Yes or No
We all have heard at least one american (bush) reason why the world if not just the US and her allies should go to war. So I ask the Educated people here Yes or No.
I voted no.
I’ll explain why when I have the time.
there is no justified reason why innocent people should be forced to fight.
my opinion on this subject would be to say, have we not advanced as an intelligent species at all???
can we not now find alternative solutions to our grievenous??
can it be not that we now set an example to future generations on how to behave???
can we develop and adopt new stratergies to deal with conflicts???
one suggestion could be any of those who wish to fight are allowed to do so on unoccupied land. shipped there to do battle with whoever also wishes to do battle, safely away from any innocents.
yoda
The US military is purely volunteer…
The US military is purely volunteer…
Yeah, at least until the shit really hits the fan. Then conscription comes in. So really, it is purely volunteer, except when it isn’t.
As an american, I would not mind killing for defense.
But America wont be on the defensive end for a while. Not in a full scale war i hope.
Untill then we are gona be a bull in a china chop who just got kicked in the head by a man wearing all red. Thats why we bombed the afghanies till the press cant make it look like its worth it anymore, then were going for sadam, Hell Cuba may be next.
Not that I’m for it or anything but defending iraq doesn’t make it any better. I think we should focus on iraq (because I do consider him a problem) rather than rally against bush or with him. It seems like people are losing sight of any middle ground. What exactly are iraqs demands anyway?
i’ve just got back from cuba, and the only news station we had was a sattelite feed of cnn. so i got to see a lot of george bush’s hawkish policies and the sort of justifications that would appeal to the more xenephobic people of america. anyway, this was all well and good, but i heard nothing at all about nelson mandella’s objections to the proposed war. not a word. i don’t think that america realise the full extent of what is going on if that sort of one sided opinion is all they are getting from their media.
i also think that picking a fight with a counrty for no reason other than the fact that bush thinks it will win him some brownie points with the electorate who want to see him kick some arabic arse is entirely unjustified, and that the whole thing is probably avoidable. blair’s attitude to this is also scaring me, although with the recall of parliament i’m really hoping that he is going to have to justify his position. all in all it’s not looking good for the world in general.
NO WAR! Not only it kills innocents and other related problems but whats the whole point? I’m not on both sides here, but if they say this war is to destroy weapons of mass destruction, then every country should disarm cos all weapons have the potential to mass destruct including US weapons.
The thing between Saddam and Dubya is personal. his daddy couldn’t get the job done, so sonny boy is finishing off the family fued. That and the fact that no-one can have weapons of mass destruction exce[pt the US and her allies. they can’t be trusted 
[/b]
A war with Iraq will call into doubt the short-term supply of oil from Arab countries. In light of Saudi opposition to any such attacks, it is likely that oil prices will rise, high and beyond the rooftops. With the political effects of high petrol prices in Europe, combined with the economic effect in terms of inflation and reduced demand, the effects of any pre-emptive strikes could harm people in Europe as well as in Iraq, albeit in a less fundamental way.
pangloss is right about oil, but not on the time. Greenspan says we got enough so we wont be hurt so bad. but in a long drawn out war where we piss the oil kings off it would put us into recession.
oil a problem? not so. when you amass about 250,00 troops, thousands of planes and hundreds of ships, for the invasion and the saudis say they are cutting oil production you meerly launch the plans at Dubai and give the saudi government 2 hours to withdraw their threat or crush them. oil production won’t fall either, with the prospect of 1.5 million barrels of the stuff from Iraqi wells do you really think this is about terrorists, votes or anything like that, it’s all about cold hard cash that Bush’s backers stand to make from the invasion (defence, oil, shares, everything).
I see no reason to attack Iraq.
In 1996, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright admitted to Lesley Stahl on 60 Minutes that the US-led embargo of Iraq had killed 500,000 children.
Quoth Albright: “But it’s worth it.”
UNICEF estimates that the embargo kills 4,500 children a month from shortages of food and medicine.
During the 80s, the US and Europe sold Iraq chemical and biological weapons for use in its war against Iran. According to the LA Times, in 1988, the US supplied Iraq with satellite intelligence for aiming a chemical attack.
Not for the squeamish:
http://www.nonviolence.org/vitw/sanctions.html
Iraq deserves our apologies, not our bombs.
Definatley NO. Read this article from the Times if you dont agree
(longest post in history )
Subject: NY Times article
The following piece appeared in the Sept. 13 Op-Ed Section of the New =
York Times:
The Guns of September
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
President Bush yesterday offered an eloquent, forceful and overdue call =
for the U.N. to hold Saddam Hussein accountable.
Just one problem: He cited no evidence of any immediate threat, no =
reason that invading Iraq is any more urgent today than it was in, say, =
2000, when Mr. Bush as a candidate huffed and puffed about Saddam but
never shared with voters any plans for an invasion
For months there have been hints about intelligence that the =
administration supposedly has gathered about an imminent Iraqi threat
and about links to terrorism. So it was deflating to hear again that
Saddam is a monster whose regime tortures children in front of parents.
All true - as it was a decade ago.
Contrast Mr. Bush’s appearance with a legendary moment at the United =
Nations. On Oct. 25, 1962, during the Cuban missile crisis, Ambassador =
Adlai Stevenson denounced the new Russian missile sites in Cuba.
The Russians and Cubans scoffed that it was all a lie, so Stevenson =
brought in an easel and blown-up photos of the Cuban sites.
Where is the comparable evidence of urgency today?
It’s the Bush administration that raised the parallel to the missile =
crisis, noting that Kennedy had considered pre-emptive strikes. Fair =
enough.
Yet it is the differences that are most telling. To begin with, Kennedy =
used the U.N. spotlight to offer specific, incontrovertible evidence of =
an urgent new threat - and then he opted not for an invasion of Cuba but
for an internationally supported naval quarantine.
“Yes, Kennedy did consider a lot of alternatives, including military =
strikes,” recalled Theodore Sorensen, a key aide to Kennedy during the =
crisis. “But after considering the innocent civilians who would be =
killed, considering the international law that would be broken, Kennedy =
rejected that possibility.”President Kennedy was deeply conscious that wars can slip out of =
control, and during the crisis he read Barbara Tuchman’s “Guns of =
August.” Mr. Sorensen recalls Kennedy telling aides that he didn’t want =
future generations asking how the missile crisis had spiraled into war =
and nobody having a good answer.In his speech yesterday, President Bush displayed Kennedy’s toughness, =
resolve and even eloquence. But he did not display the other qualities =
of statesmanship: humility about the risks of miscalculation, a passion =
to avoid war.Graham Allison, a professor at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government =
who has written a book about the missile crisis, noted that Kennedy had =
stipulated that the missiles absolutely had to be removed from Cuba. But =
Kennedy turned first to diplomacy and a blockade. He offered the =
Russians a graceful exit and thus saved lives and avoided a dangerous =
spin into the unknown.Today as well, why shouldn’t war be a last resort instead of the first =
tool that President Bush grabs off the shelf?“The fundamental question is left unanswered: Why initiating war against =
Saddam is better than the next option, which is deterring and containing =
him,” Professor Allison said. "You could agree that this is an evil guy =
- he is evil - who defied the U.N. resolutions - he did - and still ask =
why he is not susceptible to the same treatment that was used against =
Stalin, who was also evil and dangerous and cheated."A succession of presidents chose to deter and contain Stalin - rather =
than invade and occupy Russia - just as every president until now has =
chosen to deter and contain Saddam.Before launching a war, Mr. Bush still needs to show two things: first, =
that the threat is so urgent that letting Iraq fester is even riskier =
than invading it and occupying it for many years to come; second, that =
deterrence will no longer be successful in containing Saddam.How would J.F.K. have handled Iraq?
“As a believer in the U.N., he would have done everything he could, with =
U.S. muscle, to get U.N. inspectors in there,” Mr. Sorensen believes. =
Such a Kennedyesque approach, built around robust international =
inspections backed by the threat of force as a last resort, would also =
reduce the political fallout of war if it eventually erupted.
Unfortunately, what we still have not heard from Mr. Bush is a =
compelling case for the one course of action on which he seems fixated - =
immediate war.
Let’s not get me wrong here, I deplore loss of life, especially that which is civilian.
Civilian life, be it Iraqi, American, British, Irish, French, African, etc…
Civilians have no real power over the politicians they vote for, they have no real power over said politicians actual polictical stance. They go by what they are told, and that is all they can do.
In supporting Tony Blair, i think we have made a grave mistake.
He appears to only be interested in carrying favour with the current US administration, which as i will explain, is already dangerously arrogant.
Septemnber 11, 2001, was a terrible day for the families and friends of those lost in the World Trade Centre. I do not believe that they should be made marters for the agenda of the current US administration.
The so called, War On Terrorism, is nothing more than an excuse to hit out at those that oppose the US capitalist regime. Imposing your views upon others is fundamentally wrong, everyone should be entitled to his own view, whether it conflicts with every other view that anyone has ever had or not.
Yes, those that perpetrated these terrorist atacks should be punished. For no reason should it entail the “acceptable” loss of civilian life, conveniently termed “Collateral Damage”. What a cold term for what is basically an atrocity equal to the loss of life incurred by every terorrist action that has been committed.
Never shall i condone such indescriminate action against a nation, based on rumour, speculation, and fear.
The current potential for war against Iraq is an escalation of the hype that surrounded the attacks on September 11, 2001. Capture those responsible, bring them to trial, and execute them, if the applicable laws apply. Blanket bombing, in the hope of killing a suspect without trial, is surely unlawful. In wanting to bring these criminals to justice, we must surely establish their guilt.
I have been accused of being Anti-American, and likened to Osama Bin Laden, simpy for excercising views that differ from the “socially accepted norm” in the US. If America stands for oppression of belief, extreme capitalism, and hypocrisy, then yes, I must be Anti American.
Is America not supposed to be the land of the free?
Capitalism leads to improved products for consumers, and I am all in favour of that, but when capitalism encroaches on other nations, that have not subumitted to it, I start to question its morals. In the western world, Capitalism has been good to us, we have jobs, industry, and big business. In smaller, third world countries, we pay workers less than the minimum wage that we are allowed to pay workers in out own countries, make them work long hours, in terrible conditions. The question has to be asked, is this right? Do we value our own countrymen over others? The answer must clearly be yes. Why else would be value their labour as being worth less that that or our own country? They do the same job.
In a similar way, why should killing, say, 3000 Iraqi civilians matter to us western folks? Oil flows, our prices are down, we are happy.
What about the families and friends of the people that we have killed? Do they feel the warm glow of capitalism? All they know, and all they have been taught to know, is that the West will exploit them. Are they wrong?
The method of expression is not right, killing innocent people should never be a means to an end, and non negotiation with terrorists is good policy, however, similar acts of murder, under the guise of retaliation, are equally wrong.
Either we hit out at those who perpetrated the attacks, precisely, or we wait until we have identified, and located them.
As far as I know, summary execution is not part of any western judical system. Innocent, until proven guilty, and the countless civilians killed in failed air raids against strategic targets, cannot possibly be guilty of any crimes, far less any crimes that would warrant execution under western judicial systems. I shall take this opportunity to point out that the US is the only “ciivilised” nation to still exercise the death penalty. - Even then, convicts wait on death row for years. Do we extend the same courtesy to your “eastern enemies”?
This is a subject that i feel passionately for, and perhaps I have been irrational in some of my conslusions, this is, however, only human…
I mostly agree and im american. The fact is that the facts are not clearly defined. Americans and others know only what media says.
This is something I shall be very interested to see you prove, because I am afraid that I disagree with most of what you are saying and I believe that you have a hatred towards Americans that makes you say these things.
Britain and the US have always had a “close relationship”. Are you really so naive as to think that this comes about only with Bush & Blair? Maybe it takes someone a little older to remember the Reagan and Thatcher years? The fact is that this has been the case for a long time, and why is this? Because it is mutually beneficial.
Agreed. So on what basis do you think they are? You don’t seem to have explained…?
And this is what we call a non-sequitur - i.e. your conclusion does not follow from the premise. We can all agree that imposing views on other is fundamentally wrong, however you have not shown that a “War On Terror” does this. You simply place the two things together in a sentence and hope that people don’t notice. You deplore propoganda apparently, is yours bad too?
Now I’m waiting for you to say “but war is imposing your views on another nation!”. Ah yes. But pretty much every action that a human being takes has an effect on others unless they do so unobserved in a locked room. If you wish your argument to become “all war is bad” then that is different, and you would somehow have to explain why our wars are “allowable wars”.
No it isn’t. Some amount of civilian loss of life is inevitable in war. No one except those in opposition to war has ever suggested that a war on Iraq should entail civilian loss of life so that a balance can be achieved for WTC.
That’s cool. So you’re conveniently putting aside all the actual legitimate reasons for military action against Iraq then? Are you a military adviser to the UN? I hope so, to be dishing out “facts” about how there is no need for this and all the other baseless accusations you have made here.
Yet again you have simply put “war on iraq = reprisal for WTC” and “execution of people without trial is bad” together in one sentence, hoping that the universal truth of the latter makes people believe the former. Many people will. This is a well known technique.
But stepping back, can you please prove how war on Iraq would be in reprisal for 9/11? All the media I see seems to attribute it to a number of broken UN resolutions, so I’d be interested to hear what source of info you have.
Nice statement. However you don’t seem to be offering anything to back up your dismissal of the American nation so what conclusion can one come to? I’m sorry, but to me you are Anti-American and it colours all of your comments.
I find it really hard to believe that I have just seen you, who I know to be a well educated and normally sensible person, come out with this comment.
There is such a thing as a job market. People get paid different amounts depending on where they live. Maybe you will experience this when you look for a job and notice that wages in London are higher than elsewhere. It’s partly to do with cost of living, but not entirely.
And so it is with other countries. It is inevitable that if a worker in another country is prepared to work for less money then they will be allowed. To suggest that these people are 100% of the time being exploited to me clases you as extremely naive. For the most part those people would fight tooth and nail to keep those jobs. How the hell would you like it if someone swooped into the UK and made you unemployed because they decided you were being treated unfairly!? Who is being arrogant now? Those people are (for the vast majority) not being forced to work.
Iraqi civilians - brainwashed by their leader (Iraq does not have freedom of speech like the US and UK does, so they don’t get to see dissent such as this!) and placed so that they surround military targets for propoganda purposes you mean?
It’s regrettable when anyone loses their life, however as a social animal human beings are worth less than their whole community (be that a village or a nation). This is why we die to protect our community. This is why some civilian loss of life is inevitable during war. Nobody is suggesting that civilians be targets, except for those who oppose war at any cost.
And yet again you trot out the tired “it’s all for the oil!” argument, yet again without any shred of evidence and I can’t let you get away with it.
Go and look at opec.org. Organization for Petroleum Exporting Countries. Iraq is just one of those countries. That organization controls the price and flow of oil creating embargoes etc. Look at the list of member states. See how the West is generally on good terms with all of those countries except Iraq.
Are you really silly enough to believe that causing war and mass arming-up for war in an oil-producing nation is going to drop the price of oil or increase its flow!? It might increase its flow, because that country wants to sell a lot to afford to buy weapons to fight a war! I don’t think that was your point though.
“It’s all for the oil!” is such a pathetic throw-away argument that belongs on the front page of the Daily Mirror.
You, and many others, seem to be under the strange conception that terrorism and military action are identical.
The differences are many:
Armies fight on behalf of their nation, under control of that nation’s politicians, who are in turn voted into office by the population.
Armies fight typically when all negotiations have broken down, because war is dangerous, unpopular and expensive to carry out
Armies typically target military infrastructure since that is the most effective way to end a war.
Terrorism exists when there is no democratic means to achieve what the terrorist wants, by definition!
Terrorists are not elected, they are followed by a mob, they are answerable to no one.
Terrorists target primarily civilians because it causes the most TERROR.
What you conveniently seem to forget is that when our army does something WE ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL TIME FOR THAT DEED. The army of any country knows this. Terrorists don’t have a community to answer to for their deeds. They can, and do, anything they please.
If I was a member of the armed forces of the UK or US I would be incredibly offended to see you lump professional soldiers and terrorists into the same category, because whilst a terrorist is fighting for himself, a soldier is fighting for YOU.
As far as I am aware, although the Americans have stated that they believe there may be 9/11 suspects hiding in Iraq who they would like to question, this is not reason for wishing to take troops there.
There is the matter of all the broken UN resolutions to consider.
Has anyone been summarily executed? If not, where is this coming from?
Don’t throw the “capital punishment” red herring in please. It has zero to do with foreign policy.
Here’s what I predict: Eventually after much discussion there will be war in Iraq again and it will be much like it was the first time around. Although you may love to think that the first time around it was purely a UK/US effort, it was not. There is a list somewhere of all the nations that participated on the side of the Allies in the GUlf war, and it is pretty extensive. It included many OPEC nations. It included nations that the US then and currently has diplomatic problems with.
As much as you love to bang your “I Hate America” gong – and I am afraid that this is what you do every time you open your mouth on this subject – there is absolutely no reason to slate America more than any other nation (like Great Britain for example!).
Global politics is far too complicated a thing to be explained away by “oh it’s in reprisal for 9/11!” or “oh it’s all for the oil!” or “arrogant americans!”. I don’t pretend to know the reasons behind everything or the correct way forward but apparently this does not stop people like you from telling us what should be done in any situation.
However what I am able to do is think about things logically without all this emotive nonsense. And when you do then you can see that there is a world of difference between the terrorist and the soldier of a democratic nation.
By the way, I haven’t seen any of your proof for the “america is arrogant” statement. If I were you I really wouldn’t slate an entire nation without anything to back you up.
I don’t really want to respond to all of your arguement so I’m just going to pick at the things that seemed the most wrong.
Define legitimate. And then you go on to criticise his accusations while not your own. Personally I don’t think assumptions are a great reason to go invade a country especially when they agreed to let inspectors in. It could potentionally be a turning point in relations given the right approach but I don’t see america making an attempt to make nice with iraq right now so whatever… kill kill kill
To die or not to die. I’d say we are all being forced to work. Them for a much crappier life style but still being forced. Although I have no facts to back this up besides what I’m told I’ll stick with the assumption that iraqs economic conditions aren’t that great. Flame away. Atleast I’ll learn this way.
Army of one! Even the us army has adopted selfish systems to promote development. But personally I’d let my nation send a few thousand people to die for me as long as I have enough time to run to canada where I won’t get drafted.
Well I can’t vote so I guess my opinion doesn’t really matter all that much here but I’m going to blab anyway just cause… well I’m bored. But I don’t recall bush being elected so I don’t know what that does to your arguement. I’ve observed that anyone that actually cares about politics in american anyway hates bush.
Yea that’s why america still wants to invade even after iraq agreed to let inspectors in. And actually war is quite popular among americans. I watched saving private ryan 4 times.
But so are democracys. Well democracys answer to the world but wait america doens’t care what other countries have to say… O man wait… what’s the definition of terrorism?
I like to think I do too but for some reason I have a feeling that my world of blissful ignorance is about to come crashing down on my face all because I got bored…
grifferz, do you attack a nation without evidence, based on rumours and fears? and if you’re against weapons of mass destruction and wants to destroy it, is it right if you yourself own them? that’s just like saying, nobody can have what i have, and only i can have.