| Home | Forums | What's new | Resources | |
| Why I think War with Iraq Is justifiable |
| Lyzel - Mar 15, 2003 |
| < Prev | 1 | ... | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | Next> |
 |
antime | Apr 9, 2003 | ||||||||||||
And Seymour Hersh who uncovered Richard Perle's business dealings is a terrorist. Words lose their meaning through overuse and inflation.
And if you don't agree with the US party line you're branded as unpatriotic and a terrorist sympathiser. It's just a matter of degrees.
Apparently that right includes the right to get shot at with rubber bullets by the police. How very progressive.
Fortunately your government is doing its best to rectify the situation. It only took you some fifty years to reinvent Stasi. | ||||||||||||||
 |
Tindo@heart | Apr 9, 2003 | ||||||||||||
|
Seymour Hersh? I'm not familar with the name so it's hard to reply. A quick google search tells me he often uncovers scandals. I also found this link to which I think you refer: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/a...artic... After reading this, you are right. The definition of a "terrorist" varies with each person and often misused like all derogatory terms. This doesn't change my mind that Saddam is a terrorist.
Name calling is a lot different than executions. If I insult the Pres. I would rather be called "unpatriotic" than get a bullet in the back of the head! It's more than a matter of "degrees," it's on the other end of the spectrum!
It's a right to protest, it's not a right to vandilize. It's also not a right to disrupt the flow of traffic, interupt business and endanger the public. Since the war we've had protest everyday here, and rubber bullets were only used once. What for you ask? They were blocking a road to a port. I suggest reading Rubber Bullets Used Against Oakland War Protesters... Protest can be held in a formal and decent fashion. It doesn't have to be filled with rage and chaos. It's often a few over-passionate individuals that ruin a protest. Ironically, the freedom of speech is often excercised on both sides and non-protesters can become harassing or confrontational. It's a display that can become a mess and safer if it is dispersed. It's not dispersed because it is a protest. It's dispersed because it becomes an interuption and dangerous.
"It only took you" .. I think you mean my government. There is a difference. Again, you're using a term I'm unfamilar with. Stasi? I searched google and found this site on Cnn: http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/e...ence/... I'm not aware of anything close to that here in the US, not that I would be if there were such an organization. Could you please tell me what you are refering too. As an American I happen to think we enjoy more freedom than ever! The last 50 years have been revolutionary for gays. Blacks are given equal rights. I can look in my neighborhood and see Martin Luther King's dream come true, white and black kids playing on the same playground. I think that is progress. Slavery still exsist in Africa and other parts of the world. Your post seems to try to point out America's flaws instead of discussing the war. I'm not claiming America is the best, any government has it's benefits and flaws. It's all a matter of opinion. I'm not trying to compare countries, I was making points about Saddam's regime. Would anyone here choose to live in Iraq under Saddam's regime? I wouldn't, I would rather keep my fingers and toes.
ExCyber, you are exactly right. It is misleading. At first it was a war on terror, then it was to "disarm" Saddam, now it's candy coated with the title "Iraqi Freedom." Which is it; Disarm Saddam or liberate the Iraqi people? I'm sure there are goals here that are less mentioned, like securing the oil wells. However, IT'S ALL OF THE ABOVE! -Saddam is a terrorist -Saddam has been a threat and should be removed -Iraqis are oppressed and terrorized -Saddam has robbed the Iraqis and left them in poverty -the oil wells have been abused and turned into enviromental hazards -not to mention he has desecrated holy land, the birthplace of Mary Mother of Jesus How many crimes does 1 man have to make against humanity before somebody does something? I happen to think it's inhumane to just ignore this and let the Iraqis suffer. What does everyone think of the Iraqis celebrating in the streets of Baghdad? Some were even chanting praise to Bush. I suppose the only opinions that matter here are of the Iraqi people. PS: Walter Cronkrit has just critized Pres. Bush on TV, yet he lives. | ||||||||||||||
 |
Curtis | Apr 9, 2003 | ||
|
I think that there are convincing arguements that this war has absolutely nothing at all to do with liberation, disarmament, oil or any of the other of the commonly quoted reasons. There is a possibility that Iraq is meant to be a "diplomatic solution" to the North Korea problem. By invading Iraq, the coalition forces have sent a clear message to NK "not to mess with us - we can do what we want and nobody will stop us". Certainly the action gives the US in particular a "foot up" in the region in terms of first strike capability. All just conjecture, of course, but the arguements that claim the war is about liberation have a serious archillies heel. The coalition are showing no signs of planning to tackle any other "brutal regime" in the world. Why not step into Zimbabwe, for example? Robert Mugabe seems to be a man of few scruples, by all accounts. If you take the liberation angle, then why does it apply to Iraq before anyone else, and why not to other countries in a similar situation? You mentioned disarmament is a reason. Again, what evidence is there that Iraq is a threat to US, UK or Australian interests? Indeed world interests? Maybe they have chemical weapons, but so does the US and UK - they show no signs of disarmament. There seems to be an unfair perception that because the US and UK are such freedom loving countries, that they wouldn't resort to such means. Instead they fight a war against forces - that have no means of defending themeselves - using "conventional" weapons. End of the day, you're just as dead. I have no idea of the Iraqi military casulaties, but they would number thousands if not tens of thousands. Who has determined that the Iraqi regime has committed more crimes than anyone else? Final point, there is no such thing as the "Iraqi people" - it's like saying every American is a Democrat. No matter what they tell us in the lovely briefings, there will always be a level of violent dissent amongst some factions directed towards the coalition forces. It is not as black and white as they are making it out to be. | ||||
|
Tindo@heart | Apr 9, 2003 | ||||||
|
-display to NK Interesting conjecture Curtis. It's very possible, but I don't believe that would be their main objective. This opens my mind to other possiblities. The whole suppose "shock and awe" campaign may have been just that. -Liberation The US didn't mention liberation until the day of the war, and at the moment they named the war "Iraqi Freedom." So I don't think this is their main objective. I do think the main objective is to liberate the World from Saddam. -disarmament The fact that Saddam and his cousin has used chemical weapons before is proof enough for me. The fact they have gassed and killed 1000's of kurds is a large enough crime itself. I'm sure the US has sources that it can't reveal or it would be shooting itself in the foot. The world can't afford to chance WMD to get into such an unstable man's hand. He is greatly hated and vengeful.
I dunno. Who? I think the Saddam regime has committed many notorious crime against humanity, maybe not the most. The keyword is Saddam's regime, not Iraq's. This one man is responsible for crimes on a Hitler scale.
I disagree. If I say "American people" I'm speaking about the majority of Americans, it has nothing to do with politics. If I say "Iraqi people" I am just speaking about the citizens of Iraq. Do you prefer me to say the majority of citizens of Iraq. The majority of citizens of Iraq have been robbed by Saddam. Now the majority of citizens of Iraq dance and celebrate the fall of the Saddam regime. They dance in Tahriya Square in Baghdad, they topple statues of Saddam in Basrah, in Saddam City they chant "Bush, Bush, Thank you", and they fill the street in some "E" titled city (spelling) http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/stor...25444... Again I think the majority of the citizens of Iraq's opinion is the opinion that matters. | ||||||||
 |
Lyzel | Apr 9, 2003 | ||
|
Hey Tindo, I would not bother discussing this war with these people. They are against the war. They will argue with you no matter when you agree with their opinions or not. If you haven't noticed. They never admit that some of your points may be right. They refuse to admit when they may be wrong. | ||||
 |
mal | Apr 9, 2003 | |||
The very same things could be said of you too. | |||||
|
Tindo@heart | Apr 9, 2003 | ||
|
I don't think anyone likes to admit they're wrong. I have however acknowledged their valid points, they seem to ignore mine. <_< Wanna know something funny Lyzel.  Your post count earns you the title "Peace not War" Though Curtis' post count is titled: "Nuke 'em all"  | ||||
 |
ExCyber | Apr 9, 2003 | ||||||||||||
This is true. It can be argued that being politically unpopular can cost you your livelihood, but realistically as long as your views are not completely absurd you're likely to find a substantial group that will at least tolerate your views.
It really all depends on whose motivations you want to talk about and whether or not you believe they're telling the truth. There's a significant amount of evidence to suggest that, for some... in the administration, the cause of ousting Saddam is little more than a banner to fly over the goals of establishing a strategic foothold in the middle east and putting US military might on display:
| ||||||||||||||