are your thoughts on World War II? Just as the case was made that Milosevic should be removed from power, so now the case is being made about Saddam with the Hitler analogy being applied to both.

Just a few more points to keep in mind: this whole mess is based on UN Resolution 1441. As with any document that was crafted by parties with decidedly different interests, it has now become open to interpretation.

And , the larger question that now faces the UN is: will it's apparent inability to reach consensus on Iraq and enforce it's own resolutions relegate it to the status of toothless debating society?

War, war is stupid and people are stupid

I wondered how long it would take for debate on this conflict to make its way onto NOOL

it cuts your life like a broken knife

I think George Bush is the most dangerous man on the planet. He's got no intelligence, and yet he's the most powerful man on the planet. Scary.

He just wants oil, it's all a farce... his personal war. He's going to fuck the world just to get his own way.

Did you know that the US keeps stockpiles of missiles in the UK that we can't inspect but if they all explode its OUR fault and not the US?

Its all just soooooooooo shit and pointless.

I was a supporter of the first Gulf War... for the same reasons I'm AGAINST the Second Gulf War. This time it's Iraq the invaded country!

And by the way... why is Dubbia not reacting the same way towards North Korea?

Originally posted by JE SUIS EGG I was a supporter of the first Gulf War...for the same reasons I'm AGAINST the Second Gulf War. This time it's Iraq the invaded country!And by the way... why is Dubbia not reacting the same way towards North Korea?

You are right, North Korea is VERY SCARY. However, world diplomacy is not conducted in a grammar school class room so they don't have to be treated the same as Iraq. Moreover, North Korea is also South Korea's, China's and Japan's problem. The current U.S. policy is to work through those governments in conjuntion with the UN to bring North Korea into compliance with IAEA rules.

I was wondering when somebody would start a thread about this....

As far as the anti-war protests, I agree with Mike that the coverage has been decidely against them, and that's a shame. While you or I may not agree with their message, this is a country where open debate of the issues is prized as a checkpoint on the gross abuses of those in power, and it's shameful to see how really slanted a lot of the news people have become. Granted, we were attacked first, so any anger that we may have towards Bin Laden and his crew would naturally find a target in anyone even remotely breaking from the majority opinion. But the protesters, whatever their motivations, deserve to be heard if they have legitimate questions about why this war needs to be conducted.

That being said, I can't really say I agree with what the prevailing tone of the criticism of our policy in Iraq is ("blood for oil" and all that). It strikes me that this is just woefully misguided to boil down a complex issue like the legitimacy of going into Iraq into nice, easy-to-read slogans that fit nicely on a bumper sticker. I don't buy for a minute the whole "Iraq will be our new oil reserve" arguement, I think it just smacks of paranoia.

But my concern is this: In the past 100 years we have taken it upon ourselves to "police the world". While this has produced positive results, such as the outcome of World War II and the liberation of the Jews from death camps, it has also brought more pain than reward. Vietnam began very much like our current situation in Iraq, with so-called "experts" (chicken hawks, mostly) saying it would be a short war, that "we'd be home by Christmas". Indeed, the whole history of warfare is marked by such predictions, from the Civil War on down. It is this arrogance or willfull disregard for the realities of war which is alarming to me.

Say we go in, and the war goes exactly as planned...until we reach Baghdad or some other urban center? What then if it boils down to house-to-house combat, much like the last days of Berlin or the urban battles of Vietnam? Will we still be "out of there by Christmas"?

I feel like Bush isn't necessarily the bad guy in this (obviously Saddam's a danger to his own people), but the people in his administration are whispering sweet nothings in his ear about a "potential threat" from a country that has been economically barren since 1991. Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney are the real pariahs, they actually did business with Saddam back in the day, and I can't help but feel a certain amount of disdain for those two. Now that Colin Powell has jumped on board the war wagon, I can't help but feel a little let down: he was the one voice of sanity left in Bush's cabinet.

I worry for our country, and i worry that we're heading to war too recklessly, blind to the very real consequences of our actions. I'm not saying it would be wrong to take out Saddam, but it feels as if we'd be playing right into Bin Laden's hands by focusing on a man who really hasn't been a viable threat to the USA for several years now.

I hope to God that we don't get bogged down in a senseless war, but I fear that we will. And somehow I don't think the hawks get that. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe it will be a quick easy war. But as any student of history knows, even the shortest wars are brutal in their destruction.

Somebody take Bush out please before we all get nuked ? The man's a madman, just acting on a promise he made his dear paw that he would finish off Madass Hussain, and to get an eye for an eye over Sept 11th.

Actually, the coverage of the protests over here is very favorable...we've had a war here and it sucks. It does appear thet the US administration wants a war at any price.

Originally posted by Major Tarantino I think George Bush is the most dangerous man on the planet. He's got no intelligence, and yet he's the most powerful man on the planet. Scary.He just wants oil, it's all a farce... his personal war. He's going to fuck the world just to get his own way.Did you know that the US keeps stockpiles of missiles in the UK that we can't inspect but if they all explode its OUR fault and not the US?Its all just soooooooooo shit and pointless.

You are right about one thing, oil is a big sticking point in the discussion. I'll give you three words: TOTAL - ELF- FINA.

I hereby call for all those who are against oppression, murder and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction to boycott TOTAL - ELF- FINA. Every Euro spent to purchase pertol from these companies is a Euro in Saddam's pocket.

As for your perception that President Bush lacks "intelligence", then by extension, you must also think that Condi Rice and Colin Powell also lack intelligence. I would venture to guess that any of the three would happily compare CV's with you.

Originally posted by Benny's Cobweb Eyes Somebody take Bush out please before we all get nuked ? The man's a madman, just acting on a promise he made his dear paw that he would finish off Madass Hussain, and to get an eye for an eye over Sept 11th.

So, it would be OK with you if someone just "took out" Saddam?

Trevor,

I too worry for our country. We will be sending our best and bravest into harms way. We don't exactly know (but I think we have a pretty good idea) what the repercussions of war will be. But what, really, is the alternative?

We, along with the UN have painted ourselves AND Saddam into a corner. The question is: how to get out? How can the UN be taken seriously when it can't (if we bail) or won't (France/Germany unzipping their trousers and unfolding their manhood on the Security Council table for all to see) enforce it's own resolutions?

I liked your explanation as to why "no war for oil" is overly simplistic at best and bogus at worst. And since it came from you it will carry more weight.

A few friendly observations:

I think Cheney and Rumsfelds prior dealings with Saddam can be looked at throught the prism of an old proverb: The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Remember, foreign policy does not take place in the sanitized vacuum of a philosophy class.

Hey, are you going to see "Gods And Generals" Friday?

Originally posted by Michael McDermott > Originally posted by Benny's Cobweb Eyes> Somebody take Bush out please before we all get nuked ? The man's a madman, just acting on a promise he made his dear paw that he would finish off Madass Hussain, and to get an eye for an eye over Sept 11th.

So, it would be OK with you if someone just "took out" Saddam?

Sure - and old Bed Linen or whatever his name is. Your elite couldn't find him though.....

And what about all these pacifists that have gone across to Iraq on double decker buses and camped outside Saddams suspect areas forming a 'human shield' in an attempt to stop the bombing?

"Human shields" set to take up posts

By Khaled Yacoub Oweis BAGHDAD (Reuters) - A band of 100 "human shields", who drove to Baghdad from London in double-decker buses and a taxi, say their presence will help keep U.S. guns silent. "There will be no war on Iraq," Peter van Dyke, an organiser of the Human Shields group told Reuters on Tuesday. His group includes professionals, students, housewives and several Americans. They plan to sit near power stations, water plants and other facilities that were hit during the 1991 Gulf War. "These sites are essential for the people of Baghdad to live," said van Dyke, 38, who served in the Royal Navy. The group paid their own way but are guests of the Iraqi government, staying in a hotel across from one of President Saddam Hussein's palaces on the Tigris river. "The British members of the team outnumbered the rest but we picked up a number of Turks on the way and I am not so sure who is the majority now," van Dyke said. Adele Peers, a Liverpool teacher, said the United States must not be allowed to wage war on Iraq just because it had a score to settle with Saddam. "This war is going to destroy international relations," said Peers. "The United States says the Iraqi regime is the problem, but it's going to be bombing civilians." Other peace groups have descended on Baghdad as the United States and Britain amass forces in the Gulf. They plan actions similar to van Dyke's Human Shields to show solidarity with Iraqi civilians, who bore the brunt of the 1991 war. One group, the Iraq Peace Team, includes U.S. veterans from the Vietnam war. They have been hanging banners on bridges and power plants that say a U.S. bombardment of these sites would amount to a war crime. A pacifist group from Spain's Catalonia province arrived on Tuesday, saying there was no support among Catalonians for using Spanish troops or air bases in a war. Loles Olivarn, a spokeswoman for the 18-member group, said its intention was to express solidarity but also "to say to our government that we will have a Spanish presence here and that it will "be responsible for what happens to the Spanish citizens".

Originally posted by Benny's Cobweb Eyes > Originally posted by Michael McDermott> > > > Originally posted by Benny's Cobweb Eyes> > Somebody take Bush out please before we all get nuked ? The man's a madman, just acting on a promise he made his dear paw that he would finish off Madass Hussain, and to get an eye for an eye over Sept 11th.>

So, it would be OK with you if someone just "took out" Saddam?

Sure - and old Bed Linen or whatever his name is. Your elite couldn't find him though.....

Actually, that would be "our" elite....... I memory serves, there were/are some SAS/SBS fellows that are part of the team. :)

If I were an American, I would stand for the war. Being not an American I'm kinda against it.

i'm being a bit of a fence-sitter on this topic, maybe cuz i'm canadian ;). i don't agree with US methods at all, but they do have a bit of validity and i see the reasoning behind them. what is saddam *exactly* hiding, if anything?and Iraqis still fear for their life and are afraid to speak out against the regime..granted, its a horrible shame the US has to act as a world-wide policing force as it will only increase polariazation and distaste with american politics. so what to do? in perfect world the UN would have more power. right now, they just seem to be dragging their heels. will they find weapons? will they oust saddam? who knows....but if the UN *was* more effective, global-esque government resolutions could be found easily without one nation becoming the 'aggressor' and the other 'the victim,' as it would be a collective decision. but, yeah, i oppose war, but i think saddam *could* have something hidden.. ramble ramble ramble...i have to check on my perogies.

Originally posted by Michael McDermott Trevor,I too worry for our country. We will be sending our best and bravest into harms way. We don't exactly know (but I think we have a pretty good idea) what the repercussions of war will be. But what, really, is the alternative?We, along with the UN have painted ourselves AND Saddam into a corner. The question is: how to get out? How can the UN be taken seriously when it can't (if we bail) or won't (France/Germany unzipping their trousers and unfolding their manhood on the Security Council table for all to see) enforce it's own resolutions? I liked your explanation as to why "no war for oil" is overly simplistic at best and bogus at worst. And since it came from you it will carry more weight.A few friendly observations:I think Cheney and Rumsfelds prior dealings with Saddam can be looked at throught the prism of an old proverb: The enemy of my enemy is my friend.Remember, foreign policy does not take place in the sanitized vacuum of a philosophy class.Hey, are you going to see "Gods And Generals" Friday?

Mike,

Is war really the only alternative left, though? Granted, we HAVE painted ourselves into a corner with all the war rhetoric (I don't think we can disagree that this administration has been pretty open about seeking a military solution), but it just feels like not all the options are being explored. I can help but think those around the White House are dismissing at hand any sort of peaceful resolution for this.

I agree that WWII was a "good war" in the sense that

a. it couldn't be avoided

b. once we got involved, a lot of people who otherwise would've died were saved.

but the reason there was a WWII was because WWI left everything unresolved. There was so much animosity left over on both sides, and the Brits and French wanted to bleed Germany dry, ironically enough paving the way for a madman like Hitler to take control and lead the world into a far worse conflict than the "War to End All Wars".

If we go in and the war ends with no tangible results, such as the elimination of terrorists groups from the area or a stable Middle East, will all the blood in the world have been worth it? I think those in the military (who are, after all, paid to contemplate war) might be in a rush to engagement, much like the generals and politicians of August 1914, and are not really cognizant of the realities of an Iraqi occupation or the repercussions. If there is a real threat to our national security posed by Saddam, then I will support our troops but still hold reservations about the men and women behind the lines who made this war.

My thing is, it seems as if we're blindly marching off to war when we know better.

As for Gods and Generals, I'd like to see it, but I'll be busy with a Philosophy paper due Tuesday so I doubt it (I always like to wait for the DVD anyways). The "prequel" Gettysburg from a few years back felt a little iffy as a major motion picture depiction of the Civil War

Originally posted by ShugZV©
If America / Britain and the rest of the allies were as fuckin useful as they said, then why did they not get Saddam at the first time of asking?And correct me if I'm wrong, but is Osama Bin Laden not still at large?9/11 was just the excuse Bush needed to go to Iraq. Have we seen sufficient proof linking Iraq and Afghanistan? Then you have the other arguments about the Middle East and now North KoreaI'm finished work in a minute, I will rejoin this sensitive subject later.

Greetings ShugZV,

In the first Gulf War, the UN had only mandated that Saddam be removed from Kuwait. It is my opinion that is why there was such a broad Anglo-Arab coalition. That coalition would have immediately broken down had the decision been made to remove Saddam from power. I think the old saw goes, "He might be a bad guy, but he's OUR bad guy." The Arab world couldn't be down with Iraq invading Kuwait but they damn sure weren't going to have a bunch of White Christians sacking one of their own.

It's a little different now.................

As far as Bin Laden is concerned, yeah he still might be running around. However, contrary to popular opinion, the US military can walk and chew gum at the same time.

Those dicks arriving in Baghdad to shield Iraqis looked bloody petrified... what are they doing there anyway... Tuff way to make a statement. Did they do anything to protest against Saddams attrocities? I dont understand these protesters!!!

Originally posted by Human Shieldless Those dicks arriving in Baghdad to shield Iraqis looked bloody petrified... what are they doing there anyway... Tuff way to make a statement. Did they do anything to protest against Saddams attrocities? I dont understand these protesters!!!

Would that be the atrocities carried out with US provided armoury?

The hypocrisy of the successive planet raping US administrations and their short sighted supporters never fails to astound me.

THE US SPONSORED SADDAM. THIS IS A FACT. IT IS WEAPONRY PROVIDED BY YOUR OWN GOVERNMENT WHICH YOUR SOLDIERS ARE GONNA BE DODGING. REMEMBER THIS AT ALL TIMES.

As for refering to the folk who have actually taken a stance and went over there as "dicks", words fail me. There's ony one dick about here pal.

Those in POWER are riddled with CORRUPTION and feed us a whole heap of LIES...

Originally posted by Grahame Ferguson > Originally posted by Human Shieldless> Those dicks arriving in Baghdad to shield Iraqis looked bloody petrified... what are they doing there anyway... Tuff way to make a statement. Did they do anything to protest against Saddams attrocities? I dont understand these protesters!!!

Would that be the atrocities carried out with US provided armoury?

The hypocrisy of the successive planet raping US administrations and their short sighted supporters never fails to astound me.

THE US SPONSORED SADDAM. THIS IS A FACT. IT IS WEAPONRY PROVIDED BY YOUR OWN GOVERNMENT WHICH YOUR SOLDIERS ARE GONNA BE DODGING. REMEMBER THIS AT ALL TIMES.

As for refering to the folk who have actually taken a stance and went over there as "dicks", words fail me. There's ony one dick about here pal.

Greetings Grahame,

There is an old proverb that goes something like, "The enemy of my enemy is a friend." Remember that foreign policy does not take place in the sanitized vacuum of a philosophy class.

As far as "planet rape" is concerned, I would wager that there is PLENTY of blame to go around.

Here's a test for you, Grahame. Do you or have you ever purchased TOTAL-ELF-FINA pertol products? If you have, you may be looking at a hypocrite in the mirror. That is if you are against the rape and murder carried out by the Iraqi government on a daily basis.