WAR IN IRAQ - Should it be? Should WE be? - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Phaenx · 11-11-2003, 10:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by james t kirk
Well that is true, BUT.....

As a canadian, I can tell you that the current administration hates all foreign countries (Except Britain). The level of condescednding hatred that comes out of Washington towards us is palpable.

Politically speaking, I can not EVER remember relations between our nations being so low. (But I am too young to remember when Lyndon B Johnson grabbed our Prime Minister Pearson by the suit lapels and physically shook him because Pearson (a noble peace prize winner) would not support Vietnam.

But on a personal level, I must admit that I find Americans to be both an interesting curiousity, some of the most generous people you will ever meet, and like you guys just fine.

salut

Hates? That's not true James, the friction bit is true enough, I don't think we've called anyone "bastards" though.

skippy · 11-13-2003, 06:53 PM

Thank You Thank You Thank You for your replies!

My feelings on the situation in Iraq is that, as unfortunate as it is, someone has to stop Saddam. The old Iraqi administration openly supported hatred of the United states, Israel and the rest of the west. He helped finance Terrorism, using religious rhetoric and he funded those who enslaved others with religious lies and trickery.

He uses (if still alive) the Muslim religion as a means to build his own personal wealth and power base. This Man and his minions have killed uncounted numbers of people "just because". Saddam Hussein has made a mockery of an otherwise noble and loving religion.

He held the entire nation of Iraq in his hand, killing those who opposed him, and fattening those who killed with him. (who dares disagree???)

If left unchecked, Saddam would certainly have aquired and used Weapons of mass destruction. ( I haven't found a single person who disagrees with this statement yet!!!!)

Lets not forget that Saddam killed his own family members because he felt they didn't support his rein of power.

I say kick his miserable ass!

Just one man's opinion

Mehoni · 11-14-2003, 12:16 AM

IMHO, I think that the US should stay out of Iraq..

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/h...al_warfare.stm

Quote:

A UN security council statement condemning Iraq's use of chemical weapons in the war was issued in 1986, but the US and other western governments continued supporting Baghdad militarily and politically into the closing stages of the war.

It's good and well to say " He gassed X" now, when the US didn't lift a finger or even condemned the actions back then.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/internatio...866873,00.html

Quote:

A 1994 congressional inquiry also found that dozens of biological agents, including various strains of anthrax, had been shipped to Iraq by US companies, under licence from the commerce department.

Furthermore, in 1988, the Dow Chemical company sold $1.5m-worth (£930,000) of pesticides to Iraq despite suspicions they would be used for chemical warfare.

The only occasion that Iraq's use of banned weapons seems to have worried the Reagan administration came in 1988, after Lt Col Francona toured the battlefield on the al-Faw peninsula in southern Iraq and reported signs of sarin gas.

"When I was walking around I saw atropine injectors lying around. We saw decontamination fluid on vehicles, there were no insects," said Mr Francona, who has written a book on shifting US policy to Iraq titled Ally to Adversary. "There was a very quick response from Washington saying, 'Let's stop our cooperation' but it didn't last long - just weeks."

On the Russia in Afghanistan-thing.. all I can say is that when Russia had Afghanistan women were still allowed to go to school/college and wear normal clothes.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/st...551036,00.html

Quote:

It was the Americans, after all, who poured resources into the 1980s war against the Soviet-backed regime in Kabul, at a time when girls could go to school and women to work. Bin Laden and his mojahedin were armed and trained by the CIA and MI6, as Afghanistan was turned into a wasteland and its communist leader Najibullah left hanging from a Kabul lamp post with his genitals stuffed in his mouth.

But by then Bin Laden had turned against his American sponsors, while US-sponsored Pakistani intelligence had spawned the grotesque Taliban now protecting him. To punish its wayward Afghan offspring, the US subsequently forced through a sanctions regime which has helped push 4m to the brink of starvation, according to the latest UN figures, while Afghan refugees fan out across the world.

All this must doubtless seem remote to Americans desperately searching the debris of what is expected to be the largest-ever massacre on US soil - as must the killings of yet more Palestinians in the West Bank yesterday, or even the 2m estimated to have died in Congo's wars since the overthrow of the US-backed Mobutu regime. "What could some political thing have to do with blowing up office buildings during working hours?" one bewildered New Yorker asked yesterday.

Conclamo Ludus · 11-14-2003, 09:40 AM

I think that it was necessary to get involved in the region. I'm not very happy with the way we got involved, but nevertheless we have found ourselves there at this point, and its time to make the best of it. A representative government in Iraq would be ideal for all parties involved. Is it possible? I don't see why not. Is it difficult? Extremely. Its going to take a lot of dedication and a lot of time and a lot of money. Staying away from the region as a whole is not an option. The problems of other regions will inevitably become the problems of the world. AIDS is a prime example. Africa and Asia are AIDS timebombs, and I think most people recognize this. A stable and democratic Iraq would bring a slice of hope to many other countries in the middle east, that such a government can exist. The difficult part is in the details. How do we do it? This is a rigorous process, but giving up would be the worst scenario for all parties involved. It would fuel a resentment for the west even more, and the hope for a government by the people and for the people would slip out of the Arab world's hands for years to come.

Staying the course is going to be extremely painful. There is nothing simple about setting up a democracy. All of a sudden you have millions of people on your hands who have never had a voice, and now have a lot to say. Those who were once part of a privileged class under a tyrannical government, are going to go apeshit out of fear of revenge, or of losing what status they had before, some will take up arms, some will fund those who take up arms, and some will maybe learn to live as the common man.

Meanwhile you have public opinion obviously critical of the occupying force. They want their democracy now. They believe they may be ready. They want it fast, and they want us to get the hell out. And so they may start to support the ones taking up arms. Ironically the more that take up arms against us, the longer we have to stay to get things done. It amazes me that anyone in Iraq that wants the US to get out, would feel sympathetic for the aggressors that are still fighting against us. It slows down everything when our troops are getting killed everyday.

Democracy is a natural cure for many problems that a nation can be inflicted by. It encourages a greater possibility for the outcomes and solutions to problems. It puts power into the hands of the voter. While this may be a very simplistic way of viewing it, it is at the heart of my support for being in the region. It will take many years, but my prediction is that history will judge the war in Iraq to be a messy entry point into the region, but it will eventually be responsible for bringing about a greater stability and a greater peace in the region. I look forward to seeing Iraq prosper, and inevitably the middle east region. Its going to be a long and painful road, but I think it will be worth it.

thegreek · 11-16-2003, 10:35 PM

bush just said he wants his troops out and he's gonna give power back to iraqui government... even he realizes it was a dumb war now

lies lies lies before now, how could it be going so well if we are out so qiuck?

Conclamo Ludus · 11-17-2003, 06:56 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by thegreek
bush just said he wants his troops out and he's gonna give power back to iraqui government... even he realizes it was a dumb war now

lies lies lies before now, how could it be going so well if we are out so qiuck?

This has always been the plan. Maybe I missed something but we aren't leaving for a while.

matthew330 · 11-17-2003, 11:55 PM

Quote:

he wants his troops out and he's gonna give power back to iraqui government

uhhhh - yeah. He's said this from day 1, this has been the plan from the beginning.

XenuHubbard · 11-18-2003, 12:26 AM

Alea Jacta Est - the die is thrown.

The US better ride this one out, and actually do something to help the Iraqi people. Otherwise the anti-American will call it just another strike to destabilize the region.

Should the US have gone in? Probably not, not in this way.
But the US better stick this one out.

silent_jay · 12-04-2003, 06:00 PM

i don't think america should be occupying iraq. i'm canadian i also don't think my countries soldiers should be there. i have never been happier than when Prime Minister Chretien (i'll miss you Jean) would not commit troops to Iraq. I also disagree with his decesion to send them to Afghanistan. The whole reason for going to war was to capture or kill Saddam and find these weapons of mass destruction, all there seems to be are weapons of some minor destruction. thanks for listening.

11-13-2003, 06:53 PM	#42 (permalink)
skippy Banned	Thank You Thank You Thank You for your replies! My feelings on the situation in Iraq is that, as unfortunate as it is, someone has to stop Saddam. The old Iraqi administration openly supported hatred of the United states, Israel and the rest of the west. He helped finance Terrorism, using religious rhetoric and he funded those who enslaved others with religious lies and trickery. He uses (if still alive) the Muslim religion as a means to build his own personal wealth and power base. This Man and his minions have killed uncounted numbers of people "just because". Saddam Hussein has made a mockery of an otherwise noble and loving religion. He held the entire nation of Iraq in his hand, killing those who opposed him, and fattening those who killed with him. (who dares disagree???) If left unchecked, Saddam would certainly have aquired and used Weapons of mass destruction. ( I haven't found a single person who disagrees with this statement yet!!!!) Lets not forget that Saddam killed his own family members because he felt they didn't support his rein of power. I say kick his miserable ass! Just one man's opinion Last edited by skippy; 11-13-2003 at 06:57 PM..

11-14-2003, 09:40 AM	#44 (permalink)
Conclamo Ludus Modern Man Location: West Michigan	I think that it was necessary to get involved in the region. I'm not very happy with the way we got involved, but nevertheless we have found ourselves there at this point, and its time to make the best of it. A representative government in Iraq would be ideal for all parties involved. Is it possible? I don't see why not. Is it difficult? Extremely. Its going to take a lot of dedication and a lot of time and a lot of money. Staying away from the region as a whole is not an option. The problems of other regions will inevitably become the problems of the world. AIDS is a prime example. Africa and Asia are AIDS timebombs, and I think most people recognize this. A stable and democratic Iraq would bring a slice of hope to many other countries in the middle east, that such a government can exist. The difficult part is in the details. How do we do it? This is a rigorous process, but giving up would be the worst scenario for all parties involved. It would fuel a resentment for the west even more, and the hope for a government by the people and for the people would slip out of the Arab world's hands for years to come. Staying the course is going to be extremely painful. There is nothing simple about setting up a democracy. All of a sudden you have millions of people on your hands who have never had a voice, and now have a lot to say. Those who were once part of a privileged class under a tyrannical government, are going to go apeshit out of fear of revenge, or of losing what status they had before, some will take up arms, some will fund those who take up arms, and some will maybe learn to live as the common man. Meanwhile you have public opinion obviously critical of the occupying force. They want their democracy now. They believe they may be ready. They want it fast, and they want us to get the hell out. And so they may start to support the ones taking up arms. Ironically the more that take up arms against us, the longer we have to stay to get things done. It amazes me that anyone in Iraq that wants the US to get out, would feel sympathetic for the aggressors that are still fighting against us. It slows down everything when our troops are getting killed everyday. Democracy is a natural cure for many problems that a nation can be inflicted by. It encourages a greater possibility for the outcomes and solutions to problems. It puts power into the hands of the voter. While this may be a very simplistic way of viewing it, it is at the heart of my support for being in the region. It will take many years, but my prediction is that history will judge the war in Iraq to be a messy entry point into the region, but it will eventually be responsible for bringing about a greater stability and a greater peace in the region. I look forward to seeing Iraq prosper, and inevitably the middle east region. Its going to be a long and painful road, but I think it will be worth it. __________________ Lord, have mercy on my wicked soul I wouldn't mistreat you baby, for my weight in gold. -Son House, Death Letter Blues Last edited by Conclamo Ludus; 11-14-2003 at 09:45 AM..

11-18-2003, 12:26 AM	#48 (permalink)
XenuHubbard Cute and Cuddly Location: Teegeeack.	Alea Jacta Est - the die is thrown. The US better ride this one out, and actually do something to help the Iraqi people. Otherwise the anti-American will call it just another strike to destabilize the region. Should the US have gone in? Probably not, not in this way. But the US better stick this one out. __________________ The above was written by a true prophet. Trust me. "What doesn't kill you, makes you bitter and paranoid". - SB2000

12-04-2003, 06:00 PM	#49 (permalink)
silent_jay Her Jay Location: Ontario for now....	i don't think america should be occupying iraq. i'm canadian i also don't think my countries soldiers should be there. i have never been happier than when Prime Minister Chretien (i'll miss you Jean) would not commit troops to Iraq. I also disagree with his decesion to send them to Afghanistan. The whole reason for going to war was to capture or kill Saddam and find these weapons of mass destruction, all there seems to be are weapons of some minor destruction. thanks for listening. __________________ Absence makes the heart grow fonder

11-16-2003, 10:35 PM	#45 (permalink)
thegreek Banned	bush just said he wants his troops out and he's gonna give power back to iraqui government... even he realizes it was a dumb war now lies lies lies before now, how could it be going so well if we are out so qiuck?