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

#41 Lover of Purple

Lover of Purple

    Mustang Man

  • Retired Board Owner
  • 11,213 posts

Posted 18 February 2003 - 09:51 PM

Aurora335, on Feb 18 2003, 10:48 AM, said:

LoP, I think it's hard to be a Christian in today's society. As for politics. . . doesn't everyone attack everyone else to make themselves feel better?

By the way, I'm predicting that if there is going to be a war/conflict/military action, it will take place on or about March 3rd. I hope I'm wrong and we don't have one at all.

Aurora
Yeah, it's hard, but I can't and won't change being a Christian. It's just sad that so many people seem to see myself and fellow Christians as hating...anyone.

I try hard not to "attack" anyone's political beliefs. Of course I fail sometimes since I'm human (darn it ;) ). But everyone is entitled to their opinion.

And, no, I don't want a war...no one does not even George Bush(contrary to what some think)! But sometimes it is needed. How I wish it wasn't.

I to hope that Hussain will step up and comply. But I don't think he will. :(

#42 Lover of Purple

Lover of Purple

    Mustang Man

  • Retired Board Owner
  • 11,213 posts

Posted 18 February 2003 - 09:54 PM

Hawk, on Feb 18 2003, 10:52 AM, said:

I got a little too ranty there, LoP. I'll edit that part out. Sorry.
Thanks Hawk.

Sorry I let it bother me so much.

We're cool.

#43 the 'Hawk

the 'Hawk
  • Islander
  • 5,281 posts

Posted 18 February 2003 - 09:55 PM

Lover of Purple, on Feb 18 2003, 01:55 PM, said:

Sorry I let it bother me so much.
I just find it kind of ironic that I no sooner finished making a point about how "it's easy to pick on someone else" that I went and picked on (you guessed it) someone else.

And you have every right to let it bother you: it's my responsibility for apologizing when it goes too far.

:cool:
“Now is the hour, Riders of Rohan, oaths you have taken! Now, fulfil them all! To lord and land!”  
~ Eomer, LotR:RotK

#44 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 18 February 2003 - 10:12 PM

First of all {{{{{{{{LOP&Hawk}}}}}}}}  these are tense times and it is at those times when politics get particularly difficult to discuss.

cj I'm not advocating ignoring history, but you're still not answering my question.  By *what right* are we doing this?  Do we go after every one with nasty habits?  Did we interfere with the way the Taliban treated their women before 9-11?  No, despite almost a decade of pleas from human rights organizations around the world.  Were we worried about Iraq's nasty habits when they were our ally in the Iran conflict?  No. And they haven't changed.  Why now?  And again, who died and gave us the power to cherry pick these disputes in the name of human rights when we allow so many atrocities to go by?  

There's no easy answer, I'm aware of that, but that is the question.  I'm truly afraid that Bush has got us headed toward global warfare and the justifications for his actions seem awfully flimsy to me.

BTW, I'm not accusing anyone of being morally wrong for supporting this war (or not supporting it).  As Zack said in another thread, reasonable minds can and do vary on this very difficult issue.

But I'd still like an answer to my question. :)

Lil
Posted Image

#45 Lover of Purple

Lover of Purple

    Mustang Man

  • Retired Board Owner
  • 11,213 posts

Posted 18 February 2003 - 10:51 PM

Lil, I'm not sure anyone can have a good answer for your questions. Perhaps 9/11 was inevitable to get the US to start reacting to these human rights violations world wide. At least that is something good that might come out of all of this. Yeah, the US has ignored these problems (well the government), but maybe it's a little not being able to fix it all at once. I mean where do you start?

If nothing else, we have started and that maybe a benifit of all this, people getting basic human rights.

As far as who gave us the "power" to decide? I guess we did. Is that a good answer? Not really, but don't we all do things because of our own ideals?

And personally, I don't think we will end up with a global confortation if we attack iraq. And no, I don't know that for sure. I just don't think anyone will want to"defend" Suffam Hussain.

of course everything I have said is my opinion only.

#46 CJ AEGIS

CJ AEGIS

    Warship Guru!

  • Islander
  • 6,847 posts

Posted 19 February 2003 - 03:31 AM

Quote

Lil: cj I'm not advocating ignoring history, but you're still not answering my question. By *what right* are we doing this? Do we go after every one with nasty habits? Did we interfere with the way the Taliban treated their women before 9-11? No, despite almost a decade of pleas from human rights organizations around the world. Were we worried about Iraq's nasty habits when they were our ally in the Iran conflict? No. And they haven't changed. Why now? And again, who died and gave us the power to cherry pick these disputes in the name of human rights when we allow so many atrocities to go by? 

Well if you want to get down to it we're living in a very changed world.  To borrow from my historical analogies consider how the United States fought a war against both Germany and Japan in World War II.  We even took a Europe first strategy for winning the war and fought a holding action against Japan.  Japan was the country that had attacked us rather than Germany.  So your argument would be kind of like saying "we should have just went after Japan and let the Nazis run wild".  

So I guess your question about why now isn't so much about what has changed in Iraq.  He is still playing the same game though each day it gets more dangerous as he gets close to a nuclear weapon.  I think the answer is what has changed is the views of many in the United States.  People have realized that sticking our heads in the sand and only acting at the last minute when we have to takes us down a dangerous path.  We get situations like a nuclear armed North Korea or another 9-11.  

Now on the question of who gave us the right to choose when and where to act there is no simple answer.  Well the simple answer would be because we can.  You know I have a rather long list of hornet's nests that I'd like to see us clean out and it just happens to start with Iraq, al-Queda, and North Korea then goes down**.  There is a theory in International Relations called Realism*; I don't like it a hell of a lot, considering I'm of a NeoRealist perspective, however it has one key point.  A nation only has so much national power that it can apply to a situation and apply it wrong and it is squandered.  This applies to even a superpower or to coin the new phrase a hyperpower like the United States.  We can't be everywhere and do everything because eventually you have nothing left to do more with.  So you pick your fights and try to go for maximum effect.  

* Hawk stop slamming your head into the wall at that "dirty" word.

** Somalia, Modern Piracy, and the list just goes on.

Quote

Lil: I'm truly afraid that Bush has got us headed toward global warfare and the justifications for his actions seem awfully flimsy to me.

People have to realize that we are all ready in a global war.  It might be a shadowy and covert one but nonetheless a war of truly global proportions.  It was one that has been going on long before 9-11.  The worse you'll see over Iraq in terms of nation states clashing is a regional conflict.  None of the major powers are going to be willing to do more than hold their breath and yell in opposition to war.  Most of that as proven isn't in opposition to war but rather other interests either financial or a power play they have in motion.  There's always the option in that case of letting the 800 lb gorilla of the Middle East loose.  

Quote

Hawk: Saudi Arabia is the only nation in the world, which could declare jihad against the West and actually get a response. After all, the holiest spots in Islam are within its borders-- an attack on Saudi Arabia is an attack on Islam.

I think they're going after Iraq because they *can't* take down the house of Saud yet. They know how hot it'd be if they started rattling their sabre in King Fahd's face. They know full damn well how powerful an adversary can be when they're all rankled with religious fervour.

I think one of the advantages of taking Iraq out is it will make a convenient stepping stone if it comes down to confronting Saudi Arabia in the future.  

Quote

Aurora335: By the way, I'm predicting that if there is going to be a war/conflict/military action, it will take place on or about March 3rd.

Not a bad prediction; I've been saying the same date myself for sometime.  The new moon will be a critical factor in any war plans we have.
"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

#47 the 'Hawk

the 'Hawk
  • Islander
  • 5,281 posts

Posted 19 February 2003 - 03:35 AM

CJ AEGIS, on Feb 18 2003, 07:33 PM, said:

There is a theory in International Relations called Realism*; I don't like it a hell of a lot, considering I'm of a NeoRealist perspective

*snip*

* Hawk stop slamming your head into the wall at that "dirty" word.
Damn you and your neo-realism! :p

Liberal views-- will--- prevail!!!

*thump*

Wake me when Baghdad's a parking-lot.

(And you're damn right Saddam's grounds will be a nice stepping-stone into Saudi Arabia.... better than Israel, that's for sure.)

:cool:
“Now is the hour, Riders of Rohan, oaths you have taken! Now, fulfil them all! To lord and land!”  
~ Eomer, LotR:RotK

#48 CJ AEGIS

CJ AEGIS

    Warship Guru!

  • Islander
  • 6,847 posts

Posted 19 February 2003 - 04:21 AM

Quote

Hawk: Damn you and your neo-realism! :p

Liberal views-- will--- prevail!!!

I consider Neo-Realism to be a more liberal view. :p ;)  At least it is more so than Realism. shudder

Quote

(And you're damn right Saddam's grounds will be a nice stepping-stone into Saudi Arabia.... better than Israel, that's for sure.)

Israel is the type of wild card that you don't play until things are going real south and then you let them clean house.  Iraq is in a nice centralized location to react to any threat in the Middle East especially one in Saudi Arabia.  SA is best a nut left to crack another day if they become more of a problem.
"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

#49 Aurora335

Aurora335

    not a force to be reckoned with

  • Islander
  • 634 posts

Posted 19 February 2003 - 07:13 AM

Quote

Not a bad prediction; I've been saying the same date myself for sometime.  The new moon will be a critical factor in any war plans we have.

Exactly my thoughts. Desert Storm was started on a new moon.

Edited by Aurora335, 19 February 2003 - 07:13 AM.


#50 CJ AEGIS

CJ AEGIS

    Warship Guru!

  • Islander
  • 6,847 posts

Posted 19 February 2003 - 07:15 AM

Aurora335, on Feb 19 2003, 04:15 AM, said:

Exactly my thoughts. Desert Storm was started on a new moon.
You have to love it when you have NVG and FLIR while the other guys is blundering in the dark...
"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

#51 the 'Hawk

the 'Hawk
  • Islander
  • 5,281 posts

Posted 19 February 2003 - 07:19 AM

CJ AEGIS, on Feb 18 2003, 08:23 PM, said:

I consider Neo-Realism to be a more liberal view. At least it is more so than Realism. shudder
Okay. I'll give you that.

Was worried I was going to have to get Green on your ass.... BWA HA HA!

:cool:
“Now is the hour, Riders of Rohan, oaths you have taken! Now, fulfil them all! To lord and land!”  
~ Eomer, LotR:RotK

#52 StarDust

StarDust
  • Islander
  • 1,155 posts

Posted 19 February 2003 - 09:06 AM

Lover of Purple, on Feb 18 2003, 01:53 PM, said:

Yeah, it's hard, but I can't and won't change being a Christian. It's just sad that so many people seem to see myself and fellow Christians as hating...anyone.
I find this statement strange. Most of this country is Christian, and I don't think anyone has a problem with that. However, when people are talking about the Christian Right or the Christian Coalition, they are talking about a very real group with very real agends, most of which are not nice to say the least.  I know many 'Christians' that are totally against what these groups are doing, and that they use the Christian title to do it, like they speak for everyone.

But that happens every where, and in every group.  

And maybe how you are feeling is a good example of how normal muslims must feel.

#53 StarDust

StarDust
  • Islander
  • 1,155 posts

Posted 19 February 2003 - 09:31 AM

Lover of Purple, on Feb 18 2003, 02:53 PM, said:

Lil, I'm not sure anyone can have a good answer for your questions. Perhaps 9/11 was inevitable to get the US to start reacting to these human rights violations world wide. At least that is something good that might come out of all of this. Yeah, the US has ignored these problems (well the government), but maybe it's a little not being able to fix it all at once. I mean where do you start?
Well, I think this has something to do with it. We spent the last decade (or two) ignoring a lot of things that where happening. People like Al Queda constantly sniping at our heals. Afterall, we realize we're suppose to be the grown ups because we're the 900 lb gorilla. And we realize there's risk outside of our boarders, at emabassies and ships like the USS Cole. But then 9/11 happened. And I think people decided it was time to start dealing with the mess out there instead of waiting for it to come here.

Quote

If nothing else, we have started and that maybe a benifit of all this, people getting basic human rights.
this is certainly true. the fact is no one was interested in what the Taliban where doing, I'm talking about the people, not the government. They never could have gotten the support to deal with the situation before hand. I have no doubt that the fact a large portion of those suffering were women was part of the disinterest. And despite any protests, the majority of the country is still behind what we're doing now. The polls show that on a regular basis. It's more of a "why us" because everyone is tired, than a "it's wrong".

Quote

As far as who gave us the "power" to decide? I guess we did. Is that a good answer? Not really, but don't we all do things because of our own ideals?
I think the world did. They certainly seem to hold us responsible for everything. We're the ones they come running to when they need help. And we're the ones they blame if their lives aren't perfect. I have no problem with us having a say about how that all plays out. If we're going to be the ones to clean up the mess (and you know we are, there's no way around it) then we get to decide when, and whether we want to do it sooner, when it's safer for us, or later, when more of our people might die. I have no problem with us chosing the battles we can win, and getting them out of the way, one at a time. Iraq and N.Korea aren't the same thing. We can just deal with Iraq and settle the mess. N.Korea isn't as easy. But ultimately I think N.Korea is less dangerous. I think they are just trying to blackmail us into giving them more aid so they can survive a little longer. But again, it comes back to someone wanting something from us.

Quote

And personally, I don't think we will end up with a global confortation if we attack iraq. And no, I don't know that for sure. I just don't think anyone will want to"defend" Suffam Hussain.
Of course not. The countries in the area want him gone. I think the only ones who seem to want to protect Saddam are France and Germany, and that I find disturbing. But, if this is handled well, and a democracy created, I think it'll go a long way to easing tensions in the area in general. But it will take awhile.

I saw on the news tonight the S.African ambassador to the UN giving a little speech. And basically he thought we should continue inspections, because not to would be admitting they (the UN) failed. So is that the real problem?

#54 StarDust

StarDust
  • Islander
  • 1,155 posts

Posted 19 February 2003 - 09:51 AM

CJ AEGIS, on Feb 18 2003, 07:33 PM, said:

I think one of the advantages of taking Iraq out is it will make a convenient stepping stone if it comes down to confronting Saudi Arabia in the future. 
I don't think going after Iraq has anything to do with oil. I also don't think we are going after Iraq because of strategic base potential. But I also see no problem with taking advantage of the strategic potential once we're there  ;)  . We have a lot of issues with Saudi Arabia, but we were obligated by common interests to protect them. By dealing with Iraq, we can leave SA and solve a lot of problems our troops are having to put up with there. And by having an occupying force in Iraq, we can still keep a handle on the area. It's funny because it appears a large number of Saudis are mad at us because they don't have a democracy, and another large group are mad at us because it isn't fundamentalist enough. Go figure. Why isn't it their fault either way?

Quote

Quote

Aurora335: By the way, I'm predicting that if there is going to be a war/conflict/military action, it will take place on or about March 3rd.

Not a bad prediction; I've been saying the same date myself for sometime.  The new moon will be a critical factor in any war plans we have.

Well, the new moon, and the weather, has been discussed in the news for weeks now. It's pretty much accepted wisdom that is when we'll attack. Of course we already have stuff going on there, but the big fight will no doubt start around the beginning of March.

#55 Godeskian

Godeskian

    You'll be seein' rainbooms

  • Islander
  • 26,839 posts

Posted 19 February 2003 - 10:32 AM

StarDust, on Feb 19 2003, 06:33 AM, said:

I think the only ones who seem to want to protect Saddam are France and Germany, and that I find disturbing.
I think they are afraid that they will be cut out of their oil contracts when the US takes over the iraqi oil fields which is a valid concern for them

it may seem spitefull to stop a UN resolution ove rthat, but i think both countries are well aware that the US has no intention whatsoever (or so says the US goverment) of keeping the current oil contracts going, so France and Germany would have to renegotiate with the US

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.


#56 Enmar

Enmar

    a Sabra

  • Islander
  • 2,020 posts

Posted 19 February 2003 - 10:41 PM

THE UN
The UN is our future, in the long run. Every country that cares not only about its best interest in the next five seconds, but also about its next generation, should not act in a way that weakens the UN. Getting rid of Sadam while destroying the UN authority is not worth it, from all points of view:  
If your main interest is promoting democracy, bulling the UN will act like a boomerang
If your main interest is to save lives and help people who are suffering, by signaling to other countries that UN decisions can be ignored, the math will end up badly
If your main interest is to create a strong international community that cares, ignoring other opinions when you don’t like them will end in indifference next time

The UN is a faulty system, far from perfect, but it’s the only one we have. For many years it was humiliated, ignored and paralyzed  because of the cold war. This is a new era, but I have the feeling some people out there didn’t hear the news. It is a chance to give the UN meaning  and powers, and the US is being selfish and prefers to keep the power to itself. I believe it might prove wrong in the long run and I also believe this is the real source of the argument with Europe.
Feminism is the radical notion that women are human beings.

#57 CJ AEGIS

CJ AEGIS

    Warship Guru!

  • Islander
  • 6,847 posts

Posted 20 February 2003 - 12:37 AM

Quote

Enmar: The UN is our future, in the long run.

The UN is an ineffectual reminder of the past and is all ready too far gone down the path of the League of Nations. Better to create a alliance of like minded democracies that can act rather than be plagued by the inadequacies and inaction of the UN.  

Quote

Enmar: If your main interest is promoting democracy, bulling the UN will act like a boomerang

Most of the countries in the UN are not democracies nor do the people in charge of them welcome democracy.  

Quote

Enmar: If your main interest is to save lives and help people who are suffering, by signaling to other countries that UN decisions can be ignored, the math will end up badly

Nothing new there!  Saddam has been doing it for over the past decade.  Everyone out there all ready knows you can spit in the face of a UN resolution and they'll just talk on endlessly.  

Quote

Enmar: If your main interest is to create a strong international community that cares, ignoring other opinions when you don't like them will end in indifference next time

You mean ignoring the economic interests of countries who are trading materials to construct weapons of mass destruction with a madman?  Or do you mean ignore the interests of countries who want to twist this situation in an attempt to gain hegemony over the EU and Europe?  Again the UN is not going to ever be a strong international community that cares; it ios made up of many of the very tyrants who would be disposed by such a body.

Quote

Enmar: I believe it might prove wrong in  the long run and I also believe this is the real source of the argument with Europe.

That should be a statement of a long source of argument with France and Germany.  Then in turn any country they can squeeze hard enough to gain support from.  

Quote

Stardust: I think the only ones who seem to want to protect Saddam are France and Germany, and that I find disturbing

As much as they want to protect Saddam they won't face off against the US over it beyond yelling and screaming a lot.  Once we're in Iraq and have some solid proof of their dirty dealing expect some mouths to close quickly.  

Quote

Hawk: Was worried I was going to have to get Green on your ass.... BWA HA HA!

Don't tell me you like the ecological perspective? Eeeeeewwww! :D
"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

#58 the 'Hawk

the 'Hawk
  • Islander
  • 5,281 posts

Posted 20 February 2003 - 12:43 AM

CJ AEGIS, on Feb 19 2003, 04:39 PM, said:

Don't tell me you like the ecological perspective? Eeeeeewwww! :D
If you like, I can put together a nice Marxist-Leninist feminist green curveball for ya.....

Unfortunately, it takes up the majority of my energy to do so.

I must only use my powers---- to annoy!!!

:cool:
“Now is the hour, Riders of Rohan, oaths you have taken! Now, fulfil them all! To lord and land!”  
~ Eomer, LotR:RotK

#59 CJ AEGIS

CJ AEGIS

    Warship Guru!

  • Islander
  • 6,847 posts

Posted 20 February 2003 - 12:51 AM

Hawk, on Feb 19 2003, 09:45 PM, said:

If you like, I can put together a nice Marxist-Leninist feminist green curveball for ya.....
Get thee back! Gets ready the knuckleball of Adam Smith to distract and NeoRealism to knock down  :p
"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

#60 the 'Hawk

the 'Hawk
  • Islander
  • 5,281 posts

Posted 20 February 2003 - 01:02 AM

^ You look frightened.............. comrade.

Readies his copy of Das Kapital for deployment, followed by the Kyoto Doom Hammer ™

Mwa hahaha......

:cool:
“Now is the hour, Riders of Rohan, oaths you have taken! Now, fulfil them all! To lord and land!”  
~ Eomer, LotR:RotK



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Iraq

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users