AMERICAN viewpoints on the Iraq Crisis
- Thread starter hapaboy
- Start date
If we attack IRAQ because they "might be a threat" or even if they "are a threat," then we deserved to be attacked by every nation in the world.
If we attack IRAQ because they were involved with the terrorist actions and are currently plotting with Al Qaeda to launch new attacks, then we must protect ourselves AFTER the U.S. government has shown exactly why we are going to war.
However, the only thing I see is that we're going to war with Iraq because they *might* have weapons of mass destruction. Well, by that logic, we *DO* have weapons of mass destruction, so does that give Al Queda the right to attack us before we *might* ever use them?
Do you see the problem here? Words like "could, might, possibly, potential threat, etc" -- these are not excuses to go to war.
To Bush, Rumsfield, Cheeney, et. al.
Spell out, in clear concise terms, why we are attacking Iraq. If the information is classified for national security than you need to declassify it. The American population has a right to know why over 100,000 of our boys are over there and in potential harm. What if it was 1970 and there were 100,000 soviet troops swamping around our borders? We wouldn't like that too much, would we?
"A possible THREAT" is not an excuse to go to war
Saddam may be an evil man, but we have NO right to interfere in other government's problems. There should be a law against regime changing -- there should be international laws against starting a war without clear and concise reasons.
Osama Bin Laden is smiling ear to ear right now. Not only is he running about in Pakistan / Afghanistan probably plotting his next terrorist attack, but he's probably patiently waiting until we invade Iraq to get all muslims infuriated with the United States.
This is a game of intelligence -- not brute strength. It would only take one dirty bomb in Manhattan to devastate the economy. The oil that pumps through the veins of our society and economy is becoming viscous. It wouldn't take much for it to clot and cause a heart-attack within our own economic and financial systems.
The best thing that we can do is STFU and withdraw and return to a more isolationist position. If we keep f***ing around in the Middle East, we're going to start a global economic meltdown at some point.
If we attack IRAQ because they were involved with the terrorist actions and are currently plotting with Al Qaeda to launch new attacks, then we must protect ourselves AFTER the U.S. government has shown exactly why we are going to war.
However, the only thing I see is that we're going to war with Iraq because they *might* have weapons of mass destruction. Well, by that logic, we *DO* have weapons of mass destruction, so does that give Al Queda the right to attack us before we *might* ever use them?
Do you see the problem here? Words like "could, might, possibly, potential threat, etc" -- these are not excuses to go to war.
To Bush, Rumsfield, Cheeney, et. al.
Spell out, in clear concise terms, why we are attacking Iraq. If the information is classified for national security than you need to declassify it. The American population has a right to know why over 100,000 of our boys are over there and in potential harm. What if it was 1970 and there were 100,000 soviet troops swamping around our borders? We wouldn't like that too much, would we?
"A possible THREAT" is not an excuse to go to war
Saddam may be an evil man, but we have NO right to interfere in other government's problems. There should be a law against regime changing -- there should be international laws against starting a war without clear and concise reasons.
Osama Bin Laden is smiling ear to ear right now. Not only is he running about in Pakistan / Afghanistan probably plotting his next terrorist attack, but he's probably patiently waiting until we invade Iraq to get all muslims infuriated with the United States.
This is a game of intelligence -- not brute strength. It would only take one dirty bomb in Manhattan to devastate the economy. The oil that pumps through the veins of our society and economy is becoming viscous. It wouldn't take much for it to clot and cause a heart-attack within our own economic and financial systems.
The best thing that we can do is STFU and withdraw and return to a more isolationist position. If we keep f***ing around in the Middle East, we're going to start a global economic meltdown at some point.
major disagreements here, aph...but that's why freedom is great; disagreement is ok. in some countries, you can't even do what you just did. if you posted a anti-government message like you just did in iraq, who knows what would happen to you and your family. is that how you'd want to live? why should the world let an asshole like saddam control a country?
you posted a message the other day about saddam's sons and how they like to torture people. even if saddam were to stay in power, who would take over next, his evil sons? if someone doesn't do something, that place is always going to be a mess. why should the world put up with this shit? i didn't even get into the treaties saddam signed and violated. there are more than enough reasons to remove that asshole.
i'm not saying all countries need to be like america, but all countries should elect their leader, have free speech, and religious freedom. not having these 3 elements = problems. also, if a country's government can't control its own people, i say LET SOMEONE TAKE OVER WHO CAN.
you posted a message the other day about saddam's sons and how they like to torture people. even if saddam were to stay in power, who would take over next, his evil sons? if someone doesn't do something, that place is always going to be a mess. why should the world put up with this shit? i didn't even get into the treaties saddam signed and violated. there are more than enough reasons to remove that asshole.
i'm not saying all countries need to be like america, but all countries should elect their leader, have free speech, and religious freedom. not having these 3 elements = problems. also, if a country's government can't control its own people, i say LET SOMEONE TAKE OVER WHO CAN.
plenty......just ask the political prisoners in North Korea (the ones that have survived). Do you Honestly think Saddam has been the only one to use chemical weapons on his own people?? weapons doesn't necessarily mean it has to be on the tip of a scud...
http://msnbc.com/news/859191.asp?cp1=1
You can't project your social views on countries that are much different than yours. If it is socially acceptable for a man to go to work naked in some different country, then that is the way of their society. Basically, what right do we as Americans have to project our lifestyle on all other cultures?
Personally, I'm glad that there are still some places in the world devoid of SUVs, Starbucks and McDonalds.
Because the world is an ugly place. If the United States needed him, they would turn the other cheek as they have done plenty of times....Its not about Saddam stupid.....
....If we were to go up agaisnt every mudering dictator that slaughters his own, Oh well.....the list would never end. And Castro would not be in power....hell if you want to free a people you need not go 8000 miles..try 90 miles.
Very interesting story. Thank you for the link.
Horrible as it is, Kim has yet to kill thousands of his own people in a chemical or biological attack (that we know of) as Saddam did, and I believe Saddam didn't use Scuds in that particular attack. I'm not defending Kim in any way, merely stating what we know thus far.
Fair enough. But don't the other two reasons add to that point?
People who make the case against U.S. involvement usually leave out an important point: Saddam is the one who attacked first and this is what differentiates him from other possible targets.
We are not attacking Saddam because he has killed his own people with chemicals, we are not attacking because he is evil, we are not attacking because we want a regime change, we are not attacking because he might be a threat, we are not even attacking because he has weapons of mass destruction.
We are attacking because he has attacked another sovereign country out of greed. He was then stopped buy a world coalition and had sanctions placed on him that he agreed to. For eleven years he then ignored these sanctions as the U.N. has no policing body to enforce its resolutions.
Again we are attacking him because he has shown aggression and a complete disregard for the well being of others and that is what is different between him and the other leaders being brought up. There is nothing hypocritical about this.
Any student of history would see that isolationism is what allowed Hitler to make it as far as he did. After WWI Germany was not allowed to arm, Hitler did it anyway and no one stopped him. Nations knew he was arming and no one stopped him. Eventually isolationism had to be abandoned in order to cease such horrible treatment of people and win victory in WWII before entire civilizations were annihilated.
We are not attacking Saddam because he has killed his own people with chemicals, we are not attacking because he is evil, we are not attacking because we want a regime change, we are not attacking because he might be a threat, we are not even attacking because he has weapons of mass destruction.
We are attacking because he has attacked another sovereign country out of greed. He was then stopped buy a world coalition and had sanctions placed on him that he agreed to. For eleven years he then ignored these sanctions as the U.N. has no policing body to enforce its resolutions.
Again we are attacking him because he has shown aggression and a complete disregard for the well being of others and that is what is different between him and the other leaders being brought up. There is nothing hypocritical about this.
Any student of history would see that isolationism is what allowed Hitler to make it as far as he did. After WWI Germany was not allowed to arm, Hitler did it anyway and no one stopped him. Nations knew he was arming and no one stopped him. Eventually isolationism had to be abandoned in order to cease such horrible treatment of people and win victory in WWII before entire civilizations were annihilated.
The problem here is that it isn't a case of it being an "other government's problems." It is quite assuredly our problem, as we are faced with the possibility of one or many of our cities being targeted for destruction. Are you willing to risk your life, that of your family, and that of your fellow citizens in order to give a megalomaniac the benefit of the doubt?
You are exactly right. Therefore we must try and prevent that bomb from going off. Do you honestly believe withdrawing to a more isolationist position is going to result in Bin Laden and other fanatics from attacking us again?
Withdrawal from the world's stage is the sure recipe for chaos and the global meltdown you predict - only it won't be solely an economic one.
Your thinking is eerily similar to that of pre-WWII Europe as they watched Hitler test and test and test the limits of what he could get away with.
Never again.