Why War with Iraq? Or why against?

My Squash ^ | 9/18/2002 | Burkeman1

[Burkeman1]

Why do you think we should go to war against Iraq? Or why are you against such a war?

Take as much space as you need. But post a concise, phrase, sentence, paragraph, or essay and do not link to other sites.

This about why Freepers want war or oppose war.

And no personnal attacks. Everyone on this site is an American and loves this country.

[Burkeman1]

Yes. Sorry about that.

[Hunble]

Just last week, I found an old T-shirt that I proudly wore during the first Gulf War. Today, I am proud to once again ware it.

DON'T MESS WITH GEORGE
OPERATION DESERT STORM

[Tempest]

Hmmmm... I oppose this war at the present time mainly because I do not see it as benefitting American interest. In my view I think that it too costly at a time in which the goverment is desperately needed to control it's spending and to avoid any further deficit. I also oppose this war because it diverts our troops attention away from waging a war against specific fanatical factions (i.e. Terrorist) and spreads out our resources.

Peripheral reasons as to why I oppose this war, is because I don't believe that the US has the right to take a proactive war stance upon soverign countries. (Same reasons why I opposed the war in Yuogoslavia.)

As terrible as Saddam my seem to outsiders, I believe that people inherently get the goverment in which they deserve. Sure you can bring up the dissidents in the Iraqi regime. But you have dissidents in every coountry, including the U.S.. Except here in the U.S. the dissident are louder and obnoxious because their freedoms allow them to be. It's just over their they resort to violence because they feel that is the only platform in which they can use to get their "message" across.

I oppose this war on the principal of intellectual consistancy. I did not agree with the reasons why we went to war with Iraq in 98' hence I don't agree with them now either. Although I find it interesting how the tables have turned and the hypocrisy from both major parties have really shown.

Although my opposition towards the war is not complete. I have to ask my self the question as to why Clinton in 98' felt it so neccessary to attack Iraq and yet today President Bush seems it very neccesary to attack them as well? I of course assume that people at such levels of goverment are privileged to information in which common people are not.

Yet with Clinton's sudden apprehension against attacking Iraq I feel that, that he is more interested in serving political posturing than he is in serving the safety of the nation. After all I haven't heard a single "journalist" dare ask him as to why he has such a sudden change of heart.

Anyways another issue of concern is the question of well. If we don't take a proactive stance we are very well asking to take a reactive stance. And the problem with the reactive stance is that by then MANY lives may have already been lost.


As I side note: No I don't but into the stereotypical scare tactics that have been implemented since every war since the Vietnam war. That somehow Iraq which is only up to 40% of it's military capacity since we last kicked their butts is somehow going to give us a run for our money. Any practical minded person realizes by now that we use our aircrafts as the primary infantry and ground troops only as sweeper team.

Well if you've read this far thanks for hearing out my not very well thought out opinion.

[Hunble]

Peripheral reasons as to why I oppose this war, is because I don't believe that the US has the right to take a proactive war stance upon soverign countries. (Same reasons why I opposed the war in Yuogoslavia.)

Actually, for the same exact reasons, I do have a problem with the America attacking Iraq.

I honestly believe that this is required, but Yugoslavia does make me take a little pause.

[Burkeman1]

I read it all the way as it was one of the only essays I have seen posted. But I am not sure where you stand after reading. But you had some good lines. You have a talent for writing to which you should pay attention.

[Mr. Jeeves]

We should remove Saddam because he does not recognize that all humans were created equal, with certain unalienable rights.

Well, if that is the criteria for military action, Delta Force ought to be breaking down Tom Daschle's office door any second now.

Look, I think the real point of any invasion will be to help the anti-Saddam forces within Iraq do him in. Turkey will support that effort strongly, and it will provide a nice example for Iranian students to follow.

[Mike Darancette]

Pakistan has weapons of WMD? When are we going after them?

Spare us the equivilence Rap. We control Pakistan in it's present form. Pakistan knows that if we even blink that India will eat their lunch.

As to Iraq testing a WMD, think back to what Israel did when Iraq was trying to put an N-Reactor on line. Israel has no moral dilemma in invoking a doctrine of pre-emption. The US won't have to do a thing.

[Burkeman1]

I would have worn that T Shirt as well but a niggling voice in the back of my head told me otherwise. Over the years I have listened to it. The Cold war is over. When do we come home to the Republic we knew and the example the world looked too with love?

[hinckley buzzard]

RE: Posts no. 7, 9, 15, 18, 22, 27, 29, 35, 45, 66, 73, 77:
Sure glad you wanted to hear what others think.

Why do Libertarians seem to think it useful to suckerpunch people, twist their words around, and pose dishonest and insulting questions, as a means of spreading their gospel?

[Burkeman1]

Iran has a nuke program far more advancecd than that of Iraq- that was from the Weekly Standard. We are helping North Korea build nuke plants right now! Saudi Arabia- whose sucession is less than certain- most likely already owns nukes. I hate to be blunt. But to think that we are going after Iraq for WMD is simply obtuse of the highest order.

[Tempest]

Sorry But I have to interject here. You state:

You have the same instinct as everyone else on this site. Iraq has a less developed WMD program than any country surrouding it. Does anyone here believe that Saudi Arabia does not have it's own nuke progam right now? Iran does and even the Pro Iraq war Weekly Standard said so!

Were as this may be true or not. It is completely irrelevent due to the simple fact these other nations aren't under a UN sanction that prohibit them from persuing such interest.

A nation such as Iraq and a leader such as Saddam, has established a record of not being able to play nice with his neighbors. And when he got spanked for his behavior back in 91' he was forced to abide by certain UN agreement as part of a Peace accord.

So hence since 98' when Saddam decided that he would break the deal in which he made during the peace agreement. Well it seems to me that he opened the door which allowed America to say that we don't have to honor the treaty then.

Once again, where as I am not convinced at the present time that it is in American interest to go to war with Iraq. I do see full justification if we did.

[Go Gordon]

Why won't Bush sit before the nation and call for war on live TV and present his reasons? Or is that anti american to ask reasons from my President?

I've now gotten down to post 46 or so, and have read all of your responses. Why are you being such a pr!ck? Bush has not called for war. He called for a regime change. And on September 12th, he addressed the UN (which was covered by all the networks) and spelled it out for that group. The administration has also said it will provide all the justification for its actions in due course, and he will address the nation. So get off Bush's back.

Burkeman1, have you got a lot of experience being president of the United States. Ever negotiate with US allied countries? Ever dealt with the CIA/FBI/NSA and been given access to top secret briefings and know that disemination of certain info causes lives to be lost and intel gathering to be hampered? Ever hold the destiny of the free world as we know it in the palm of your hand? I didn't think so.

This is not the Toon we're talking about here. We're talking about a decent man that loves his country, and if it were up to him, would rather not have to deal with these Islamic lunatics. But unlike the previous administration, he's not about to bury his head in the sand.

So while you, Burkeman1, feel you're entitled to front row seats and be presented with every detailed piece of intelligence we have, you're not gonna get it. Are you "anti American"? Some will say yes, some will say no. However, I fail to see in the constitution where it states Burkeman1 is entitled to get any info he desires from the President of the United States. He's the Commander and Chief of our Armed Forces and will carry out his solemn duties to protect the USA. If you don't like how he does it, vote in the 2004 elections and cast your ballot for someone else. In the meantime (I'll be nice) have some patience, give Bush some slack and the benefit of the doubt. He's earned it.

[PsyOp]

"The fact that slaughter is a horrifying spectacle must make us take war more seriously, but not provide an excuse for gradually blunting our swords in the name of humanity. Sooner or later someone will come along with a sharp sword and hack off our arms." - Karl von Clauswitz, On War, 1832. Saddam likes swords. We hack off his arms so he can't use them. Smoking guns have already been fired.

[PsyOp]

"Victory is the main object in war. If this is long delayed, weapons are blunted and morale depressed." - Sun Tzu, The Art of War. c.400-320 b.c.

Just in case you forgot, we are at war with terrorism and those who support it. Saddam supports it, funds it, uses it. And does so openly and without apology.

[Burkeman1]

Please delineate how my post dishonetly represented the posts of my debate partners? I would think that they would have responded to my "perfidy" or are you going to each for you listed? If not your post is merely ad hominem.

[Jmouse007]

I have no qualms with your statements.

We let Russia take Berlin because the cost in American lives was estimated as staggering and we didn't want to take the losses.

As for Russia's rape and pillaging of the German population, Russia lost 20 MILLION people to Nazi Germany. For insights into the reasons why so many died just look at the movie "Enemies at the Gate" a historical account of the siege of Stalingrad. When the Russians entered the heart of Nazi Germany they were driven by payback and a desire to wipe the Nazis off the face of the Earth.

None of us in the United States can even imagine the amount of suffering and sacrifice the Russian people have experienced at the hands of their leaders, Czars and communist and enemies.

Over the last two years I taught at a seminary in the city of Ternopil. Ukraine. 40,000 people died just re-taking this city from the Nazis and that is just ONE small city out of thousands of cities and towns conquered by the Nazis.

As for the oppression of the Czars, I visited Saint Isaacs Cathedral in St. Petersburg, a city infamously called "the city built on bones." Peter the Great impressed a half a million Russian serfs, over a period of 40 years to build this one building, thousands died in the process. Serfs, using liquid mercury originally gilded the domes, you can imagine how many died of mercury poisoning. This was the cost in lives for just one building.

[Burkeman1]

And he is the most to blame or just the one on the outs with the UN and not connected to US interests? Is he convenient for yahoo American blood lust?

[Go Gordon]

RE: #63

Just wanted to thank you for your contribution. Very well put, and in parts very touching. Thanks...

[GallopingGhost]

In a world full of evil men, Saddam Hussien is the most evil. In a world full of dangerous men, Saddam Hussien is the most dangerous. If the only way to depose Saddam is to go to war in Iraqi territory then that is what we must do.

[Aura Of The Blade]

I think it's only a matter of time before Hussein does acquire nuclear weapons and uses them. But it will be too late, just like it was it was too late when the previous administration failed to act and address terrorism, which resulted in the guerilla attacks on the WTC and Pentagon.

There is no doubt in my mind that Iraq is not going to be a walk in the park and an invasion will likely lead to urban warfare and possible bio/chem counter-attacks.

Most of the world has turned against United States and this is going to be a bad century. When Hussein is snuffed out it will send a chilling message throughout the ME, but also to the Chicoms, who are also the silent enemy.

Canadians should try and enlist south of the border, until Jean and his boys get with the program. Looking at recent history, the turn of a century is usually marked by a major war. I believe we are in it and there is no turning back.

Now is the time.