Opinions on war in Iraq -1 reply

Please wait...

Blitz Krieger

Veritas Vincit

50 XP

5th December 2002

0 Uploads

390 Posts

0 Threads

#1 15 years ago

Following a little advice from a thread that got horribly off topic,what does everyone think of the whole Iraq situation?




Jingo

Texturer/artist

50 XP

26th October 2002

0 Uploads

184 Posts

0 Threads

#2 15 years ago

Nobody cared about Saddam's regime in the early 80's when he was needed against Iran!When you help to create a monster,don't be surprised if it turns against you! :love: Reason seperates man from animals.




Blitz Krieger

Veritas Vincit

50 XP

5th December 2002

0 Uploads

390 Posts

0 Threads

#3 15 years ago

Yeah,that's true.The U.S. has never been anything but self-serving but they pretend to be the "Defenders Of Freedom"I don't mean to offend anyone,but it's the truth.I'm also getting sick of listening to the whole country bash the French just because they disagreed with a rush to war.It sure seems like there's a lot of hate coming out of the U.S.these days.




Vanthem

Medic With A Baseball Bat

50 XP

10th August 2002

0 Uploads

2,151 Posts

0 Threads

#4 15 years ago

"The U.S. has never been anything but self-serving...It sure seems like there's a lot of hate coming out of the U.S.these days."

[color=burlywood]Yeah. It's us. If you like I'll go pick out a hundred other comments on just these boards slamming the United States in one thread after another.

Jingo, relations between Iraq and America in the 80s were amicable. At the time helping Iraq defend itself against Iran seemed like a good idea. By your logic if we were to help say Latvia against some violent invading force, then ten years down the road Latvia goes the way of the devil, we "created a monster". Give me a break. We didn't create Saddam, we underestimated his capacity to become deplorable filth. "don't be surprised if it turns against you." Hardly a surprise when he's defied one UN resolution after another after another after another for years.

I do wish US citizens would stop insulting the French although it isn't happening as much as people seem to think. A lot of Americans are opposed to the war, if anyone's being insulted it's the US itself and President Bush. If people want to be angry at France though, they should be angry that it opposes military action not out of a desire for peace but because of the huge contracts they have staked in Iraqi oil. Something most people don't want to seem to hear or acknowledge.[/color]




HavHav

Producer Of Desert Standoff

50 XP

29th August 2002

0 Uploads

255 Posts

0 Threads

#5 15 years ago
Originally posted by Blitz Krieger Yeah,that's true.The U.S. has never been anything but self-serving but they pretend to be the "Defenders Of Freedom"I don't mean to offend anyone,but it's the truth.I'm also getting sick of listening to the whole country bash the French just because they disagreed with a rush to war.It sure seems like there's a lot of hate coming out of the U.S.these days.

americans have gone to war twice to save france! World war 1, world war 2. Cuase france couldnt save em selfs. hundreds of thousands of AMERICAN soldiers gave there lives to save FRENCH LIVES! that kinda tells you something. France doesnt want war cuase they have invested billions into Iraqi Oil.




Vanthem

Medic With A Baseball Bat

50 XP

10th August 2002

0 Uploads

2,151 Posts

0 Threads

#6 15 years ago

[COLOR=burlywood]We went through the World Wars because the Axis powers were a threat to us. Sure, coming to the aid of Europe and its allies was part of it, but first and foremost it was that threat to our own nation that prompted us into action. The US like any peaceful country wants to avoid war at all costs but when an attack like Pearl Harbor is unleashed, or the deaths of US citizens onboard the Lusitania occurs, the country is forced into reluctant defense. That's the reason for our involvement in the World Wars, just the same as it was for Britain, Russia, etc. It doesn't diminish the sacrifices all the countries made in those battles, but to say we went in soley to save France is erroneous (and believe me, you'd get jumped on big time by people in this forum for saying it). [/color]




HavHav

Producer Of Desert Standoff

50 XP

29th August 2002

0 Uploads

255 Posts

0 Threads

#7 15 years ago

yea, i didnt elaborate more...but still, the whole allied thingy...yea anyways, i dont see why most americans are opposed to war, if i had the chance, id go. protect my country, etc. Yea, its not the greatest, but how many other countrys are like it??




Vanthem

Medic With A Baseball Bat

50 XP

10th August 2002

0 Uploads

2,151 Posts

0 Threads

#8 15 years ago

[COLOR=burlywood]I know what you're trying to say again, Hav, but people won't read it that way and they'll attack the literal sense of your words instead. Americans should be opposed to war, but that's different than standing behind your country and the President when they decide that there's no other way to ensure peace which is what I believe you were saying. I don't entirely agree with the Bush administration about Iraq, I definitely think they've fallen short on making their case to the world about why it's necessary, but I still support my country just as I support France & Germany's right to disagree, despite their reasons. [/color]




Blitz Krieger

Veritas Vincit

50 XP

5th December 2002

0 Uploads

390 Posts

0 Threads

#9 15 years ago

I agree 100% with you both.To protect my country from a direct threat,I wouldn't hesitate either.But Saddam poses no threat to the U.S.regardless of what weapons he has,he doesn't have the capability to attack the U.S. directly,and his link to Al-Qaeda is thin at best.As far as breaking the resolutions-they are U.N.resolutions,not U.S resolutions.So why has Bush taken it upon himself to enforce them regardless of what the U.N. says?




Vanthem

Medic With A Baseball Bat

50 XP

10th August 2002

0 Uploads

2,151 Posts

0 Threads

#10 15 years ago

[COLOR=burlywood]If I wanted to sit and keep going back and forth, point for point on this, Blitz, I'd still be in the Euro thread with Optik trying to set him straight. Fact is I don't have and don't want to waste the time doing that. Sometimes I just have to say something though. But I'll address the last points of yours.

Saddam is close and quite possibly already has the means to attack the United States, he certainly has the connections if/when he were to decide to do it. Just because he may or may not have a ballistic missile that can reach us from Iraq doesn't mean he doesn't have other ways to hit us and it doesn't negate him as a danger. He admits to chemical weapons, we've seen him use them, and having those chemical weapons in addition to his unabashed hatred of the US constitutes a threat that shouldn't be ignored. He's violating resolutions to disarm, that's not something to be taken lightly and he's done it for years. The UN has tried for some time now to resolve this peacefully, but with the added threat of nuclear capability the United States is basically saying, "Look, if we (the UN) aren't all going to do something about it, then we'll take it upon ourselves (the US) to do what must be done." If the U.N. can't do its job, then the United States along with its allies will for the sake of peace. Is this necessarily the right way to go, perhaps not, but time will tell one way or the other. As I've said, I don't wholeheartedly agree with removing Hussein right now and instituting a new government but I stand behind my country, especially when it's attacked by the ludicrous comments I've seen around here and in the world (calling Bush Hltler? Out to take over the world? I mean seriously.. how do these people keep from drowning when it rains..). Incidentally, the number of countries opposed to the Iraq situation are a minority. We keep hearing about France, Germany and Belgium, but by and large most of the nations have sided with the idea of taking action against Iraq, including most of the countries in the former Soviet Union which some refer to as "New Europe".

One thing I do agree on is that the link to Al-Qaeda isn't a link at all and I wish people would quit trying to claim it is. Bin L*den doesn't like Hussein (probably, if you believe the message in his tapes) but they do have a common enemy he said- the United States, western civilization on the whole. And he called for the arab people to rise up and strike out at us in any way they can, bombings, suicides, etc. To think that some partnership between them -or between any of the terrorist organizations Hussein does fund & support- wouldn't crop up later and find its way to US shores, or British shores, and so on, is naive at best. Still, saying that tape proves Hussein has had dealings with Al-Qaeda is wrong, and citing it as a reason for going to war is equally mistaken. But that Al-Qaeda link has been the most minor cog in the war machine and a minor reason for war all along. The crux of the matter is Hussein's refusal to account for missing weapons, casings, and such and his policy of ignoring disarmament resolutions and the threat all of it provides.

Like I said, time will tell and I hope that Hussein has a flash of realization and decides to give full cooperation in every way possible so that war can be averted. [/color]

Anyone else think that auto-censor is a bit ridiculous sometimes? Hi+ler and L*den were both edited out. :p