Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

War in Iraq? Yay or Nay

Iraq

  • Please log in to reply
73 replies to this topic

Poll: War in Iraq? Yay or Nay (33 member(s) have cast votes)

War in Iraq? Yay or Nay

  1. I support war with Iraq. UN support is irrelevant. (20 votes [25.32%])

    Percentage of vote: 25.32%

  2. I support war with Iraq ONLY if UN support is gained. (14 votes [17.72%])

    Percentage of vote: 17.72%

  3. I do not support war with Iraq at all. (33 votes [41.77%])

    Percentage of vote: 41.77%

  4. I am undecided or I don't care. (12 votes [15.19%])

    Percentage of vote: 15.19%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#1 Uncle Sid

Uncle Sid

    Highly impressionable

  • Islander
  • 1,414 posts

Posted 07 February 2003 - 09:59 PM

Quote

I'm curious as why this reminds you specifically of WW1? I suppose you could say that the losing side was penalised for losing in any war, because I doubt a state is going to be penalised after they win?

If I may make so bold as to answer that, I think that it's true that winners generally don't get penalized for winning.  However, I think that what is being discussed is the way in which the losers are being penalized.  

In wars, a lot of things can happen to the losing side, anywhere from simple return to status quo ante, if the losing side didn't lose too badly, all the way to nearly complete conquest and annihilation (think Carthage).  

Keep in mind, though, being conquered is not always a negative thing for the conquered people.  There might have even been sympathetic rebellions during the war.  Certainly, the population might view the new rulers as at least neutral or even in a positive light.  

On the flip side, certain penalties are more apt than others to cause the population on the losing side to resent the victors.  After WWI, the Allies, led by a very vindictive French government, imposed very high reparations payments on Germany, limited it's military and stationed troops in parts of Germany that bordered France.  The reparations were a problem for the Germans since their government was shaken up seriously by the end of the war and loss of the Imperial Government (and the Kaiser), as well as being a battlefield for the emerging socialists and the reactionary war veterans.  Most importantly the economy of the country was hurt by the war and being the loser, as well as the payments made it more difficult to rebuild.  Further, I believe the reparations payments were demanded in hard currency or from foreign currency reserves, decreasing the value of the mark and adding to the huge post-war inflation.  By the time the Great Depression hit the world, Germany was in very serious trouble and the Germans were looking to take their problems out on people and get some hope for the future.  Enter one Adolf Hitler who did just that.

Mostly, though, many Germans simply resented the Treaty of Versailles because it was vindictive and belittling.  And really, it was vindictive and belittling.  It was also stupid.  Germany is/was a great nation and had been a Great Power.  As it showed, it could be again as well.  

Iraq is sort of the same.  The problem with Iraq isn't it's people, the problem is the government.  Or perhaps I should say that the problem is Saddam Hussein's control of the government.  When the war ended in 1991, the sanctions were imposed, but the sanctions didn't touch Saddam Hussein.  Saddam might not be able to take on the US with his army, but he's an absolute terror for normal Iraqis who oppose him.  The war didn't change that.  Saddam already ruled by fear and without the consent of the governed, so why would starving his people have affected him?  He just clamped down a little tighter, and most importantly, blaned the sanctions for the people's plight.

The sad thing is that Saddam is partly right.  Without the sanctions, the Iraqi people would really be materially better off.  The sanctions, though few put it this way, directly targeted the Iraqi people in order to get them to overthrow Saddam.  The problem is that Saddam can't be pressured easily.  It's easier to blame the sanctions than to face a firing squad or a torture cell.  

We should have known all of this.  Saddam Hussein is the problem, not the people.  You don't do surgery with a large blunt object, you do it with a scalpel.  The sanctions are a very large, blunt object meant to make the people so miserable that they blame Saddam.  The problem is that they know it's Saddam, but they can't do anything about him.  The Iraqis think we should have the common sense to realize this too.  So who gets resented when the sanctions hurt the common people?  Saddam, yes, but the rest of the world gets an equal part of it.

Edited by Certifiably Cait, 07 August 2012 - 11:23 PM.

I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it. - Jack Handey

#2 Han

Han

    When all else fails, use fire.

  • Islander
  • 483 posts

Posted 05 February 2003 - 05:12 PM

My first poll.   ;)
Curious to see what Ex-isles think about this.

Han

#3 CJ AEGIS

CJ AEGIS

    Warship Guru!

  • Islander
  • 6,847 posts

Posted 05 February 2003 - 05:17 PM

The UN is only relevant if they choose to act.  Otherwise I say out the door with them.
"History has proven too often and too recently that the nation which relaxes its defenses invites attack."
        -Fleet Admiral Nimitz
"Their sailors say they should have flight pay and sub pay both -- they're in the air half the time, under the water the other half""
        - Ernie Pyle: Aboard a DE

#4 Han

Han

    When all else fails, use fire.

  • Islander
  • 483 posts

Posted 05 February 2003 - 05:18 PM

^ Just gave me another idea for a poll.
Han

#5 the 'Hawk

the 'Hawk
  • Islander
  • 5,281 posts

Posted 05 February 2003 - 06:19 PM

Let's just get it over with already.
“Now is the hour, Riders of Rohan, oaths you have taken! Now, fulfil them all! To lord and land!”  
~ Eomer, LotR:RotK

#6 Lover of Purple

Lover of Purple

    Mustang Man

  • Retired Board Owner
  • 11,213 posts

Posted 05 February 2003 - 07:35 PM

Una Salus Lillius, on Feb. 05 2003,23:27, said:

Yup interesting and frightening too.

I know that we probably have diametrically opposed views on this buy imho Bush has done a total snow job on the public here and they're buying it hook line and sinker.

That's just my views and I am not trying to insult anyone.  It's just how I feel.  :(
No problem Sis, everyone is welcome to feel how ever they want about this and anything else.

And, yeah we have a different view on this. But I do think that every president does a snowjob at one time or another. I guess it comes with the job. But I do feel we need to do something about Sodamn Insane. Do we need to do it immediately? I have no idea. I know it needs done before he gets what he wants, after all once there is a "smoking gun" it's to late. I just wish the UN would step up and act like a United Nations, but everyone (andthe US is included) only wants to get what they want, not what is best for the world.

It is sad that we live in a world where men like Saddam exist and have the power to threaten their neighbors. And I do feel that Saddam is lying his butt off. The man has proven his desire to invade his neighbors, for whatever reason.


Again, I may not agree but I support your and everyone'sright to feel and speak how you want. I'm just thankfull welive in a country that allows us to disagree with the President without being arrested.


#7 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 05 February 2003 - 07:27 PM

Yup interesting and frightening too.

I know that we probably have diametrically opposed views on this buy imho Bush has done a total snow job on the public here and they're buying it hook line and sinker.

That's just my views and I am not trying to insult anyone.  It's just how I feel.  :(

Posted Image

#8 Lover of Purple

Lover of Purple

    Mustang Man

  • Retired Board Owner
  • 11,213 posts

Posted 05 February 2003 - 07:20 PM

I think it is interesting (and I am by no means putting anyone's opinions down here, I just think it is interesting) that MSNBC has a poll up asking if Powell had made a case strong enough to justifiy the US taking on Iraq and 70% said yes. 26% said yes to taking on Iraq but with UN support and 4% said the report was so weak we should pull the inspectors out. This is after 159,537 people deciding.

Interesting.


#9 Godeskian

Godeskian

    You'll be seein' rainbooms

  • Islander
  • 26,839 posts

Posted 07 February 2003 - 02:26 AM

I haven't voted because none of the options presented reflect how i feel.

I support a war to remove the leadership in Iraq because Saddam hussein is a dangerous maniac who has little to no respect for human life.

However, i do not believe the reasons presented are compelling enouhg for me to support war.

1. WoMD, I do believe he has them, but i also believe he won't use them unless directly provoked. Saddam hussein isn't mad in any clinical sense of the word. He lacks morality, but he is very sane when it comes to keeping himself alive and in power. He knows that if he uses WoMD on the US or it's allies then he will not survive the retaliation.

However if the US launches an invasion, which is what it is, regardless of how Powell presents it, and he has the honest belief that he has nowhere to run to, and will bee 'shot while resisting arrest' regardless of whether he actually surrenders or not, he has just lost all reasons for not using WoMD. If he is convinced he is going to die, then i believe his last two acts will be to detonate boobytraps on the oil fields, and to throw everything he has against everyone nearby.

2. He is in breach of UN resolutions. Big deal, so have many countries been, and with the mexicans on death row thing, the US may well be in breach very shortly.

3. His links to Al-Qauda. Unproven and it's very unlikely that the religious fundamentalism of Al-Quade mixes with the purely secular interests of the Baath party. After all, one of the things Saddam has done is eliminate several religious extremist groups to keep it a secular goverment.

so while i believe there are good grounds for a war in Iraq, and for the removal of Saddam Hussein, i do not believe the reasons presented are valid ones.

Defy Gravity!


The Doctor: The universe is big. It's vast and complicated and ridiculous and sometimes, very rarely, impossible things just happen and we call them miracles... and that's a theory. Nine hundred years and I've never seen one yet, but this will do me.


#10 Shoshana

Shoshana
  • Islander
  • 4,031 posts

Posted 07 February 2003 - 02:55 AM

I think we should have finished Desert Storm in '91.

Everyone knew that Saddam wasn't going to change. The sanctions just made the lives of the common people in Iraq more difficult and gave Saddam more ammo in his anti-US agenda.

It kind of reminds me of what happened at the supposed end of WW1. The losing side was penalized for losing - the common people bore the brunt of the penalty.

If the coalition had just finished the job in '91 by ousting Saddam, replacing him and rebuilding Iraq, we wouldn't be in this situation with Iraq today.

Unfortunately, right now there are too many other things mixed in with the decision to take on Iraq right now - if Saddam had been ousted in '91, people wouldn't be wondering now if this is a push for US control of the oil fields, if there really *is* just cause to go into Iraq, if we're being given a snow job or if the situation is even worse than what they're saying but they won't tell us cause they don't want mass hysteria.

And on top of everything else - is this a diversion from the "where's Osama?" question?

And North Korea has already stated that they 'know' they are next, and are prepared to send up a 'pre-emptive strike'!

This all just really scares me - it feels like we are entering into a repeat of the 1950's "know where your bomb shelter is" mentality...

'shana


#11 Godeskian

Godeskian

    You'll be seein' rainbooms

  • Islander
  • 26,839 posts

Posted 07 February 2003 - 03:34 AM

The problem with that Shana, was that the mandate given Swarschkopf was to oust Iraq from Kuwait and garantuee it's safety

he didn't have a mandate to stage a coup in Iraq.

however, i do agree with you. Saddam should have been remved ten years ago

Defy Gravity!


The Doctor: The universe is big. It's vast and complicated and ridiculous and sometimes, very rarely, impossible things just happen and we call them miracles... and that's a theory. Nine hundred years and I've never seen one yet, but this will do me.


#12 Talkie Toaster

Talkie Toaster

    There's no Shepard without Vakarian

  • Islander
  • 1,136 posts

Posted 07 February 2003 - 06:52 PM

Shoshana, on Feb. 07 2003,07:55, said:

It kind of reminds me of what happened at the supposed end of WW1. The losing side was penalized for losing - the common people bore the brunt of the penalty.
I'm curious as why this reminds you specifically of WW1? I suppose you could say that the losing side was penalised for losing in any war, because I doubt a state is going to be penalised after they win?
Blessed is the mind too small for doubt.

#13 Talkie Toaster

Talkie Toaster

    There's no Shepard without Vakarian

  • Islander
  • 1,136 posts

Posted 08 February 2003 - 07:22 AM

uncle sid, on Feb. 08 2003,02:59, said:

Quote

Uncle Sid posted:

If I may make so bold as to answer that, I think that it's true that winners generally don't get penalized for winning.  However, I think that what is being discussed is the way in which the losers are being penalized.
 

Right, gotcha.

Quote

On the flip side, certain penalties are more apt than others to cause the population on the losing side to resent the victors.  After WWI, the Allies, led by a very vindictive French government, imposed very high reparations payments on Germany, limited it's military and stationed troops in parts of Germany that bordered France.

Not unreasonable- Germany had imposed harsh reperations on France after the Franco-Prussian war of 1870-71, and had also demanded large sums in their peace treaties with Russia and Romania. Given that France had been invaded by Germany, I can see why they might have liked the German armed forces to be limited.

Quote

The reparations were a problem for the Germans since their government was shaken up seriously by the end of the war and loss of the Imperial Government (and the Kaiser), as well as being a battlefield for the emerging socialists and the reactionary war veterans.  Most importantly the economy of the country was hurt by the war and being the loser, as well as the payments made it more difficult to rebuild.

The figure set at London for Germany's reperations was 132 billion marks. In reality, though, a system of bonds and complex clauses meant that Germany would have to pay only half that amount. She would only have to pay the remainder as circumstances permitted, such as an improvement in her export figures. Germany also got generous credit for payments it had already made, such as the replacement of books in the Lousvain libary in Belgium. (Which German troops had burnt down at the beginning of the war.)

Germany also tried, unsuccessfully, to claim the ships scuttled at Scapa Flow. :-)

In the end, Germany only paid 22 billion gold marks between 1918 and 1932. This is probably slightly less than what France had to pay Germany following the Franco-Prussian War, with a much smaller economy.

Quote

Further, I believe the reparations payments were demanded in hard currency or from foreign currency reserves, decreasing the value of the mark and adding to the huge post-war inflation.

The inflation of just after WW1 had little to do with reperations. It had to do with the German government refusing to pay reparations and paying the workers to go on strike when the Belgians and the French occupied the Ruhr. Naturally enough, after a year and a half, led to hyper-inflation as the amount of currency in circulation increased while production had declined.

Quote

By the time the Great Depression hit the world, Germany was in very serious trouble and the Germans were looking to take their problems out on people and get some hope for the future.  Enter one Adolf Hitler who did just that.

Actually, before the just prior to the Great Depression Germany was doing fairly well- by this point the Dawes plan had pretty much reduced reparations to a tiny tiny proportion of Germany's economy. Had it not been for this bout of economic depression the new wave of radicalism would not have found as much power in the Reichstag, the German people, the majority vote, wanted jobs, and money and couldnt care less about the Treaty of Versailles. The Center parties failed them which is why they turned to the extremes, economic faliure breed political extreemism. Finally the popularity of the Nazi party in 1933 was waining, had it not been for Hindenburg and Von Papen's frankly poorly planned "backstairs intrigue" then it's unlikely the Nazi party would have stayed in power for much longer.

Quote

Mostly, though, many Germans simply resented the Treaty of Versailles because it was vindictive and belittling.  And really, it was vindictive and belittling.  It was also stupid.  Germany is/was a great nation and had been a Great Power.  As it showed, it could be again as well.

I'd disagree. In sharp contrast to 1945, Germany was not dismembered. Germany was not robbed of its territorial integrity, its unity, its imposing industries or its potential for great power status. Even that strategically placed segment of Germany, the Rhineland, which for reasons of their nation's security the French military wanted to see converted into a French dependency, was left as an integral part of the German state. No attempt was made to demolish or bring under Allied control the heavy-industrial complex which had provided the material basis for the German war machine.

Germany emerged from the war of 1914-18 as still the principle nation and mightiest industrial power on the continent of Europe Sop it retained, in population and economic muscle, if not actual weaponery, the wherewithal to wage another war.

All in all, the Treaty of Versailles seemed fairly reasonable and moderate, especially given the circumstances of the war- the invasion of France and Belgium by Germany, the murder of thousands of civilians, the deportation of hundreds of thousands of civilians to Germany for forced labour, and the stripping of occupied territories of anything of value.

Blessed is the mind too small for doubt.

#14 Shoshana

Shoshana
  • Islander
  • 4,031 posts

Posted 08 February 2003 - 02:42 AM

Yup, uncle sid nailed it on the button. WW1 ... because of the way the peace was brokered, just led right into WWII.

Compare that situation to that after WWII - for Japan, yes, it was an overwhelming defeat. And Japan had to accept some harsh terms re their military and Emperor's future powers.

But no harsh sanctions or reparations.

And for Germany, that country got way caught up in the whole Cold War situation - but it too had no harsh sanctions or reparations either.

'shana


#15 Talkie Toaster

Talkie Toaster

    There's no Shepard without Vakarian

  • Islander
  • 1,136 posts

Posted 08 February 2003 - 07:32 AM

Shoshana, on Feb. 08 2003,07:42, said:

Quote

Shoshana posted:

Yup, uncle sid nailed it on the button. WW1 ... because of the way the peace was brokered, just led right into WWII.

Hitler did not wage war because of the Treaty pf Versailles, although he found its existance a god send for his propoganda. Even if Germany had been left with all its old borders, even if it had been allowed any military forces it wanted, even if it had been permitted to join with Austria; Hitler still would have wanted more: the destruction of Poland, control of Czechlovakia, above all conquest of the Soviet Union. He would have demanded room for the German people to expand and the destruction of their enemies, whether Jews or Bolsheviks. There was nothing in the Treaty of Versailles about that.

Quote

And for Germany, that country got way caught up in the whole Cold War situation - but it too had no harsh sanctions or reparations either.

The country had been totaly ruined by bombing and then overrunning by converging Allied armies- they weren't in much of a position to pay anything.

Blessed is the mind too small for doubt.

#16 Godeskian

Godeskian

    You'll be seein' rainbooms

  • Islander
  • 26,839 posts

Posted 12 February 2003 - 04:47 AM

Iraq doesn't appear to be in the position to do much of anything either.

i wonder just how deceiving appearences are

Defy Gravity!


The Doctor: The universe is big. It's vast and complicated and ridiculous and sometimes, very rarely, impossible things just happen and we call them miracles... and that's a theory. Nine hundred years and I've never seen one yet, but this will do me.


#17 Talkie Toaster

Talkie Toaster

    There's no Shepard without Vakarian

  • Islander
  • 1,136 posts

Posted 13 February 2003 - 06:25 PM

Eh?

I find this a paradox. Are you saying that Saddam will able to launch some attack with the weapons he claims he doesn't have?

Blessed is the mind too small for doubt.

#18 Godeskian

Godeskian

    You'll be seein' rainbooms

  • Islander
  • 26,839 posts

Posted 17 February 2003 - 12:28 PM

I'm saying that even if he has them, he has no ability to striike with them unless we walk into his backyard.

after all, shooting an ICBM from Iraq to New york is somewhat harder than using such weapons in his own country on invading American/British troops

Defy Gravity!


The Doctor: The universe is big. It's vast and complicated and ridiculous and sometimes, very rarely, impossible things just happen and we call them miracles... and that's a theory. Nine hundred years and I've never seen one yet, but this will do me.


#19 CJ AEGIS

CJ AEGIS

    Warship Guru!

  • Islander
  • 6,847 posts

Posted 17 February 2003 - 08:44 PM

Godeskian, on Feb 17 2003, 09:30 AM, said:

I'm saying that even if he has them, he has no ability to striike with them unless we walk into his backyard.

after all, shooting an ICBM from Iraq to New york is somewhat harder than using such weapons in his own country on invading American/British troops
I have no doubt that Saddam has every intention to get back to attacking his neighbors as soon as he can.  In that arena he can use any weapons of mass destruction he has to threaten the any US counterattack.  Lest we need a Saddam threatening us in the same manner as North Korea is now.  Better to fight him now when he doesn’t have those weapons fully developed or have a full range of delivery systems.    

Secondly despite the trouble posed by smuggling a nuclear or radiological weapon into the US due to border security; biological or chemical weapons are much harder to defend against.
"History has proven too often and too recently that the nation which relaxes its defenses invites attack."
        -Fleet Admiral Nimitz
"Their sailors say they should have flight pay and sub pay both -- they're in the air half the time, under the water the other half""
        - Ernie Pyle: Aboard a DE

#20 StarDust

StarDust
  • Islander
  • 1,155 posts

Posted 18 February 2003 - 01:48 AM

The party that put Hitler up for elections thought they could use him as a puppet, but found out different. No one took him seriously. Obviously they were wrong.

Why can't people learn from the past?  Why does someone have to kill millions before anyone takes him(or her) seriously? Why wait for a situation to get so out of hand there is a strong possibility that we'll lose?  

I have no doubt the French/Germans think they can drag things out to their advantage (and there are many for them) but figure that if anything actually happens we'll save everyone, and of course they wouldn't be fighting anyways so what does it matter to them if more Americans are killed by fighting later!

N.Korea is a different situation. They are just trying to blackmail us into more aid. And of course the last food we sent them went straight to their military :( They are just trying to postpone their inevitable end by another decade or so.

But then again, if everyone thinks we are over reacting, maybe we should leave the middle east, and maybe europe too. And when the inevitable happens, we just let it. When it's over, we can decide how to deal with who's left. After all we are just bullies and they don't need our help or anything  :p



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Iraq

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users