Off to War We Go...

[Harry]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Tigervx [/i]
[B][SIZE=1][COLOR=teal] Receding shockwaves? Radiation poison? I hardly think that as minimul losses. It would kill at least ten million Harry. And I know alot about weapons, so I would know this stuff, considering the population of Iraq.[/SIZE][/COLOR][/b][/quote]
When you were talking about Fallout, I was assuming the you were talking about the global impact. The Fallout wouldn't be as bad a nuke planted there.

[Tigervx]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Harry [/i]
[B]When you were talking about Fallout, I was assuming the you were talking about the global impact. The Fallout wouldn't be as bad a nuke planted there. [/B][/QUOTE]
[SIZE=1][COLOR=teal] Woops, sorry about that Harry. But now that I look at the other side of it, War doesn't seem so abserd. I mean, he HAS massacred thousands of men, woman and children. [/SIZE][/COLOR]

[Domon]

Harry you just proved my point for me. If a nuke were to hypothetically denontate in the air (yeah right :rolleyes: ) then the ecosystem would be damaged permanetly, well if the ecosystem were damaged then people would die and Tigervx just said it for me. And besides the fact, using nukes went dead as soon as we bombed Japan. We haven't used Nuclear warheads since then. And another thing a nuke never detonates in midair or above a city, it blows up on contact!

[Lady Macaiodh]

[color=darkblue]I'm having a hard time understanding why some people would rather Saddam continue his horrible atrocities, while setting up a dictatoral government that is already out of control & has the potential to last for generations -- rather than go to war. Nobody likes having to do it, but sometimes it's just necessary. Saddam needed to be confronted sooner or later. He wants to take over the world, people. He is an insane person with delusions of grandeur. He needs to be taken out of power [i]soon[/i] before he stockpiles so many weapons that we can't easily stop him.

After all, he already was able to gather enough anthrax to wipe out the population of the entire planet. Iraq admitted that during the last war, out of desperation for a cease-fire. That's the only way he would turn it over, the attacks. Saddam was lying up until the very last minute. You think he's telling the truth now? For those who oppose US intervention... you can't possibly imagine the horrible atrocities he commits, the ways he tortures his own people. But we should let in go on because it's "none of our business"?

I'm not saying the timing is the greatest. I mean, Saddam had 12 years to comply with the UN regulations set during the last war. But he didn't do it. They gave him a deadline of 60 days to disarm [i]12 years ago.[/i] So this should have been dealt with long ago.

*******

Subject change: I was watching the live footage tonight, at around 9:45 EST. I had never seen bombs going off right there live on TV before. It was so loud! Jessica & I were glued to the TV. We talked together about it.. & Jessica asked me if I thought anybody had just died. I answered that I'm sure people did. That kind of shut us up, because we realized we had probably just witnessed people die.

It pissed me off, because all Saddam had to do was leave like Bush said, & he could have spared the lives of so many Iraqians. But he doesn't care about them, only himself & his own insane agenda. His own people are nothing but dogs to him. It doesn't matter if we'd attacked or not... those Iraqians were going to be killed & tortured at Saddam's whim for years to come. At least this way we might be able to stop it.[/color]

[Kent]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Lalaith Ril [/i]
[B]Gokents I've respected you for a long time, but settle down.

With a topic like this you've got to be able to seperate emotions before you post. Posting with your emotions on something so strong as this can offend very many people. As in this case I know it offended atleast one.

[/B][/QUOTE]

That is just the thing.

I can not seperate emotions and opinions when we are talking about a man who has killed hundreds of thousands of people. Literally.

I have always had a problem with these topics because of my own personal connections to the sacrifices of people who are under-appreciated and mistreated for their efforts to liberate and defend the innocents of the world... all to end up with a destiny that is just as bad as the oppressed and slaughtered innocent people they are sent to defend.

When we take actions to rid the world of people like saddam, I can not stand back and allow comments of anti-liberation take presidence over the morally justified removal of leaders such as pol pot, saddam, stalin, hitler, slovadon milosavich or any other person who has taken the lives of innocent people without a greater justified cause.

Genocide and slaughter are not the goals of Coalalition efforts in places like iraq.

However, the goals of people like saddam are nothing short of absolute power of the innocent, and the slaughter of all who oppose him.

Once again, I apoligize for my loss of personal control, and no exscues will justify those remarks made...

Yet I can not stress enough the amount of pain it inflicts on me to see people oppose the efforts of the free world to rid this planet of oppression and murder.

[Mei]

[color=green][size=1]Exactly what I was trying to say Lady Macaiodh, but I'm not very good with words am I?Oo See the real problem we are having is with Saddam, not Iraq, so technically nuking them would be a waste of lives.-- We would be killing innocent people, which, as said, IS NOT our goal. Our goal is to take Saddam out of power, and liberate or at least save the people of Iraq from the horror he has caused and will still cause if he isn't stopped. See here's the thing, he isn't the GOOD kind of insane, he the BAD kind, see? Errr...thats all.>>[/size][/color]

[Transtic Nerve]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by gokents [/i]
[B]I can not seperate emotions and opinions when we are talking about a man who has killed hundreds of thousands of people. Literally.

I have always had a problem with these topics because of my own personal connections to the sacrifices of people who are under-appreciated and mistreated for their efforts to liberate and defend the innocents of the world... all to end up with a destiny that is just as bad as the oppressed and slaughtered innocent people they are sent to defend.

When we take actions to rid the world of people like saddam, I can not stand back and allow comments of anti-liberation take presidence over the morally justified removal of leaders such as pol pot, saddam, stalin, hitler, slovadon milosavich or any other person who has taken the lives of innocent people without a greater justified cause.

Genocide and slaughter are not the goals of Coalalition efforts in places like iraq.

However, the goals of people like saddam are nothing short of absolute power of the innocent, and the slaughter of all who oppose him.

Once again, I apoligize for my loss of personal control, and no exscues will justify those remarks made...

Yet I can not stress enough the amount of pain it inflicts on me to see people oppose the efforts of the free world to rid this planet of oppression and murder. [/B][/QUOTE]

I am curious to know your opinion. If we drop 3,000 bombs on Iraq and kill innocent Iraqi civilians (the same ones Saddam is killing), is that not the same? Because that's what will happen if we drop our projected amount of bombs. Or do they become that large number of the "Casualties of War" that we love to ignore.

PS: comparing Saddam to Hitler is hardly a comparison. Or Stalin for that matter.

[Domon]

Right now I would be saying something off the wall and going on some rant and blowing up at someone but I won't, I really think that we should all just hope that this will end quickly and that there will be peace. That's all I want right now is peace.

[Manic Webb]

I generally do not support war, but in this case, the statistics just add up. Torture, rape, poisoning. To say the least, Hussein has been treating his own people very poorly. I hate to admit it, but the U.N. has gone through roughly 12 failed peaceful resolutions for Hussein to get rid of his own chemical weapons, plus the ones we gave him back in the 80's. I just want the man to hurry up and be removed from office.

All I ask is that when this is all over (assuming the U.S. wins, of course), Bush and the UN remember to help Iraq re-set its new government. After our mess-up in Afganistan (kicking out the Taliban and leaving the people to fight amongst themselves until they form their own government through years of civil war-like violence), Bush could at least keep his promise to liberate the people of Iraq, and not just kick out its current leader.

[boothten]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by GinnyLyn [/i]
[B]Easy, Psyco. Don't you think that [i]because[/i] of our inactivity we are in this mess?

I don't want war. But war is here.

I don't want people to die. But people are dying.

Forget about who started it and why, let's all just pray and hope it ends soon, with as little life loss as possible. [/B][/QUOTE]

[color=darkblue][size=1]I agree with GinnyLyn. I never wanted war, but we're all going to have to face it one way or another. If I we're president, I would just give the UN Weapons Inspectors like Hans Blix more time. Better safe then sorry. Btw, Psyco, I'm really sorry, you must be gong through alot right now.[/color][/size]

[Harry]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Domon [/i]
[B] And besides the fact, using nukes went dead as soon as we bombed Japan. We haven't used Nuclear warheads since then. And another thing a nuke never detonates in midair or above a city, it blows up on contact! [/B][/QUOTE]
It detonated above ground at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. That's why they could move back in in a couple of years (?) instead of millinea. Also when I say above ground, i mean not under the earth. If a nuke was planted under the earth and then blown up, it would be extremely catastrophic sending tons of radioactive debris all in the atmosphere and pretty much securing radiation poisoning for hundreds of years.

[Heaven's Cloud]

[color=indigo]The only reason I am postingin this thread is because I am about to rip my hair out of my head due to frustration. I don't like getting involved in these threads too much, but I have to vent. I have lost nearly all hope in our country...are the people here as dumb as I think?

For the past two days all I have been hearing is this stupid anti-war sentiment that makes no sense at all. People keep yelling that the war is about oil, the war is Bush's vendetta against Saddam. Yet they have no logical support.

I heard an interesting argument between Joel Silverman and Bill Maher on a talk show the other week. As many of you know (and many of you don't), both Joel Silverman and Bill Maher are staunch liberals...shoot they part their hair on the left. However, they were arguing about the war; Joel supporting Bush's actions, Maher condeming them. Silverman was actually citing that president Clinton said (on PBS in 1997) "If Iraq is suspected of harboring weapons (of mass destruction) the UN will not negotiate, we will go in full force and attack Saddam's regime". This is one of the mot liberal of liberals saying this. He also made comment addressing that if the issue was over oil the US could easily lift the embargos with Iraq.

People argue that we are going to go slaughter a country...we are protecting ourselves from a known threat. This is a country that has been known to be aggressive towards the US. We have given them many chances to work towards peace...all they truly had to do was not produce any weapons that could be of a mass threat to other nations. I don't understand how American's say that we are killing tons of innocent people, and blather on and on about how wrong we are. If we took no action knowing that their is a threat towards our country (from Iraq) and thousands of Americans died at the hands of our enemies weapons how would you feel. The events of 9/11 are still too fresh in my mind. Too many people close to me could have died in that tragedy. We can't afford another on like it.

Nine people I care deeply about are in Iraq right now. One is my cousin, Rocky, who is a brother to me. We grew up together from birth. Right now he, along with Brian, Mitch, Scott, Ming, Nate Dogg, Steph, Gary, and Tony are putting there asses on the line for this country, so that many of you can sleep easy tonight. Tonight my prayers are with them...especially Rocky, who is a demolitions expert in the Marines. So why many of you lose a few minutes rest thinking about how many innocent Iraqi lives could be lost, forgive me if I pray that the bombs destroy every last home hiding a soldier or a weapon. I only want those dear to me to come back home and a feeling of safety to once again blanket our country.[/color]

[Kent]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Transtic Nerve [/i]
[B]I am curious to know your opinion. If we drop 3,000 bombs on Iraq and kill innocent Iraqi civilians (the same ones Saddam is killing), is that not the same? Because that's what will happen if we drop our projected amount of bombs. Or do they become that large number of the "Casualties of War" that we love to ignore.

PS: comparing Saddam to Hitler is hardly a comparison. Or Stalin for that matter. [/B][/QUOTE]

Well actually I believe the comparison is very realistic being that saddam openly admires stalin and has an entire library dedicated to literature based around the man.

Saddam's practices are based around the idea of stalins govermental structure... (the white socks... I know you know what that is right?)

Also, hitler believes in anti-semitism.
Both were jailed as young men.
Both were frustrated authors.

Saddam is a fascist. Hitler was a fascist.

Fascism- a totalitarian government system led by a dictator and emphasizing aggressive nationalism, militarism, and often racism.

But about innocents...

What if's are always a bad point to bring up.

If America was to kill innocents, I would not ignore it, and just as with the deaths of civilians in afghanistan, I would be greatly depressed over it for several reasons.

However, are you using the question of civilian death to justify an anti-war opinion, or are you asking because you believe I would honestly not care about those people?

I believe that the biggest point you failed to make with your post was the idea of continuing civilian casualties...

Would civilian casualties be acceptable in any circumstance... no, they wouldnt.

However, would you choose Saddams continued control and torture of the Iraqi people over the POSSIBLE short term sacrifice for the greater good.

With a completly hypothetical scenerio as a base for my question...

With a one year time span, Saddam would inflict 2,000 civilian casualties.

Over that same period of time, the United states would inflict the same number of civilian casualties in a war of liberation. (specifically removing saddam and replacing that regime with a democratic government)

Which would you preffer?

Saddams continued control of Iraq with a continual loss of innocent life, with no positive out come.

Or the removal of saddam at the same cost of the first one year period.

I would preffer to have saddam removed at a horrible cost, than have that same horrible cost multiplied several times over because of our unwillingness to remove the regime of Saddam.

Innocent lives have already been lost to Saddam in numbers no one can keep track of.

Innocent lives may be lost in the future.

The question is up to us to decide if we will allow that loss to continually grow into even more astronomical numbers, or stop this loss at the place it has already risen to.

I have been here long enough to know one thing.

You will not change your view of this situation based on my comments.

Personally I believe you are not protesting this action based on your love of humanity. (which I actually do believe you have)

But I do believe you are protesting this out of hatred for the bush administration.

With that in mind, I know I will change nothing here, but atleast I am not letting you imply that I would ignore civilian deaths and write them off as acceptable losses, or colateral damage.

Does that answer your question?

[Mei]

[color=green][size=1]I'm kinda really glad Juuthena started this topic. I mean look, we aren't really like into a majoyr arguement....yet...and we are all sharing our opinions. Though we are having our arguements between people, I think its all really turning out positive. We get to see both sides, those who think we should go to war give out their good reasons, and those who think we shouldn't give out theirs...so they kinda fit in together and create a nice good big reason.Oo() Isn't it nice?^^() I guess we are all kind of getting good and separate points of view, so as not to argue. This is all pretty cool if I do say so myself.^^ Lets just remember to keep it positive...Oo()[/size][/color]

[DuoMax]

[quote]Saddam is a fascist. Hitler was a fascist.[/quote]

actually, Hitler was a Nazi. Difference. Nzis are suposedly socilasts. They just ended up giving us(socilasts) a bad name.

[Kent]

Actually, even in the dictionary (any will do) it is clearly stated that a Nazi was a member of the fascist party from germany during the era we all know.

Something like 1933-1945.

Go check it out before you bother arguing.

[Transtic Nerve]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by gokents [/i]
[B]Well actually I believe the comparison is very realistic being that saddam openly admires stalin and has an entire library dedicated to literature based around the man.

Saddam's practices are based around the idea of stalins govermental structure... (the white socks... I know you know what that is right?)

Also, hitler believes in anti-semitism.
Both were jailed as young men.
Both were frustrated authors.

Saddam is a fascist. Hitler was a fascist.

Fascism- a totalitarian government system led by a dictator and emphasizing aggressive nationalism, militarism, and often racism.
[/quote][/b]

I was refering to more not the government affiliation of the 3, but that of what horrid costs they provided. Hitler killed 4 million people. With the wars Saddam has been in and the people he's killed, it still hasn't reached near that number. I understand that he is a bad person, but... I don't think you could truely compare him to the mad man that was Hitler.

[quote][b]
What if's are always a bad point to bring up.[/quote][/b]

It's not really a what if. We have 3,000 bombs ready to drop on Iraq. IF, whihc is the only IF here, we do, innocent people WILL be killed.

[quote][b]However, are you using the question of civilian death to justify an anti-war opinion, or are you asking because you believe I would honestly not care about those people?

I believe that the biggest point you failed to make with your post was the idea of continuing civilian casualties...[/quote][/b]

I was just curious, based on what you stated, your opinion on the difference between innocent people, the same being killed by Saddam, the reason you stated you wanted him removed for, killed by the American bombings or Saddam's guns. They are dead still no matter which way you look at it.

[quote][b]However, would you choose Saddams continued control and torture of the Iraqi people over the POSSIBLE short term sacrifice for the greater good.[/quote][/b]

I'd rather not either, but it seems people will die regardless. I'd rather not see the continued death of people, but I truely don't think it's justified by killing any less.

[quote][b]With a one year time span, Saddam would inflict 2,000 civilian casualties.

Over that same period of time, the United states would inflict the same number of civilian casualties in a war of liberation. (specifically removing saddam and replacing that regime with a democratic government)

Which would you preffer?[/quote][/b]

Neither. I think if the US is going to liberate to "save" the people of Iraq, it should be in their best intrest to try to avoid the death of ANY innocent civilian. Which means it should be their first priority to make sure every innocent person in Iraq is safe. Unless ofcourse the only reason for going after Saddam is to get Saddam.... What is the reason. To get Saddam, or to save the people. They are not one in the same. While it may seem like it, the action to do one or the other is totally different.

[quote][b]Personally I believe you are not protesting this action based on your love of humanity. (which I actually do believe you have)

But I do believe you are protesting this out of hatred for the bush administration.[/quote][/b]

I would feel the same if it was anyone other administration, democrat, republican, whatever. I think that Saddam does indeed need to be removed. But I think there are better way to do it then a full fledged war with 3,000 bombs dropping on the cities killing innocent people.

[quote][b]Does that answer your question? [/B][/QUOTE]

I was asking your opinion, not really asking a questions. So yes it does. Thank you.

PS: The Nazi party was indeed one of fassiscm. Fassism itself contains elements of socialism. It contains democracy in it as well... but thats not the question.

[Manic Webb]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by gokents [/i]
[B]Also, hitler believes in anti-semitism.
Both were jailed as young men.
Both were frustrated authors.[/B][/QUOTE]
Really? I heard Hitler was a frustrated sketch artist or something.

Anyway, it just occurred to me, Bush' intent (well, one of his intentions) is probably to prevent the events that started WWII from happening all over again. If I remember correctly, the League of Nations shrugged off Hitler's first few violations (taking back part of old Germany from France, ect.) because of their fear of going to war. By the time the League went to war, Poland was already ghetto-ized. I guess Bush assumes that if he doesn't do something, some country neighboring Iraq will get conquered, and we'll start WWII all over.

It's not just Pre-emption, it's far too many constanants in a row for one English word (e.m.p.t.).

[James]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Transtic Nerve [/i]
[B][/b]

I was refering to more not the government affiliation of the 3, but that of what horrid costs they provided. Hitler killed 4 million people. With the wars Saddam has been in and the people he's killed, it still hasn't reached near that number. I understand that he is a bad person, but... I don't think you could truely compare him to the mad man that was Hitler.

[/b][/quote]

[color=#808080]I think that when you've killed at least a thousand people, numbers are pretty irrelevant. ~_^

But for the record, Saddam Hussein has killed over one million civilians during his time in power. Many of which were people who were, of course, his own citizens.

So yes, I'd very much compare him to Hitler. Hitler is simply a Saddam with an army. If Saddam had the massive capabilities of Hitler...he'd probably be even worse.[/color][quote][b]

It's not really a what if. We have 3,000 bombs ready to drop on Iraq. IF, whihc is the only IF here, we do, innocent people WILL be killed.

[/b][/quote]

[color=#808080]Yes, innocent people will probably die. And in any conflict, innocent people do die.

The main thing I'm worried about is the idea that Saddam will retaliate against his own people if there is an uprising. Also, he's apparently planning to have some of his troops dressed in American uniforms so that they can slaughter Iraqis (that is a war crime, obviously).

I'd also point out that precision weaponry ensures that you can now strike the top two or three stories of a ten story building without damaging the rest of the structure underneath. The death of civilians won't be caused by indiscriminate bombing from the allies -- it will be caused as a direct result of Saddam's actions. Of course, accidents might happen (like the accidental bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade several years back), but if we avoid conflicts based on those possibilities, we wouldn't be a free people.[/color][quote][b]

I was just curious, based on what you stated, your opinion on the difference between innocent people, the same being killed by Saddam, the reason you stated you wanted him removed for, killed by the American bombings or Saddam's guns. They are dead still no matter which way you look at it.

[/b][/quote]

[color=#808080]Well, yes and no. There is a substantive difference between accidental casualties during the course of conflict and the deliberate and calculated slaughter of hundreds of thousands of innocents.

For example, during the Gulf War, thousands upon thousands of Iraqi conscripts surrendered in the desert. Allied forces would have had a clear shot; we could easily have murdered all of those soldiers. And they were [i]soldiers[/i] and not civilians, which provides even more of an excuse to kill them.

And yet, none of them were killed by allied forces. Despite the opportunity and the obvious cover that could exist, the allies didn't kill the conscripts. And so, given all of the events in the history of conflict, I find it odd that people can still talk about an indiscriminate bombing of civilians as though it's bound to happen.

I would also remind you of Hanoi during the Vietnam war. The allies could have easily won the war if we'd bombed those cities. But we didn't; we played by the rules of war. And as a result, we deliberately lost that war. If America and her allies were so indiscriminate about killing civilians (like Saddam), then surely even at that point in history, we'd have bombed the hell out of Hanoi and such. It didn't happen. And it's not going to happen in Iraq.[/color][quote][b]

I'd rather not either, but it seems people will die regardless. I'd rather not see the continued death of people, but I truely don't think it's justified by killing any less.

[/b][/quote]

[color=#808080]You could argue that if we left Saddam in power, more people would die per year than they would in a single war of liberation.

So yes, people [i]will[/i] die regardless. And if we fail to act, it's quite possible that [i]a lot more[/i] people will die at the hands of Saddam. As an Australian, I'm glad that our forces are involved, because I want our current actions to help prevent far more Iraqi deaths in future.[/color][quote][b]

Neither. I think if the US is going to liberate to "save" the people of Iraq, it should be in their best intrest to try to avoid the death of ANY innocent civilian. Which means it should be their first priority to make sure every innocent person in Iraq is safe. Unless ofcourse the only reason for going after Saddam is to get Saddam.... What is the reason. To get Saddam, or to save the people. They are not one in the same. While it may seem like it, the action to do one or the other is totally different.

[/b][/quote]

[color=#808080]I disagree. People talk about the goals being confused, but really they aren't.

Going after Saddam himself goes hand-in-hand with both disarmament and liberation. Saddam is the epicentre of the hatred and horrific repression that is the Iraqi regime. And so, going after him (whether killing him or arresting him for international prosecution) is absolutely essential. The same could be said for some of his top people, such as his sons and Republican Guard commanders.

The priority [i]is[/i] to make innocent Iraqis safe. But there is only so much you can do when Saddam is still in control, for however long that might be. Making Iraqis safe is being done via both precision weapons as well as frequent information broadcasts to citizens -- broadcasts that provide advice on how to avoid the hostilities. And if forces move in very swiftly, it's likely that they can be there to protect the citizens of Baghdad from Saddam's Republican Guard (for reasons I mentioned above). So that is why it's highly important to be able to take major cities very quickly -- quickly enough that the Iraqi forces will be overrun and will either give up or be destroyed. Even that strategy reflects a desire to protect the Iraqi civilians.[/color][quote][b]

I would feel the same if it was anyone other administration, democrat, republican, whatever. I think that Saddam does indeed need to be removed. But I think there are better way to do it then a full fledged war with 3,000 bombs dropping on the cities killing innocent people.[/quote][/b]

[color=#808080]There are better ways, but those ways are off the cards right now. You could argue that it would be ideal if the Republican Guard itself were to overthrow Saddam. But without military intervention, it's not going to happen.

And once again, saying "3,000 bombs dropping on cities killing innocent people" is a kind of general and dismissive statement. The implication is, as I said, that the bombs would be dropped without discrimination. But that's obviously not true. The strikes are (as we've already seen) specifically targeted and "surgical".

In addition, a major thrust of the war doesn't even include air support. A major aspect includes a very quick movement of ground forces to overrun the Iraqi military. And so, none of that really involves "dropping bombs on civilians". It's important, I think, to be aware of the strategies and to consider the complexities of the situation. That's why I never like it when someone says "dropping bombs on civilians isn't a way of liberating them". People who say that tend to be using slightly falsified emotive arguments, which aren't actually telling the whole story.

I'm not saying that you are doing that, because I think your approach is quite a bit more level headed than some people. I guess I'm just clarifying my own feelings on that point.[/color]

[Guest cloricus]

Can I just ask, does this thread win the "[i]most posts ever in one day[/i]" prize?

I'm surprised that one, there has been so many posts in such a sort time and two, that it hasn't turned in to a slanging match, yet.

:D

I might get around to a post later, though just wondering.
What do you people think is going to happen after Iraq, will wolferwizts and his "mates" get their way and go on to Iran and Syria?

Eps - Turkey

[enigma]

[COLOR=blue][I]Many people say that there should be a war, and to those of you that do, consider this. It is very easy to say 'GO TO WAR', but when you, your family or your friends are the people who are out in the front lines, in a situation that is kill or be killed, with the chance of harming innocents, and possibly coming back home, IF you come back home, completely insane from seeing horror after horror. Consider that, then we'll see what your thought is.[/COLOR][/I]

[Guest cloricus]

[color=teal]Yes I agree with enigma. (Super Sarge) :P

I don't think most of the people here have any idea what a war is like, most think that solders are expendable and that "civilians" or "innocents" are the ones we should be worried about.
I am more worried about the Australian citizens over there, that is to say I'm worried about our solders. They are the same as you or myself, except their job is to fight when their country asks. This makes them no different to you or me.
[/color]
-
Knowing a very large number of soldiers and friends whose fathers (and mothers) are in the ADF, I find it very cruel for (some) of you people to set them different to normal people. I'd ask that unless you want to say to those soldiers children that their parents aren't as important as every one else that you not set them apart in your posts.
Thank you.
-

Eps - Watching "[i]Golf War 2[/i]" unfold on TV. :|

[Kei]

[color=royalblue]Personally, I didn't want to go to war with Iraq, even though I know that Saddam is a world threat. I've never wanted to see anyone lose their lives due to war, but the fact is, that's a thing that automatically comes with it. However, now that we're are officially involved with Operation: Iraqi Freedom, I give my full support. As long as we're eliminating the supreme threat from the world, that's the best possible thing. I wouldn't like to see innocent civilians be injured or killed due to it, but the fact is, accidents happen and there are also those who don't like American, British, and Turkish troops coming into their country and will attack them to try and prevent them from coming any further into the country. All I want to happen is that Saddam is eliminated as a threat, and that no troops lose their lives, although I know that the latter is probably not possible....[/color]

[Mnemolth]

This post is essentially a reply to Heaven's Cloud's post. I'm going to answer a key argument. Even though I'm really only talking about one argument, the nature of US propaganda means that this is going to be a long post because there's so much crap out there. So please bear with me. And there may be loop holes in my arguments because that would go into other arguments, which I don't want to go into because if I were to make a comprehensiive post covering ALL things, it'd be a book. But that's not really a cop out, and if you read this post carefully, you'd realise that.

Here goes.

First, let's all be reasonable. We're all human beings, our greatest assets are our brains, so let's use them. [i]Think[/i]. [i] Independently[/i]. Close your eyes and open your minds as they say.

[b]Why are we at war?[/b]

Let's get to the basics. What is the reason for this war? I'm not talking about what writers and journalists, commentators and spin doctors have said, but what the President has said, and his representative the Secretary of State, Colin Powell. The reason is simple. We are going there to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). The world community has demanded Iraq to disarm its WMDs for 12 years and he has failed to do so. Since that is the case, there is no other choice but to go in there and do it ourselves.

Let's not confuse ourselves okay? The main reason for war, the one said again and again, the one the US has said to the world community, is the issue of WMDs. Its not that Saddam Hussein is a bad guy, its not that he's a terrible tyrant, its not even that he has gassed thousands of his own people. Its that he has WMDs and he is refusing to disarm them, and that is against UN resolutions. So we're at war to enforce those resolutions. The existence of WMDs in the hands of the Iraqi regime is a direct threat to all of us. This is because Saddam's previous behaviour indicates that he may well use these weapons, and further, that he may pass them onto terrorists.

[b]UNMOVIC[/b]

So you see, WMDs are the key. Saddam cannot be trusted with them, and we need to remove these weapons from his arsenal. This is what the Americans have said. This is the reason. And guess what? The world agrees with Uncle Sam on this one. Shocking I know, but true. Resolution 1441, 15 to 0 decision of the Security Council, made this point very clear. Not a single country voted against the resolution or abstained from it. So everyone agrees, and everyone is happy. We can only wish...

The United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commision (UNMOVIC) is the special body constituted by the Security Council to make sure Iraq disarms, and to verify that disarmanent. To make sure, because we no one really trusts Saddam. That's why we need an [i]independent[/i] body, free from the politics and foreign policy interference of the various states (countries), to go out there and do a [i]professional[/i] job.

Okay, so let's recap. You have the US, along with rest of the world, who distrust Saddam Hussein and his regime, and think he may be hiding WMDs, and pretty much everyone agrees he should not be allowed to have them. Then we had UNMOVIC (it used to be called UNSCOM but let's not complicate things), whose job it is to make sure Iraq has done what it [i]claims[/i] it has done in destroying its WMDs, and also to destroy any such weapons UNMOVIC may find itself.

So UNMOVIC is like the referee. UNMOVIC has many experts in chemical and biological weapons experts (IAEA is the other agency, this one is for nukes but no one really thinks Saddam has those or are even close to getting those so let's ignore IAEA for the moment cos it serves the same function as UNMOVIC, only it does it for nukes). These guys are professionals, they do this for a living, they're taken from all countries across the world. They basically know what they're doing. And what's even more important, The Security Council, [i]including the US[/i], has given them the task of making sure Iraq disarms, and if UNMOVIC at any point thinks that Saddam is not fully and actively cooperating, then it will report back to the Security Council, which will then decide what to do with Iraq, including any 'serious consequences'.

[b]So did UNMOVIC say that Iraq is not complying? Is that why we're at war??[/b]

Well no. That's the kicker. You see UNMOVIC has delivered, I think, 3 interim reports, and while they have often been mixed, NONE of them have ever been UNMOVIC going back to the Security Council to say, "Hang on folks, this Saddam dude is not letting us do our jobs". NONE of them. In fact, the major one before Bush's ultimatum to Saddam to get out of Iraq, a report on the 7th of March, was very favourable, and said pretty much, "its working, we are progressing, we can do this job in just a few months, give us some time".

Here is the referee asking for time. UNMOVIC are saying give them more time to do their jobs, that it will not take 'indefinitely', or 'years', but just "months". This is not Saddam talking. This is not the French speaking. This is an [i]independent[/i] organisation specifically set up by the Security Council to deal with this issue. And let's be absolutely clear about this. I have not heard a serious comment by Bush or Powell that UNMOVIC is somehow biased, or has some secret agenda. Not one. That it is in a conspiracy with Saddam or the French or whatever. This is an organisation that is considered by all to be neutral. As I said, much like a referee.

So when you're in a game and the referee makes a call, you accept that call. That's what referees are for. But Bush did not accept the call. For a variety of reasons he chose to ignore it.

Bush then tried to get a 'second' resolution to specifically condemn Iraq for not complying with 1441. But despite all the bribes and arm twisting, the US was not able to get 9 out of the 15 countries in the Security Council to accept their case. Now, the Bush administration are blaming the French because they said they would veto any vote, but really, if they had the numbers, its pretty obvious the US would have push the resolution through and watch the French squirm and backdown. Even if the French were to veto it, the US would have a 'moral' victory, the French would be the ones with eggs on their faces.

Even if you don't accept my interpretation of the events around the withdrawal of the 'second' resolution, accept this: The UK, Spain and the US drew up a draft second resolution but did not put it for a vote. How dodgy is that??

The US holds up the 15 to 0 vote of the Security Council to pass Resolution 1441 as representing the 'will of the world community', and yet, in the same breath, the US accusses the Security Council of being 'irrelevant' when it fails to pass the 'second' resolution? So the Security Council is only 'relevant' when it tows [i]the US[/i] line? Its only 'relevant' when it says what the US wants it to say? How silly is that??

[b]Summary[/b]

So...let's wrap this up rather easily, shall we? The US demands Iraq gives up its WMDs. The Security Council, which is the world body that tries to maintain peace in the world, [i]with the express approval of the US[/i], sets up UNMOVIC, to determine the disarmanent of Iraq. UNMOVIC says its working, the US ignores UNMOVIC, tries to push through a second resolution to empower it to wage war on Iraq, fails to get it through, withdraws it and goes to war anyway.

Ultimately, forget what this commentator says, or that expert TV mouth piece spews out, think for yourself. Use logic, use rationality, use your own brain. What makes sense to you??

Here are a thought.

How many countries particpated in the first Gulf War by sending their troops to fight alongside the US? How many are doing so now? I can tell you only 2, the UK and Australia. Three white anglo-saxon Christian democracies. Hardly a representative slice of the world.

Here's another thought.

Why do you think 3/4rds of the world think so poorly of America, why are they so resentful of American power? Why are they so against this war?? Its not because they like Saddam. No one likes Saddam. Not even the Arabs. Everyone would like to see him go. But so many of them are against this war because America has become a belligerent power. It doesn't understand other cultures, has no respect for international law or the world community, and it does what it wants, when it wants to do it, and however it wants to do it. And you know what the [i]really[/i] scary part is? No one can stop Uncle Sam.

[Orien_Xel]

[color=blue]Wow. That was an icredibly well thought out and well written post. That was great Mnemolth. That basically summed up the my arguments. But I have to add that I think the corporations have a hnad in this, plus there is thefact the Administration has been planning this sense 9/11.

Remind me why we're going after Saddam again? Oh, wait, he has WMD. Or is it his connections to Al Queda? Or His flouting of International Law? WHich reason do we have today? That's another rerason I don't like this. Bush keeps switching the reason we're going in for.

I don't hate the U.S. troops. I don't want them to come home in body bags. War is horrible.

Just a side note: We're breaking the U.N. charter to attack Iraq for breaking the U.N. resoloutin...what?? See what I mean? Its confusing!!![/color]