| Topic has more than 25 posts. Pages: First 1 2 3 4 Last | Michael Vincent 531 posts
04-02-03 00:20
Reply | I'm going to start out the new forum with a nice long rant on the war on Iraq...this should be a lively discussion :)
I'm against the war. First, people who don't support the war are termed un-American, un-patriotic, and not supporting of the troops. What is more patriotic than exercising the liberties given to us by the First Amendment? Also, being against the war does not mean being against the troops. There are some brave people fighting out there for this country, and I support them. However, I think their commander-in-chief is misusing his authority over them.
The United States is not a world government, we are a nation. If we were a world goverment with the job of maintaining humanitarian policies in the world, then attacking Saddam Hussein would be perfectly fine. The fact is that we are a country, on an entirely separate continent. We should not be meddling in the affairs of the Middle East, except when it directly affects us. For example, I support the war on Al-Quaeida, because they were directly responsible for the World Trade Center attacks. We had every right to destroy them (and we still are even though coverage is virtually non-existent now).
However, Iraq has not been proven to be linked to Al-Quaeida, and furthermore they have made no aggressions against us. We claim we are liberating the Iraqi people, but I feel that it is their responsibility to free themselves and overthrow Saddam. Right before the American Revolution would we want France destroying Britain, then instituting their own rule over us? I think not. The Iraqi people will someday have the strength to fight against Hussein, and they will win. It is not our place. Nations like Kuwait should have been allowed to build up their defenses and offenses, and then attack Iraq themselves. If Hussein wants to gas his own people, as is so publicly announced, then it is the responsibility of his own people to stand up to him. I don't see the United States attacking North Korea and they have a mean dictator. I think we are just picking an easy fight for the oil.
Okay I'm out of ideas at the moment... | | Darcy 88 posts
04-02-03 00:32
Reply | A big fat AMEN to that
Not much else to add...except that oil bit. I think oil is a factor, but probably not the only factor. I can think of a couple others being thrown around by the anti-war crowd around the world:
Imperialism
Israel
Elder Bush & Saddam's feud
Installing 'democracy' and capitalism in Iraq would improve American business
I'm sure there's more, but I don't remember them at the moment | | Michael Vincent 531 posts
04-02-03 00:41
Reply | An excellent example of how they are motivated by American business can be found here: http://siliconvalley.internet.com/news/article.php/2171271
Essentially, even though that entire region uses GSM for mobile phone service, the US wants to set up CDMA service in Iraq because it will benefit American companies. For the less technically inclined, the two standards are not compatible. | | Darcy 88 posts
04-02-03 00:47
Reply | .......someone explain to me how this is 'liberating' Iraq and not conquering it.
Every reason and logic points to the latter conclusion.
(v. good article. Am posting it on livejournal anti-war community) | | Michael Vincent 531 posts
04-02-03 00:50
Reply | Ah but you don't know the magic Bush logic...somehow if the United States conquers, it's "liberation" but any other country is called "conquering." I think the dictator...err leader...of every country that attacks another uses the term "liberation." After all, you must win the support of your people. | | Darcy 88 posts
04-02-03 01:03
Reply | That's so bs. ANY country can think of a reason to "defend" itself against a foreign a "agresssor" and thus start a war. Hmph.
You know what the Republican representative to Mr. Ballard's class told us today? We're in this war to DEFEND America and our way of life - Saddam is trying to impose his evil ways on us so we must stop him while there is time.
Hey hey...that's EXACTLY how Germany and Japan started WWII. Japan accused China of capturing one of its nonexistent soldiers, and Hitler had a group of his men dress like Polish soldiers and attack German troops. Both country invaded foreign soil on the claims of self-defense. | | Michael Vincent 531 posts
04-02-03 01:23
Reply | You had a republican come into your class? At the moment I've switched back to supporting the democrats (not being one of these stupid people who live by the party system is nice).
I agree. We aren't defending our country, we are imposing *our* evil ways on Iraq. Defending our country was something we did in Afghanistan.
This is funny...we are responding to each other like we are debating, but we agree so we aren't.... | | Barrett 385 posts
04-02-03 20:34
Reply | i reply to idiots like you ALL the time, so i'm just gonna copy an email i sent to some communist at everything2.org:
I realize it is in the best interest of your communist party to Bash conservative politics at all costs, but why do you write up such bullcrap?
here's the bottom line:
Saddam has been told for over a decade that he has to get rid of his weapons (i don't give a crap who gave him the weapons, if it was the US, i don't care, if you support someone once, you don't have to support them forever, so give it up). the UN told him to get rid of the weapons; he has not. If we continue to let him fool weapons inspectors forever, eventaully he will have nuclear weapons. (don't give me any crap on him not wanting them, eventually he would have got them since commies like you will continue to oppose getting him out of power for decades to come). You're right; he's a horrible horrible person, and he doesn't have any regard for human life. If no one does anything about him, the UN will lose ALL credibility, and will become as effective as the Kellog Briand Pact (sorry if i mispelled that).
I realize that hundreds of US and British soldiers will be KIA, but it's worth it if we get rid of Saddam, who could have (or would have, even a could have is worth this fight) have been responsible for tens of thousands more lives in the future (if not hundreds of thousands).
The Iraqi people WANT him out of power - i suggest you go here: http://www.portal.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2003/03/23/do2305.xml
and read that story.
So if the Iraqi people want him out, then there's no problem with us using the word "Liberate" as what we're doing. It's not like Iraq is going to become US state #51 (with your obviously limited education, there are 50 states in the united states) - Iraq will have its own government - we won't get cheaper oil. We can get plenty of free oil from Alaska, Texas, the northeast US, and other places if we want.
I hope you realize that people like you are screwing the entire operation, and every time a US soldier goes against others (like the guy who grenaded a bunch of people), it's YOUR fault.
You need to think things through with a better perspective; like this for example:
what will happen if the US does not do this? - Saddam stays in power; continues to fool the UN (weapons inspectors) - continues to support terror - murders hundreds of thousands more people.
what will happen if the US does this? - well, we already know; a couple hundred Americans and British will die, Saddam gets ousted, the Iraqi people get a democratic government.
I hope you're getting hundreds more of these emails, so i also hope you didn't have a chance to read this. | | Michael Vincent 531 posts
04-02-03 22:20
Reply | First, you call me a communist. That's mindless name calling. Look up the definition of a communist. "An adherent or advocate of Communism." Communism: "a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production"
Calling me an untrue name just to inflame your point accomplishes nothing. There are plenty of actions the UN can take to hurt Saddam. A blockcade of Cuba by the US worked in 1962, something similar could be done. It's hypocritical for the US to maintain nuclear weapons and then attempt to prevent other countries from having them as well.
I'm not sure why you mention the soldiers being killed in action, and how it saves more lives, because I agree. That doesn't however mean we are right to do it. I know the Iraqi people want him out of power, and it is their sole responsibility to kick him out. By the way, you cite a *UK* source for that...not unbiased. I can find sources that support Saddam as well, so we need to find someone as neutral as possible. When the majority of citizens of a country want to overthrow their leader, it can happen. "Obviously limited education" - more name calling... I'm not screwing the entire operation, because I support the troops. I have no problems with the troops fighting, it's with the commander-in-chief who ordered them there.
Yes, people will die if the US doesn't get involved, however it is not our place. If the US gains control over Iraq, we are going to be hardly better than Saddam himself. Read what happened when we took over the Philippines: http://www.onwar.com/aced/data/papa/philippines1899.htm. Also read what happened when we took over Cuba, and then the horrible treatment by the ruling US military afterwards: http://www.historyofcuba.com/history/scaw/scaw2.htm. Note particularly how journalists made the conditions in Spanish Cuba seem much worse than they actually were. The United States should have zero involvement in Iraq. Would you want to live under the rule of France across the ocean? I think not. The Iraqi government will be comprised of individuals who favor U.S. interests, and we are going to end up buying their oil. President Bush just uses the war to boost popularity and the economy. My final thought is that while we may truely believe ourselves to be helping Iraq, I think it's much more negative than positive of an impact. | | Darcy 88 posts
04-02-03 23:41
Reply | First of all, you obviously can't make your opinions heard without throwing in insults. You called me a communist (which I am not) and you called me an idiot (just because I don't agree with you). No, I will not deign to your childish level of name-calling (but my self-control is limited, and one more insult from you and I will snap), but you can't seem to understand why anti-war DOES NOT mean pro-Saddam.
First lets make sure you know enough about history to debate, hmm?
Q. How long has Iraq had chemical and biological weapons?
A: Since the early 1980's.
Q: Did the US government condemn the Iraqi use of gas warfare against Iran?
A: No
Q: How many people did Saddam Hussein kill using gas in the Kurdish town of Halabja in 1988?
A: 5,000
Q: How many western countries condemned this action at the time?
A: 0
Where the hell was America when Saddam used biological weapons against Iran? (Oh, wait, we didn't like Iran at the time, so I guess it's ok). Where the hell was America when Saddam used chemical weapons against the Kurds? And now all of a sudden we're all humanitarian and altruistic. No, of course we have no other motives. One can only wonder why the rest of the world is against this invasion! :-o
<b> UN will lose ALL credibility</b>
Uh...so tell me how this war is going to improve UN credibility. UN tells America no war - the mighty America goes to war anyway, because it can. Saddam violated the will of the UN, so the US decided to violate the will of the UN as well in order to show Saddam that it cannot be done.
Uh, yeah, I've read that article by Daniel Pepper before. So what? I *know* that the Iraqis do not like Saddam (uh, who would? He's a bloody bastard). But Pepper's views are based on the opinion of one taxi cab driver, who believed that civilian casualties would be small? Am I discrediting his opinion? No. He's entitled to his own. But if "All Iraqis want this war", then how do you explain the 4000 Iraqi volunteers who left their families, jobs, and homes behind in the relative comfort and safety of Jordan to take up arms to "defend their country"?
Are they pro-Saddam? No. Why would civilians be stupid enough to fight for a man who has done nothing but oppressed them for years. Why would they feel to "defend" their homeland against a "foreign invasion" if all we're doing is liberating them? Because they don't see this as liberation, but invasion. Because no matter how much they didn't like Saddam, they hate America tenfolds more (who's the Great Satan again? And who's ironically the Defender of Faith now?). Because America has always been pro-Israel, and Israel has always been slaughtering thousands and thousands of Arabs and Palestinians. Because even the Iraqis aren't fool enough to believe all of Bush's lies and America's altruistic motives.
Who said I'm not patriotic? Who said I'm don't love America the country? Recall the Vietnam War - a war that the government admit we should never have gotten into, a war that was unrighteous and the only war we've lost in history...who were the patriots back then? The people who protested, or the people who sent our men overseas to rot and die. Ask a Vietnam veteran what it's like to suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder. Ask a true Vietnamese/Korean/Philipino/Native American what it's like to have one's homeland taken over by a foreign power and what it's like to be ruled over by a people who don't understand your culture and your ways, but force you to accept their 'democracy' anyway.
What makes you think I don't support our troops? I have two friends over - do you think I would rejoice if they are killed? I do support our troops - by trying to bring them home. By trying to stop another Vietnam before it's too late. So just because I show my support a different way, I'm a traitor and a communist? My, your way of thinking is certainly shockingly narrow.
Why else do I oppose this war, beside all the reasons that I mentioned above? Because I don't want America to turn into the next Israel. Already the general Arab and muslim population are forming a growing hatred for America and our foreign policy. I don't want to have to be on a bus and worry that there might be a bomb on board. I don't want to have to toss and turn at night, fearing that someone may bomb my neighborhood just because of my nationality.
And let me ask you.......<b>why Iraq?</b> Almost all the Arab rulers have done similar atrocities towards their own people (yes, including Saudi Arabia, who we are rather chummy with). Why Iraq? Why not North Korea? The entire Middle East? Or are we going to bomb and "liberate" every single one of those countries until they do things the American way?
Hardly anything is black and white. Learn to see the greys in between. | | Darcy 88 posts
04-02-03 23:47
Reply | Geez...you insulted even Michael. If you threw insults at me, I can understand, because I'm another forum-visitor like you, but do you not even have the common decency to be polite to the mod/person who made the forum?
Honestly | | Darcy 88 posts
04-02-03 23:55
Reply | And just so you know....70% of Americans currently support the president and this war.
Over in France, 82% opposes.
Which is relatively low, compared to the average 84% antiwar population in the rest of Europe.
And, oh, you know England, Bush's biggest and main ally in this conflict? Yeah. Over 92% of the Brittish population is against this war. Perhaps we should rename English muffins to "Freedom muffins" now.
(In Turkey, as of today, 95% of the population is anti-war, and yet the government already promised the US support in the Iraqi war. I guess the people in the rest of the world are just stupid and heartless and they are all Saddam-lovers and communists!) | | Barrett 385 posts
04-03-03 00:01
Reply | they're just jealous.
i'm kidding, why should they support the war? there aren't many people who will kill a european on sight, but there are plenty who will kill an american on sight.
Remember, part of the reason we're going in there is national defense. | | Darcy 88 posts
04-03-03 00:10
Reply | "National defense"
Remind me again when was the last time Iraq invaded American soil. Ignorant anti-war person that I am, I must've missed it.
And if you're going to talk about 9/11, don't bother. Not ONE link has been found between Saddam and Bin Laden (the two, in fact, hate each other's guts). And if you know of any, please let me know (note: that was not said in sarcasm. I really would like to know).
Of the 19 hijackers on 9/11, not ONE was from Iraq. 15 of them, however, was from Saudi Arabia (that country who is very, very friendly with us). One can only imagine why we're not invading Saudi Arabia, when their government has abused their people too.
"Why should [the Europeans] support the war?"
Why should they oppose the war? Why not be ambivalent? Heck, it's only American soldiers and Iraqi civilians dying...why should Europeans give a damn? Why risk all that...and piss the greatest and strongest nation in the world off? France is certainly tasting the displeasure of it. Why go through all that trouble for a foreign conflict that has nothing to do with them? | | Darcy 88 posts
04-03-03 00:17
Reply | "but there are plenty who will kill an american on sight."
Hmm....again, why? (I've already stated the answer in one of my previous rebuttals. But for the sake of the debate, I shall ask you again).
Why would people target mostly Americans while they leave Europeans and other people alone?
The last time I asked that question, I received this response:
"Because America is rich, and they're jealous. America stands for democracy, and they hate democracy. That's why they target us."
Of course, the rest of the world is so poor and so communistic. Japan had a strong economy during the 90s, yet the terrorists did not target them (the Japanese, rather, are quite unhappy with American troops on their land as well).
Wealth and democracy have nothing to do with it. Radical Muslims like to target the US because of our involvement with Israel and other Arab conflicts - like the Iraq war. This war would only increase the number of terrorist attacks against American citizens...call me "unpatriotic," but I don't want to see American civilians killed, and hence I am opposed to this war. | | Darcy 88 posts
04-03-03 00:26
Reply | ...you didn't answer any of the questions I posted last time.
:|
Was that on purpose? | | huge crayon 41 posts
04-03-03 04:01
Reply | Just FYI, I'm going down each post and posting my responses to the ones I'd like to respond to. :) Oh, and by "you" I just mean whoever wrote whatever I'm responding to.. please don't get confused.
You keep saying that it is the Iraqi people's responsibility to get rid of Saddam Hussein. And you also say that with time, they will prevail. But in that amount of time, how many more innocent Iraqi citizens will be killed? If you look at our military right now, we have a hard time battling the Republican Guards and we have all the latest technology. How on earth are the regular citizens who oppose Hussein supposed to fight the RG if they only have simple rifles and grenades? Hussein will rather destroy his nation before he goes out of power.
You also mention how it's not our responsibility and that we're only acting in our own national interest. Tell me, who hasn't? During the American Revolutionary War, France didn't have a responsibility to help us right? But they wanted us to defeat Britain because they wanted to weaken the British empire. Weren't they also acting in their self interest? But it is our eventual goal (in addition to our self interests) that is important. It may take a many many years after this war, but we want to have peace in the Middle East. You can't have peace with a dictator like Hussein.
You say that we are imposing our "evil" ways on Iraq. Our "evil" ways have worked for over 200 years for us. With modification (every country has modified versions of democracy), it can work for Iraq. You can't say that it won't and it will destroy everything when it hasn't even been tried. Look at dictatorship, hasn't it also destroyed the Iraqi way of life? But with dictatorships, it will never work because there can be no change.
I don't know Barrett but I think he's an idiot. You don't go into a debate with name-calling. Ark, I just called him an idiot. Oh well. It's silly to bash people if their views differ from yours. If you think you represent those people who support the war, think again. Just shut up the next time someone asks you a question on war.
The UN has tried to take plenty actions against Hussein. They end up only hurting the citizens and not him. He's still there. He's still defying them. He doesn't care as long as he's in power. Yet, like the League of Nations (Michael.. we learned about this), they're still helpless. Hussein doesn't want to disarm, he won't disarm no matter what.
I don't think it's hypocritical that the US can have nuclear weapons while Iraq (or other countries) can't. Here's the difference. If the President wants to use nuclear weapons on an enemy, he can't just push the little red botton. It has to go through the Congress first. This Congress was elected by the people. It's the beauty of our government. Where every little action of the President has to be okayed by someone else. Now, in a dictatorship, the dictator can push that little red button anytime he wants. Even for fun. So, which country is more responsible?
You mention the Phillippines War and I find that amusing. Mostly because you can't compare the United States then to the United States now. The US then was on a conquest to be an imperialist nation. Of course they wanted to control the Phillippines! Same goes for Cuba.. the situations then cannot be compared with the situations now.
You say that there are thousands of Iraqis who signed up to defend their country. I don't disagree with you. Of course they would want to save their country from the Great Satan. But where did they get the idea of the Great Satan from? For 12 years, Iraq has been left to its own devices. They don't get CNN or FoxNews over there. You can say that they're uneducated about American ways.. well, not just American but the ways of the Free World. Do you really think that Hussein would allow any type of media that would discredit him to enter his country? They're fighting against us because that's what they've been taught to do. The people fighting right now, between fighting age.. 20 - 35 perhaps? They were teenagers during the Gulf War. And between then and now, their minds have been impressed by Hussein. If they hear on the news that America is evil, they're going to believe it. On September 11, their news channel didn't say that Al-Quaeida attacked America because they hated us. They said that America provoked the war by supporting Isreal. In Iraq, it is always "America Evil, Iraq Good".. the children grow up with this and they understand only this.
I'm not a "true" Vietnamese person. You can ask anyone that and they'll tell you the same. So you tell me to ask a "true" Vietnamese what it feels like to have their home country be occupied by another nation. Vietnam was first occupied by the Chinese, then the French, then the Japanese, then the French again, then the Communist Party. So, over the many years, its culture has been blended with the people's who occupy it. South Vietnam was fortunately occupied by the French longer than the North. This is were the S. Vietnamese learned about democracy. And you keep saying that it is "their" democracy. It's never anyone's democracy. Like I said before, every democratic nation has a different type of democracy that works for them. Who says that Iraq can't modify democracy to fit their needs?
The Vietnam War was initially a civil war. The S. Vietnam didn't want communism. And we only entered the war because the S. Vietnam asked us to. They didn't have the power to defend themselves (unfortunately, we didn't either). This is what a civil war is like. This is why one side needs the help of another country. If Iraq were to have a civil war to over throw Hussein and asks the United States to help, would you still be against it?
No link between terrorists and Iraq. No link between terrorists and Iraq, yet. I truly think, that if the terrorists ask nicely, Saddam Hussein will provide them with chemical and biological weapons. He's just that kind of guy. So it's more of a waiting game if you want to call it that, but I'd rather not wait for the terrorists to buy anything that could put Americans in danger.
Okay, to conclude this lengthy post. I think that now we're at war, we need to go through with it. However, I think that Bush could have waited a few more months or so, weeks even, before starting the war. Just to show the UN that we still do listen to them. Now what I absolutely despise is people calling Bush a war monger. Call me naive if you want but I honestly think that everything he does, he tries to put America first and nothing else. I don't think he's doing it for revenge or for oil or for any other reason. He's doing it for America. Do you think that Bush is actually dumb enough to put American lives on the line for a silly feud? I think that he wants to do what's best for the country and he believes what he is doing is the best. True, his rational could use a little improvement, but to say that he's after oil is just crazy. See, I think that people are driven to do the right thing.. (unless they're evil, in which case, they're plotters) and no matter how unpopular it is, they still think it's the right thing to do. Sometimes I'm like that...
| | Darcy 88 posts
04-03-03 05:02
Reply | Finally, a more intelligent reply from the pro-war camp. I was slightly disappointed that Barrett didn't even attempt a rebuttal.
"we have a hard time battling the Republican Guards and we have all the latest technology."
Same thing at Vietnam. And now we're also losing more troops from 'friendly fire' than from enemy soldiers. At times I wonder at the competence of the American military after WWII.
"the American Revolutionary War, France didn't have a responsibility to help us right? "
Yes, but they left us alone after we achieved our independence. We were free to choose whatever form of government we want. Iraq, on the other hand, is going to be under American policy after the war (that the last post-war plan I heard anyway). Do you know what the Iraqis really want? They are essentially three tribes, one to the north, one in the center (Saddam's group), and one in the south. Each want their own country. But the US is preventing Iraq from splitting, because dealing with three waring nations would be harmful to our trade/economy with Iraq.
Like you said, it's all in self-interest. Installing democracy and capitalism would make trade easier, and thus benefit American companies (contracts are already made to American corporations - exclusively. Heh, talk about fairness).
"Our "evil" ways have worked for over 200 years for us. "
See, this is the problem. It has worked for us...but that's because we're a nation founded on Western thought and philosophy. This country was founded during the Enlightenment, when reason and logic were the most valued traits. Who's to say that democracy is the best policy for Iraq, whose culture is so vastly different from our own? Who's to say that the Iraqis even *want* our democracy? Look at China, it's not doing bad right now - and yet its government is based on communism. So does that mean that China should go around preaching communism and their way of government to the world, because they think it's best? No. That's what Mao did, and that brought China years of turmoil and war. Just because something works for you, doesn't mean you have to go attack someone and then force them to do things your way too. What kind of crap democracy is that?
Another point about democracy: you need certain requirements for a society to function properly under democratic rule. First of all, the general populace must be fairly well educated, both secularly and politically - otherwise you would have mob rule. The general Iraqi population lack oth secular and political education. Their foremost values are not reason and logic, but religious zeal and tradition. Installing democracy without education on the Iraqis, and the place would turn out like Hong Kong, with people who don't know SQUAT about politics arguing about society policies.
"It may take a many many years after this war, but we want to have peace in the Middle East. "
Forgive me for being a cynic, but this is not possible as long as there is an Israel and as long as the US backs Israel. Their inter-cultural wars have been going on for centuries...and they are about land and religious conquests that are not to be settled lightly. And another thing you don't understand - human's pride. For Arabs, it's almost a racial and cultural humiliation to rely on the United States after we have killed so many of their brethrens. Isreal is killing an average of 8 Palestinians a day...I've seen pictures of what they do to women and children they kill. They dismember their victims and do absolutely grotesque things to innocent civilians - they're absolutely barbaric and inhuman, and the US is in support of them. Tell me how on earth an Arab is supposed to look at the US and see us as their liberator. If we take control of Iraq, we are, forever in their eyes, the conqueror and this will only ensure more terrorist attacks.
"The UN has tried to take plenty actions against Hussein. "
Mmhmm. And, oh, they're doing the exact same thing to appease N. Korea right now...and oddly enough, the US is okay with that. North Korea *does* have WMD (while Saddam is only *suspected* of having them), and yet we're ignoring North Korea and letting the UN deal with them while we invade Iraq.
"he can't just push the little red botton. It has to go through the Congress first. "
Uh, no longer true. With recent bills, the president can declare war sans approval of Congress. The Korean and Vietnam wars were never declared, and yet the US fought them anyway, because the president is the commander in chief. There're always loopholes in the law, and presidents *have* found ways to wage war without a declaration from Congress.
In fact, the last declared war, I believe, is WWII. Correct me if I'm wrong.
"Mostly because you can't compare the United States then to the United States now. The US then was on a conquest to be an imperialist nation. "
How do you know? We no longer outright conquer a foreign nation in the name of imperialism, but one can read between the lines. By placing troops in Japan and S. Korea, the US is keeping N. Korea (and at times China) in check. Do something that displeases the US and the US will flex its muscle with their seemingly innocent military bases around the world. When you take Mr. Ballard's class next year, he'll tell you that the foreign students he's had in the past all told him that they believe the US is out for world domination. I've lived in HK for 10 years...I know the viewpoints from that part of the world you are not familiar with, and I can safely tell you that I believe in that as well. So do my many relatives. So does Julia Mak.
Is everyone in the world who believes that stupid, then? Are they just foolish to believe that US is out for imperialism because they should be believing everything that Bush says? Try to read/watch foreign news sometimes to get their viewpoint.
"For 12 years, Iraq has been left to its own devices. They don't get CNN or FoxNews over there."
I don't know about Iraq, but the rest of the Arab world most certainly DO get those channels. They get 60 Minutes as well. And yet most of them are outraged with this war and support Saddam (not for his cruelty, but because he has the guts to stand up the America - the bully - and has now become the great "Defender of Faith"). And it goes both ways...how many of us watch Arab news? We only get our viewpoint on our news groups - do you ever hear of CNN saying that America is out to conquer? No. We're only getting the American viewpoint and US propoganda.
And they don't just hate us because of the media. It goes way deeper than that. There's, once again, Israel and their endless slaughter. There's Bush and his "crusades." We should never have meddled with Middle Eastern age-old conflicts. Now we're in a "damned if we do and damned if we don't" situation.
"America Evil, Iraq Good"
Once again, the same thing over here. "America is the God-sanctioned nation, and Saddam is the evil man." Evil is relative - to them Bush is the epitome of evil. One can't strike a sovereign nation on the grounds of morality - because doing so would justify terrorist acts as well.
"Who says that Iraq can't modify democracy to fit their needs?"
Who's to say Iraq wants democracy at all? Democracy implies equal rights and freedom...my Muslim friend from across the world tells me that she follows the rules of her religion and tradition willfully. She wants to wear her veil - she does not feel oppressed as a woman to do so. They think that revealing one's skin is horribly shameful. They believe that homosexuals deserve to die. That is their culture. We may not agree with it, but who are we to tell them their ways of life is evil? Who are we to tell them to change?
"If Iraq were to have a civil war to over throw Hussein and asks the United States to help, would you still be against it? "
Did they? Did they ask for help? The 1991 Gulf War was different - Kuwait *did* ask for help. And help should be given by the UN - not the US. The world isn't heartless, and the US isn't the only one with humanitarian aims, you know. The UN disagrees for a reason, and if the US wants a war regardless, then you risk destroying the world community that we worked so hard to create after WWII. You also risk isolating the US from the rest of the world.
"I truly think, that if the terrorists ask nicely, Saddam Hussein will provide them with chemical and biological weapons. "
Heh, guess what? That's *exactly* what Reagan did. Saddam asked nicely, and was given nifty chemical weapons. Bin Laden asked nicely, and was awarded the same! We supplied them with ample weapons so they can harm our enemies for us. Oy, sounds like the US government supported terrorism too. Perhaps we should bomb D.C. next.
"Do you think that Bush is actually dumb enough to put American lives on the line for a silly feud?"
Yes.
The man chocked on a stupid *pretzel* for heaven's sake. There are other devastatingly stupid things he did - too many to list here. Just do a google search. | | huge crayon 41 posts
04-03-03 05:26
Reply | I'll write another response later.. time for sleep.. but in the mean time...
You called me intelligent! Hehehe... how odd it sounds... | | Darcy 88 posts
04-03-03 06:21
Reply | Lol....well, in comparison to Barrett's blind insults...
Posted on Plotters, btw.
G'night! | | Dexter345 677 posts
04-03-03 07:23
Reply | Wow. These posts are too long. There's too much to reply to. All I have to say right now is that I'm with huge crayon on this one. That, and also when you take Government with Mr. Ballard, you will be taught from a very biased point of view.
-Dexter345- | | Darcy 88 posts
04-03-03 07:40
Reply | But I'm not basing my views on Ballard's opinions. I'm just citing one of the sources I came across from his class. | | Barrett 385 posts
04-07-03 22:33
Reply | blind insults eh?
The only thing you people are trying to do is get Bush to be unpopular. You argue about the stupidest things that have absolutly no relevence to the situation at all.
here's the ONLY thing that matters:
If saddam stays in power, hundreds of thousands more people will die.
If he is removed, a few hundred will die.
don't give me any more bullcrap - human life is the most important thing on the planet. | | Michael Vincent 531 posts
04-07-03 22:42
Reply | That's not the only thing which matters, because you are oversimplifying. Military action and politics are complicated, and it will cause more deaths in the long run. Just because you can do something and save lives, doesn't mean you necessarily should or that it would be morally correct. Circumstances (such as the attitudes in the Middle East) often make it impractical and undesirable.
I am against Bush. But I wasn't at first, in fact I would have voted for Bush if I could have. It seemed to me during the election to be the idiot versus the liar, and I thought the idiot would be better because at least he'd have competent staff (which he does). Alas, I think Clinton was the best modern president that I've seen. Reagan would be good too, but I'm only basing that off history books. | | Barrett 385 posts
04-08-03 00:29
Reply | as the most powerful country on the planet, we have an OBLIGATION to make the world a better place - a better place means less people die, and fags like saddam get out of power.
I'm not oversimplifying, how is life and death simple? |
|
![[michaelv.org - cooler than triangles!]](/images/top.gif)
![[michaelv.org - cooler than triangles!]](/images/logo.gif){kind=logo}
