Jabba The Hunt Posted January 30, 2003 Share Posted January 30, 2003 Sorry about this rant but I'm pissed off. Today in assembly we had a Vicar come in and talk to us about a Just War, he didnt give his opinion he just asked us. Do we agree in a Just War? Would you fight in a war that you thought was just? etc etc. Anyway at the end of it all he asked who thought the war against Iraq should be fought. The previous day I had said to my Dad that I thought the majority of the Public were intelligent people, now I hoped my opinion would be proved. So I was hoping atleast 60% of people would agree with the war, how many agreed with it about 10 of us! out of a year group of 300. Anyway talking to my friend afterwards, who also disagreed with the war, they seem to have mis-understood the whole reason for the war. Isn't it to get rid of Saddam, a man who has killed 10,000 of people not just through chemical weapons. And then they asked why attack Iraq when they hav'nt done anything. So then I said well he has, he's dropped chemical weapons, and runs a dictatorship where anyone who speaks out against his regime gets killed. So they then said why should we attack him for stuff he did 10 years ago! Man I just can't understand that, we can't attack him for stuff he hasn't done (that i agree with) but they also seem to think we can't attack him for stuff he has done! Anyway a few other people I've talked to who agree with me made some other interesting points Many people have asked why did we let Hitler and the Nazi's get into the position of power they did when we knew what they were doing in Germany (killing people who spoke out against them etc) and now when the same thing is happening in a different country we should give them a chance? Second point was made that It's about taking down Saddam and Liberating Iraq, its got nothing to do with attacking Iraq's population, they are already living in fear so a war can only give the populus hope. However much I joke about your President, I think he as the Iraq issue right. Although some of the British public disagree with the war on the single reason that they don't want to follow the Americans. (that 'we are not your bitch' comment was just a joke ) Anyway glad I've got that off my chest. Please say that the American public support this war? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rogue15 Posted January 30, 2003 Share Posted January 30, 2003 I support it. Some people think they'll call up the draft though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cmdr. Cracken Posted January 30, 2003 Share Posted January 30, 2003 I support a war against iraq. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gold leader Posted January 30, 2003 Share Posted January 30, 2003 Under condition the UN council agrees, I support. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kylilin Posted January 30, 2003 Share Posted January 30, 2003 I support a war, as long as the U.N. goes along with it. Having the support of the rest of the world makes it easier for us to go to war. Besides, Saddam has been a thorn in our side for long enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tierce Posted January 31, 2003 Share Posted January 31, 2003 I support if the UN goes into it, and if substantial, solid, well based proof is shown to the public. Oh...and We can't attack Iraq for things that they did in the past...because basically the U.S. knew that they were going on, but we happened to turn a blind eye. In fact, it is our fault that Saddam is even in power...we knew that he was a bad ass from the beginning...but money speaks louder than actions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taarkin Posted January 31, 2003 Share Posted January 31, 2003 Our inaction in the past (which happened, in part, because we considered the feelings of the international community) isn't a reason to NOT kill him, it's a reason TO kill him. " solid, well based proof " Solid, well based proof Also, you want the backing of an organization that has Libya, Syria, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, and Sierra Leonne( Oh no, axis of evil "s" alliteration!) on its human rights commission, and has Iraq chairing the commission on disarmament? And why is Mr. "Let's act unilateraly in the Ivory Coast even though they're not a threat to anyone but themselves without consulting the UN at all and f*** it up so bad that they beg the US for help" France so uppity over the US, who HAS been dealing with the UN Re: Iraq for YEARS? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nute Gunray Posted January 31, 2003 Share Posted January 31, 2003 America's righteous fist needs to stab Iraq in the face at all costs. TOUCHDOWN CORPORATE OIL MACHINE. meh, Iraq's had it coming for 12 years. Took long enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gold leader Posted January 31, 2003 Share Posted January 31, 2003 I have to admit that there is at least one positive side to this war threat: it makes a vacation in the US a lot cheaper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nute Gunray Posted January 31, 2003 Share Posted January 31, 2003 gas went up ten cents in two days. it's on now! raise my gas prices will they! We'll show them! It would be nice if war could be avoided, but I doubt that Saddam is such a nice guy as to just say "ok, i give up now." I hope Iraq doesn't do anything stupid like use chemical weapons that causes us to be forced to use weapons of curious destructive power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keyan Farlander Posted January 31, 2003 Share Posted January 31, 2003 Let me tell you what I hope. Now, it's clear we don't want war. War sucks. Killing sucks. It's not something we want to face. What I hope is that we don't get into a wishful thinking/willful denial sort of thing and don't go to war simply because of that. The public is already largly guilty of this. Sometimes you HAVE to fight. Sometimes you have to, or you'll have more killing on your hands than you know what to do with. I'm not sure a lot of people understand that. There is such a thing a just war. Is this one? Perhaps. But lets not be so foolish as to think if we decide not to go to war, everything will be right with the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edlib Posted January 31, 2003 Share Posted January 31, 2003 Originally posted by Nute Gunray I hope Iraq doesn't do anything stupid like use chemical weapons that causes us to be forced to use weapons of curious destructive power. I've been worried about this lately. We know they possess weapons of mass destruction. We cannot find said weapons. We are defied at every attempt to locate these weapons. Every example of such defiance leads the U.S. into a more war-like stance. Knowing that anything other than complete co-operation fron the Iraqis at this point will only piss off an adminstration completely tooled-up and ready for war, they continue to play games and thumb thier collective noses at us, so to speak. Now this leads to a couple of conclusions in my mind: 1) The Iraqis officals are totally arrogant and idiotic and truly believe that this "playing dumb" act will really work again this time, that the UN and the Bush administration will be appeased somehow and back off, letting them keep thier precious toys. Or, to me a possibility far more frightening: 2) They know all these actions are leading inevitably to war,.. and they really want us to attack. And if they want us to attack, then it must mean they think they can defeat us somehow, or at least do enough of a number on our armed forces to leave us with a pretty bloody nose before we overwhelm them, perhaps as a type of revenge for the humiliation of the first gulf war. The only way possible for Iraqi government to even have the slightest glimmer of hope in making a dent in the American armor at this point is to unleash the full extent of thier stockpile. Since they have shown no concern for thier own citizens and absolutely no love for any of their neighbors, there's really no reason for them not to. Saddam must know that if the US moves on him this time that it's with the full intention of removing him from power at the very least, and his death is highly probable, so what does he really have to lose? In fact, it seems to me, knowing what we know about his personality, that he would relish the idea of going down in history as the greatest war criminal since Hitler. It makes me uncomfortable to think that Saddam may be trying to direct events in this way, but while I do believe he is a madman, I don't really believe he's stupid. At least not this stupid. I hope I'm wrong, but he sure seems to be really good at pushing all the right buttons on George W. Bush. The idea of an Iraqi dictator playing our Commander in Chief like a violin scares the hell out of me. The other thing he might be counting on is that an American attack on Iraq may be a catalyst for the rest of the ultra-conservative militant Muslim extremist groups out there. We are already unpopular with such types, but he may be counting on an American move on a Muslim nation this way could be just the thing to create an all out holy war. I don't believe that our side of the story is getting much press coverage in that part of the world, and we are inevitably going to be portrayed at American oppressors come to enslave, murder, and crush the Muslim way of life. Not that I believe he really believes such things, but it wouldn't stop him from using it to his advantage. Painting us as the agressors to people already primed to hear such propaganda and retoric could cause Middle-East foriegn policy problems the likes we have never imagined. Especially if Iraq lashes out and targets thier nieghbors with their WMDs when we start to move in. You know who'll ultimately get blamed for that, don't you? Scary possibilites. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jem Posted January 31, 2003 Share Posted January 31, 2003 What ever happened to Bin Laden ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admiral Odin Posted January 31, 2003 Share Posted January 31, 2003 Bin Laden is either dead or in hidding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tierce Posted January 31, 2003 Share Posted January 31, 2003 heh IMO...I think the reason why the Iraqi admin. is acting so cool about this whole war business is because of mass propaganda...pretty much all of the UN members are demoralized through anti-"so and so" propaganda...I believe that if war was to begin, that it would increase terrorism And to tell you the truth i rather have an enemy that i know is sitting in his fat ass chair, dictating his bs to a dying country, rather than four guys with C4 strapped onto their chests walking into a major public area. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander 598 Posted February 1, 2003 Share Posted February 1, 2003 Saddam's been giving the UN a litteral runaround for a decade now. Example: Sometime back in the 90s after the Gulf War, inspectors were kept waiting at the gait to a site while Iraqi trucks were loaded and left out the back. Sattelites caught it. What was in those trucks is probably a mystery... Oh yeah, I support a war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nute Gunray Posted February 1, 2003 Share Posted February 1, 2003 For all those out there that think this is about oil, I would like to point out the fact that France and Russia are the two biggest importers of Iraqi oil. how curious. If anyone read William Safire's editorial from today (read the paper you fools!), I agree with everything he said in that. I'm not really sure what France is thinking. I don't think they can come out of this looking good. I hope above all hopes that two weeks after the war starts, Saddam's dead, a throng of Iraqis cheer American and British tanks entering Baghdad, 50,000 liters of chemical weapons are captured, and a truckload of nuclear material from France are in our possession. I am firmly behind the idea that the French don't want us in Iraq because there's something there that's really going to make France look bad. Really bad. You can think that France is acting in the idea of peace or whatever, but remember that France is looking out for France before anyone else. I'm also curious how this will effect the European Union. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jem Posted February 1, 2003 Share Posted February 1, 2003 Today we have entered the Year of the Goat. the Year of the Goat, part of a 12-year cycle named after the animals -- rat, ox, tiger, rabbit, dragon, snake, horse, goat, monkey, rooster, dog and pig -- legend says answered Buddha's call before he achieved Nirvana. Saddam Hussein, born in the Year of the Ox which clashes with the goat in the animal cycle, will be humiliated as he was during the Gulf War in 1991, exactly 12 years ago. 12 years ago was also the Year of the Goat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadPilot Posted February 12, 2003 Share Posted February 12, 2003 Overall, I do feel war is necessary, but have strong reservations about the consequenses. I think both Europe and the US have a moral obligation to tidy up the mess they've made in the middle east over the years. I don't have a problem with the reasons for going to war, but with the way the war will be fought. I do strongly believe that Saddam should be removed, but I can't see how blitzing Iraq is a way to achieve it. I'm sure I can't be the only one who thinks 3000 bombs is a bit excessive. Bombing on this scale will almost certainly lead to a humanitarian disaster, but when weighed against Saddam's regime, it's difficult to work out which is the lesser of two evils. It seems the second UN resolution is more of a political issue than a genuine concern for resolving the problem. Some have already mentioned it as a premis for war, but I believe it isn't necessary if the majority of UN members support the war while a small number disagree because of their national interests. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edlib Posted February 13, 2003 Share Posted February 13, 2003 Originally posted by MadPilot I'm sure I can't be the only one who thinks 3000 bombs is a bit excessive. Bombing on this scale will almost certainly lead to a humanitarian disaster... You mean a policy of: "We will force you to end your cruel regime of human rights vilolations! Even if we have to reduce your populated areas to scorched earth and smoking rubble, and slaughter thousands of innocent civilians in the process!" Yeh, I could see how that just might be a bit of a moral dillemma. The bombs are supposed to "soften-up" any resistance. I've no doubt they'll be effective. Hmmmm... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nute Gunray Posted February 13, 2003 Share Posted February 13, 2003 3000 bombs is an exceedingly small number of bombs. Let's assume the average bomb dropped and the average guided missile and the average cruise missile all have 1000 pound warheads. that means 3,000,000 pounds of ordinance lands on Iraq, or 1500 tons. In Desert Storm, 80,000 tons of ordinance was used against Iraq. It would be absolutely impossible to fight basically the same war with less than 2% of the weaponry than was used the first time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edlib Posted February 13, 2003 Share Posted February 13, 2003 Yes, but I believe the '3000 bombs' number is what is to be dropped on the first night alone. I believe the statistic I read said that this would be more than 10 times the amount dropped in the first 48 hours of the first Gulf war. It's a form of shock tactic. I'm not sure I wholly approve. Not that my opinion ever mattered anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nute Gunray Posted February 13, 2003 Share Posted February 13, 2003 the best way to win is to shatter the will of the enemy. you have to kill less of them that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edlib Posted February 13, 2003 Share Posted February 13, 2003 It's just feels too uncomfortably close to a "Blitzkrieg" for my tastes. But I guess if it works... and history has shown it to be an effective tactic. Whatever. If it keeps our troops safer than other alternatives then so be it. I know it's gonna happen,.. let's get it over with quick and get all our kids back home. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taarkin Posted February 16, 2003 Share Posted February 16, 2003 I wonder if he's ridiculously ignorant of the meaning of that phrase or if he's really an eval Vast Right Wing Conspiracy saboteur trying to make the marchers look even stupider. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.