The W
Views: 98580952
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Color chart | Log in for more!
1.9.07 0255
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - Iraq
This thread has 1 referral leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Pages: 1 2 3 4 Next(2059 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (68 total)
eviljonhunt81
Pepperoni
Level: 66

Posts: 328/1084
EXP: 2425928
For next: 35936

Since: 6.1.02
From: not Japan

Since last post: 2935 days
Last activity: 2932 days
#1 Posted on 16.7.02 2102.42
Reposted on: 16.7.09 2104.42
First, does anyone know where I can find that poll that was conducted recently, in which something like 75% of college students supported invading Iraq, but only like 20% said they would fight?


Secondly, what is the Administration's reason for possibly invading Iraq? I don't want any justifications that have been put out there, I want to know what the administration has said, if anything. Everything I hear and read seems to assume that invading Iraq is ineveitable, but doesn't explain why it is ineveitable. Any help would be appreciated.
Promote this thread!
cranlsn
Liverwurst
Level: 69

Posts: 61/1205
EXP: 2821554
For next: 48204

Since: 18.3.02
From: Sussex, WI

Since last post: 125 days
Last activity: 2 hours
#2 Posted on 16.7.02 2150.46
Reposted on: 16.7.09 2151.49
In a nutshell...

Since the Gulf War we've had UN advisors checking to make sure Iraq is behaving. Meaning no chemicial, biological, and especially nuclear weapons.

A few years back, Iraq kicked the advisors out, and has not let them back in.

US: Are you developing weapons of mass destruction?

Iraq: Um...no of course not.

US: Can we come look?

Iraq: No! Bye now!

That's really simplistic, and diplomatic solutions and sanctions had been in place. But...since 9/11 we've been wanting to keep a little better tabs on Saddam's war chest.

Does that help a little? I know that there are more complex answers, and more reasons, but this is what is at the forefront.

eviljonhunt81
Pepperoni
Level: 66

Posts: 332/1084
EXP: 2425928
For next: 35936

Since: 6.1.02
From: not Japan

Since last post: 2935 days
Last activity: 2932 days
#3 Posted on 16.7.02 2313.20
Reposted on: 16.7.09 2318.01
That's make some degree of sense, but, in fairness to Iraq, we make weapons of mass destruction. While we aren't run by Saddam Hussein, I think this is a fairly weak reason to invade another country.
cranlsn
Liverwurst
Level: 69

Posts: 63/1205
EXP: 2821554
For next: 48204

Since: 18.3.02
From: Sussex, WI

Since last post: 125 days
Last activity: 2 hours
#4 Posted on 16.7.02 2335.16
Reposted on: 16.7.09 2338.41
True..and not to start a debate...but we fully disclose what weapons we do and do not have. We are also trying to eliminate/reduce the ones that we do.

I'm not a big one for telling other countries what they should do, or how they can or can't live. In a post 9/11 world we may have to be a bit more pro-active in monitoring threats.

Lastly, we're not potentially stockpiling small pox and other biological horrors that completely violate the Geneva convention. Unlike Iraq, reportedly. They could end that by letting the UN inspectors back in.

So...just my opinion...but I do respect yours as well.
eviljonhunt81
Pepperoni
Level: 66

Posts: 334/1084
EXP: 2425928
For next: 35936

Since: 6.1.02
From: not Japan

Since last post: 2935 days
Last activity: 2932 days
#5 Posted on 16.7.02 2349.11
Reposted on: 16.7.09 2349.25
I'm not defending Iraq at all, I just think that an invasion is a bit extreme for this type of thing. And I also doubt that we fully disclose the weapons we have.


Anyway, if anyone knows what poll I'm talking about and where I saw it, please let me know. thanks.
Jaguar
Knackwurst
Level: 107

Posts: 635/3273
EXP: 12704545
For next: 386808

Since: 23.1.02
From: Phoenix, AZ

Since last post: 146 days
Last activity: 146 days
#6 Posted on 16.7.02 2351.45
Reposted on: 16.7.09 2354.56
Well, not to start anything either, but who's to say what we are and aren't stockpiling? It would be completely insane from a defensive standpoint if we did not create and test chemical and biological weapons in order to figure out ways to defeat them. The question is, are we doing this in a controlled way, only for research purposes, or are we also creating weapons of war?

-Jag

And then the ethics question: Are we still creating weapons of war just be even doing the research?
TheBucsFan
TheChiefsFan
Level: 109

Posts: 1239/3428
EXP: 13649141
For next: 310549

Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 20 days
Last activity: 20 days
#7 Posted on 16.7.02 2357.21
Reposted on: 16.7.09 2359.02

    Originally posted by eviljonhunt81
    That's make some degree of sense, but, in fairness to Iraq, we make weapons of mass destruction. While we aren't run by Saddam Hussein, I think this is a fairly weak reason to invade another country.


We won the Gulf War, we make the rules. That simple.
Jaguar
Knackwurst
Level: 107

Posts: 636/3273
EXP: 12704545
For next: 386808

Since: 23.1.02
From: Phoenix, AZ

Since last post: 146 days
Last activity: 146 days
#8 Posted on 17.7.02 0003.25
Reposted on: 17.7.09 0006.39
It's never as simple as that. That's why they're talking of fighting another war against Iraq. Just because we won then, doesn't mean we're in control now. We'll just have to send troops in again and again to "pacify" the region until somebody comes up with a better plan. Wars are only "won" when they have limited objectives. When those objectives are met, boom, war's over. The only way to keep the same wars being fought over and over again is complete elimination of the opposition, and I can't seem to recall a single war off the top of my head where anyone has ever achieved that. Especially not when the same forces that created that opposition are still at work.

-Jaguar
Freeway
Scrapple
Level: 110

Posts: 443/3504
EXP: 14103176
For next: 305756

Since: 3.1.02
From: Calgary

Since last post: 252 days
Last activity: 3 days
#9 Posted on 17.7.02 0420.13
Reposted on: 17.7.09 0420.15

    Originally posted by eviljonhunt81
    That's make some degree of sense, but, in fairness to Iraq, we make weapons of mass destruction. While we aren't run by Saddam Hussein, I think this is a fairly weak reason to invade another country.


Yes, but considering we're not "evil" like Iraq and Pakistan and the Nazis and Communists and everybody...we know what we're doing with the nuclear weapons of potential world devestation.

Would you give a gun to a six year old? HELLS NO. It turns out that li'l Iraq has his hands on one...and we need to take it away, pat Iraq on its' head...and sent it to the corner for a time out.
OlFuzzyBastard
Knackwurst
Level: 103

Posts: 151/3024
EXP: 11166018
For next: 305427

Since: 28.4.02
From: Pittsburgh, PA

Since last post: 14 days
Last activity: 5 days
AIM:  
#10 Posted on 17.7.02 0801.08
Reposted on: 17.7.09 0804.14
Why are we going after Iraq? Because we can't find Osama and elections are coming up.
evilwaldo
Lap cheong
Level: 78

Posts: 416/1597
EXP: 4323208
For next: 59037

Since: 7.2.02
From: New York, NY

Since last post: 3355 days
Last activity: 3136 days
AIM:  
#11 Posted on 17.7.02 0832.41
Reposted on: 17.7.09 0838.20

    Originally posted by OlFuzzyBastard
    Why are we going after Iraq? Because we can't find Osama and elections are coming up.


That is pretty much the reason.

Just like all of the anti-Castro rhetoric that came out around Jeb Bush's primary election. I expect some more around October when his campaign is in full swing and in 2004 when W tries to win the Cuban vote.
eviljonhunt81
Pepperoni
Level: 66

Posts: 336/1084
EXP: 2425928
For next: 35936

Since: 6.1.02
From: not Japan

Since last post: 2935 days
Last activity: 2932 days
#12 Posted on 17.7.02 1127.30
Reposted on: 17.7.09 1129.04
Yeah, I knew that reason. I just wanted the "official line," as I never hear it mentioned. Every story is like "yeah, so when we finally invade Iraq . . ." without any explanation as to why.
ges7184
Lap cheong
Level: 76

Posts: 256/1493
EXP: 3920856
For next: 85223

Since: 7.1.02
From: Birmingham, AL

Since last post: 119 days
Last activity: 42 days
#13 Posted on 17.7.02 1424.46
Reposted on: 17.7.09 1429.05
I don't think fighting the war is going to help local Senators and Representatives win elections. Wars tend to only help or hurt the President, and he's not up for re-election this year.

The Iraq thing is over the terms of surrender of the last war. Iraq agreed not to develop and/or produce weapons of mass destruction, and to allow U.N. inspectors in to make sure they were following the agreement. Iraq has violated the terms of surrender, and have so for quite some time now.

Wars are indeed only won with the complete destruction of the enemy. However, that has indeed happened. Remember World War II? We completely destroyed both Germany and Japan. And we haven't had to fight wars with them over and over again.

But in Iraq's case, we didn't gain complete destruction of Iraq, due to a strategic gaf by Bush I. We didn't destroy Hussein's army, and we didn't march into Bagdad. So Hussein can plausibly say, especially in the eyes of his people, which is what matters, that he really didn't lose the Gulf War. This is kind of similar to Germany after WWI. Even though they lost, the people didn't believe they really lost. No foreigners ever stepped foot in their country. So they just thought they were sold out by previous leaders (and groups such as Jews and Communists), and wanted to go another round.

Now the line is "Iraq is going to develop weapons of mass destruction, and what if this gets into the hands of terrorists?" I'm not sure a terrorist would know what to do with a weapon of "mass destrucion" if he had one. And I tend to think Iraq is developing these for his army. Therefore, I think the threat is more to Israel than it is for us. Israel doesn't want Iraq to have nukes. And they probably would do anything, and I mean ANYTHING (remember, Israel does have nukes) to stop Iraq from getting them. Some reports has Israel within an eyelash of nuking Iraq during the Gulf War (the planes were in the air, we had to talk them out of it, at least according to some). So that may be one concern of ours. I also can't help but think that it is also a 'son finishing the job dad should have' thing.
Gavintzu
Summer sausage
Level: 45

Posts: 141/443
EXP: 634078
For next: 26091

Since: 2.1.02
From: Calgary ... Alberta Canada

Since last post: 2814 days
Last activity: 2814 days
#14 Posted on 17.7.02 2113.21
Reposted on: 17.7.09 2127.37
ges7184 sez:

    But in Iraq's case, we didn't gain complete destruction of Iraq, due to a strategic gaff by Bush I. We didn't destroy Hussein's army, and we didn't march into Bagdad.

A valid point, but international politics is rarely as cut-and-dried as at the end of WWII.

For example: If America had marched into Bagdad in 1991 and destroyed the Iraqi military, Iran would have become by far the most powerful state in the area. They would have had hegemony over the Persian Gulf area. That would have given Iran way too much political clout for America's liking. Having a weakened Saddam still in power serves as a useful buffer against Iran.

Another problem with that is that it would have led to an independent Kurdish homeland in northern Iraq. As it is the Kurds did rise up in revolt after the Gulf War ... and were butchered by Saddam's forces, who used generous amounts of mustard gas on civilian villages as a how-do-you-do. The Allied response to these atrocities? Ummm, a "no-fly zone" established after the killing was over. Way to go Bush Sr.

Why would a Kurdish homeland in Iraq be a problem to the U.S.? Because of our brothers in NATO -- Turkey has a huge Kurd population in eastern Turkey (not too far from northern Iraq) that they have been "pacifying" for years. A Kurdish state in Iraq would give support to the Kurdish separatists in Turkey.

All in all, the Bush government decided that a weakened Saddam still in power was preferable to a stronger Iran and a troublesome Kurdish homeland.

By the way, Click Here to read about Turkey's war on the Kurds.

"The war in Turkey represents the single largest use of U.S. weapons anywhere in the world by non-U.S. forces, according to Bill Hartung of the World Policy Institute. "I can think of no instance since the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982," he said, "where American weaponry has been put to this concentrated a use." In 15 years of fighting in Turkey nearly 40,000 lives have been lost ... The two million refugees produced by the war in Kurdistan are roughly the number of homeless created by the widely reported war in Bosnia, where U.S. weapons were not a factor."

Two million refugees caused by the destruction of villages and the use of systematic rape by security forces (Click Here to read about that)? In Bosnia and Croatia, it was properly labelled a war crime (Ethnic Cleansing was the Serbian term for it ... I'm not sure how the Turks describe it), and Milosovic is currently on trial for it. But Turkey? Using American made and supplied gunships and bombs and bullets? It's a War on Terrorism! Just try and read about this conflict in the "biased liberal" U.S. media. Not a chance.

(Edited to add some more piss and vinegar).



(edited by Gavintzu on 17.7.02 1919)
ICEMAN
Landjager
Level: 62

Posts: 135/927
EXP: 1889970
For next: 94727

Since: 23.5.02
From: Nashville,TN

Since last post: 1823 days
Last activity: 1512 days
#15 Posted on 17.7.02 2155.01
Reposted on: 17.7.09 2155.35
It doesn't matter what the U.S. does we'll be wrong in everyone else's eyes anyway.


(edited by ICEMAN on 17.7.02 2156)
Jaguar
Knackwurst
Level: 107

Posts: 641/3273
EXP: 12704545
For next: 386808

Since: 23.1.02
From: Phoenix, AZ

Since last post: 146 days
Last activity: 146 days
#16 Posted on 17.7.02 2322.50
Reposted on: 17.7.09 2323.00
I'm sorry? World War Two? Cut and Dried? Riiiiiiiiight. Yeah, sure Hitler was killed, and Germany's army was destroyed but did we completely eliminate the opposition? No way. That's why we have people running around calling themselves "Neo-Nazis" remember? Oh and the only reason Germany didn't have a chance to rise to power again was because of the Berlin Wall. Germany was divided in two and turned against itself. Used as pawns and a buffer between the US and Soviet powers.

As for Japan? I'll give you that. After we nuked two cities they were faced with a choice: Surrender, or face Total Obliteration. They surrendered, but that only ended their military agression in the region. In the 1980's Japan had basically undercut our whole economy. A subjugated nation? Hardly.

As for the argument, it doesn't matter, the US will always be wrong in the eyes of everyone else? Does that mean we shouldn't try and do the best we can, because people will fault us no matter what we do? Hell no. We have to choose the best options available to us and try and make the world a better place. And making war and killing people just doesn't sound like the best choice to me.

-Jag

Oh, and everything Gavintzu said is completely right. The Kurds have been dying for years over a homeland that nobody wants them to have. Too bad they weren't persecuted by Germany in WWII.
ICEMAN
Landjager
Level: 62

Posts: 136/927
EXP: 1889970
For next: 94727

Since: 23.5.02
From: Nashville,TN

Since last post: 1823 days
Last activity: 1512 days
#17 Posted on 18.7.02 0025.31
Reposted on: 18.7.09 0029.01
We've tried to do everything right,we are not a perfect nation by a longshot,we watch our own backs and thats why everyone hates us.


But when something happens in another country we're numero uno on the speed dial.Even as much as we screw up people keep coming back to the good ol' USA.Then we do something to try to watch out for our selves were bashed by every country under the sun.

It has kinda got to the point that America doesn't care anymore.I'm not saying thats right but after awhile wouldn't you be tired of trying your damndest and still being asked "Um,Why can't you do this,this and this",then we go do it and we hear "Thats not right could you do it all over".


The U.S. is on their own wavelength and not one can say their country is not the same way.


Iraq is evil just like Germany was during WWII.A lot of Iraqis wanna see the destruction of the western world because they want us to be on their level because there is a twinge of jealousy within Iraq and Saddam Hussein.



I still think the daddy Bush and Clinton could have done a lot more to get rid of Hussein.Ever since 9/11 America has been focused on erasing any threat to destroy us before it happens.


This whole thing was probably way off base or the same thing has been stated before.I'm just defending my past statement.


BTW:I don't consider myself a liberal,conservative or any of those labels.Labels don't fit me very well.








eviljonhunt81
Pepperoni
Level: 66

Posts: 341/1084
EXP: 2425928
For next: 35936

Since: 6.1.02
From: not Japan

Since last post: 2935 days
Last activity: 2932 days
#18 Posted on 18.7.02 1708.17
Reposted on: 18.7.09 1711.57

    Originally posted by Jaguar
    In the 1980's Japan had basically undercut our whole economy. A subjugated nation? Hardly

We rebuilt Japan's economy, and basically allowed for them to undercut us. There economy was ruined after WWII, and probably would have remained so had we not helped them, which led to their stronger economy.
PalpatineW
Lap cheong
Level: 77

Posts: 268/1528
EXP: 4061731
For next: 129417

Since: 2.1.02
From: Getting Rowdy

Since last post: 2778 days
Last activity: 2620 days
AIM:  
#19 Posted on 20.7.02 1106.45
Reposted on: 20.7.09 1110.38
Said Jaguar:

As for the argument, it doesn't matter, the US will always be wrong in the eyes of everyone else? Does that mean we shouldn't try and do the best we can, because people will fault us no matter what we do? Hell no. We have to choose the best options available to us and try and make the world a better place. And making war and killing people just doesn't sound like the best choice to me.

So what's your solution? Making war and killing people is generally the only way to eliminate violent and oppressive dictators. I tend to think that anyone willing to gas his own people or commit "ethnic cleansing" isn't gonna listen to reason.

Furthermore, the United States has ZERO obligation to "make the world a better place." Far, far too many American soldiers are getting killed in shitty backwater countries because those countries are too pathetic to run themselves. Everyone acts as if dictatorships just spring out of nowhere and enslave peoples. They don't. They are the product of corrput cultures, and until the people in those cultures decide to wake up and change them, they're all going to be screwed. I, for one, don't want to send American citizens to die for the mistakes of others, at least where there is no real American interest. (i.e., we had to kill Hitler, but we don't need to "keep the peace" everywhere in the world).
kokolums2
Bauerwurst
Level: 24

Posts: 30/105
EXP: 71895
For next: 6231

Since: 10.6.02

Since last post: 3456 days
Last activity: 3456 days
#20 Posted on 20.7.02 1147.59
Reposted on: 20.7.09 1159.02

    Originally posted by Jaguar
    The only way to keep the same wars being fought over and over again is complete elimination of the opposition, and I can't seem to recall a single war off the top of my head where anyone has ever achieved that.

    -Jaguar



Rome vs Carthage. Rome not only won the war, they slaughtered their people and salted their fields, ensuring a new Carthage would never arise to challenge them again.

This war's public support is being drawn from
the following sources:

1. The 911 attacks (duh).
2. The images of arab men, women, and children dancing
in the street upon hearing news of the 911 attacks on US TV.
3. The democrats bitching about the American flag itself
being too controversial to fly in America because they
felt it was too controversial and insensitive. That had
to be the single-most bonehead political gaffe I've ever
seen. That convinced most Americans that the democrats are
nutjobs and so they supported Bush in droves.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 NextThread ahead: Okay, someone defend this:
Next thread: Suing fast food as a drug.....
Previous thread: Poor Traficant!
(2059 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - IraqRegister and log in to post!

The W™ message board - 7 year recycle

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim
This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.251 seconds.