Dagobahn Eagle Posted March 17, 2003 Share Posted March 17, 2003 Tonight at 19:00 Bush is to address the nation with his final decision of war in Iraq. Just to have a final vote here: How many people still support the war? I don't. Just a side note: The war in Iraq is estimated to kill up to 2,000,000 people. To save what, 3000 civilians in the USA from an attack like 9/11? 200,000,000 dead to save 3000? "Yeah, but what about an attack like a nuke delivered in a sailboat or something, that could kill 1,000,000?" Well, the USA got a slight advance warning before 9/11; don't you think they would get some kind of warning like increased chatter if someone was planning to kill 1,000,000? Second: Why doesn't Bush address the problems already existing in the States? Personally, I think it's all about hate and fear. And don't call me ignorant, because my grandparents, who experienced WW2, are also against the war. Oh, and they know so much more about war than Bush. If Saddam starts the war, we'll follow up and take him out. But a pre-emptive attack is not right. It's not about cowardness more than it was cowardness that kept the USA from saving China from communism. Oh, and if you are such a democracy, why do you refuse to listen to the other side? Why do you try to ridicule those who oppose you as much as possible? Isn't democracy all about listening to both sides? I thought so. Then listen to both sides. Europe doesn't ridicule USA nearly as much as USA ridicules Europe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Havoc Stryphe Posted March 17, 2003 Share Posted March 17, 2003 Whoa, whoa... Settle down, Eagle. You're already in a heated debate and no one has even posted, much less said anything contradictory. Are you are in pre-emptive debating mode, or what? Yes, it is unfortunate it has come to this, and yes, a lot of people are going to die, but remember, there a lot of soldiers who have no say in the matter and are going to fight in this war because their governments are telling them to. It's these people who need our support! We can not stand divided here at home, if our men and women on the front line are going to feel any sort of hope and support. It is for their sake we must look past what our governments are doing, for the moment, and come togethor as a nation. War is inevitable now, that is plain to see. We must first support our troops, and afterwards deal with our government officials for putting us in this situation. Whatever we do, we must not turn our backs on our soldiers who will give their lives in the name of our country. They did not make the decisions that got us here, and are therefor as much victems of Bush's decisions as we are. Please, please, please remember people, what it was like for the soldiers and troops of Vietnam, returning home to be spit on and ridiculed and abandoned, all because the people were upset with the government and its decisions. Let's not repeat that horrible chapter of our history. We must come togethor for our troops' sakes, and then afterwards hold this government responsible for it's actions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazy_dog no.3 Posted March 17, 2003 Share Posted March 17, 2003 I heard some stories about Hans Blix getting killed. Is it true? Havoc- Why the hell did the Vietnam war start anyway? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Breton Posted March 17, 2003 Share Posted March 17, 2003 To be honest, I will get mighty pissed if he declares war. The Security Council has said it's opinion, and to go against it is a crime in itself. Bush's huge problem is that Iraq is disarming, wich means that he doesn't have any real argument to attack them. Another thing I wonder is when the times Iraq do cooperate, USA calls it decievement and trickery. So basically, if they refuse to cooperate, they are evil bastards who are defying UN. But if they do cooperate, they are evil bastards who decieves the rest of the world. US doesn't give Saddam much chance, do they? BTW, a lot of you war-supporters are saying that part of the reason of war is to "free" the people of Iraq. Then I ask you: Do you actually belive the Iraqian people wants you to bomb them? "Hey Bush, we don't like our leader, can you bomb our houses and kill our families please?" Kind of reminds me of the Vietnam case: US goverment: "We shall save you from the communist tyranny!" Vietnamese people: "No thanks, we like it like it is." US goverment: "You do want us to save you!" Vietnamese people: "As we said, no...* US gov boints big gun at VP* ok, perhaps we want you to after all... BTW, when's Bush's adressing in GMT? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Havoc Stryphe Posted March 17, 2003 Share Posted March 17, 2003 Originally posted by Crazy_dog no.3 Havoc- Why the hell did the Vietnam war start anyway? Because Vietnam was in threat of becoming a communist nation, and America's political stance was it hated everything communism stood for, so to protect the world from falling, via "the domino effect", into communism America decided to send troops to help those in Vietnam who wanted "democracy" and "freedom" and fight against the communistic Vietcong. We thought it was in the best interest of the world to protect democracy in every nation so much so that we declared war in a country on the other side of the world, and yet stood nothing to gain by winning the war, other than another democratic nation, but we stood to lose nothing, immediately and perhaps ever, if we abstained from getting involved. Yet we got involved and lost millions of dollars in military expenses and thousands of american lives and we lost the war when it was all said and done. The American People were sick of war, WW2, Korea, etc. they didn't think we belonged there and that it had nothing to do with us. American citizens could only see their sons and grandsons being killed the death toll rise and wonder why we ever got involved. Protests were staged throughout the entire war, and eventually America's hatred for the war fell onto the soldiers who faught in Vietnam. Here were guys who risked their lives, lived through hell, and many were wounded because their nation sent them and they did their duty and the people detested them and turned their back on them. It was a dark chapter in American History, and it seems we are destined to repeat it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Homer Posted March 17, 2003 Share Posted March 17, 2003 Personally, I believe that Bush has been rattling sabres to get Saddam to comply, it seems to be the only way for him to actually start doing anything...we may not actually going to war right now, but there will still be the threat...Saddam will not do anything if he isn't under the gun to do it. He has 12 years to disarm & destroy his chemical weapons, he's just now starting to do it...wonder why? p.s. I would like to state that I do not want us to go to war. edit: Also, Havoc, we never actually declared war in Vietnam...there was a war, but Congress never declared it, at least to my knowledge Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Havoc Stryphe Posted March 17, 2003 Share Posted March 17, 2003 Originally posted by Darth Homer edit: Also, Havoc, we never actually declared war in Vietnam...there was a war, but Congress never declared it, at least to my knowledge It was in Korea that America never declared war, that it why it is referred to as the "Korean Conflict", it was a "policing action" not a war. Similar to Kosovo. I was always under the impression that Vietnam was a declared war, but maybe I'm mistaken... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billy Shears Posted March 17, 2003 Share Posted March 17, 2003 I oppose the war, as the sensible, Beatle-loving hippy I am. I've head from a bunch of different sources that there's a good chance it may start tomorrow..... Oh, and I believe it's not about WMD, terrorists, or what-not---he tried to kill Bush's daddy!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clefo Posted March 17, 2003 Share Posted March 17, 2003 Meh, I'm not gonna pay attention, I'll be playing video games or doing homework at that time tonight. I always knew there was gonna be war, it was never "last resort" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dagobahn Eagle Posted March 17, 2003 Author Share Posted March 17, 2003 It's about fear and hate. That's my theory. Let me restate my example: Let's say Germany was still under Nazi control. Let's say that Hitler was building WOMDs and tried to assasinate, say, Tony Blair (I like Schrøder better than Blair, but I can't use him in this example for obvious reasons ). I would be terrified first of all ("my God, they're going to invade us again"), and I'd want to invade them, sure. And yes, I'd want to cry bloody murder at whoever disagreed. But that would be my hate talking, and my fear, not my common sense, which would say I was making the wrong decision. See, I've heard hate and fear. I've heard it in my grandparents when they talk about the war. And there are striking similarities to my grandparents' hate against the nazis and may pro-war activists' hate against Iraq. Does that necessarily make you wrong? Of course not. But I believe it makes you less prone to listen to the other side (as when you call the France cowards). The French has Napoleon, Joan of Arc, and the French Revolution where a fortified prison with trained, armed, guards was overrun by angry French peasants "armed" with gardening tools (no sweat). And as for France surrendering: Most of the time when France has surrendered, it's been heavily outnumbered. Most of their surrenders make sense. Look at WWII. Everyone else surrendered too, but for some reason the French were the ones to be labeled as cowards. It's easy for Americans to label surrendering countries as cowards; as far as I know, you've never faced the decision yourself. However, you pulled out of several countries, like Viet Nam. Do anyone call you cowards for that? Not what I know. And the French care about the rest of the world. After all, the French saved you during the American Revolution (they even built the statue of Liberty, believe it or not;)). And, if memory serves, they fought in Afghanistan (which, by the way, the Germans also did). Where does this lead us? To this: France is not cowardly, it's just that they don't run blindly into a war they have no faith in. And about the soldiers: No, of course no one should hate US marines for the Iraqi war. They're just following orders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Homer Posted March 17, 2003 Share Posted March 17, 2003 Originally posted by Havoc Stryphe It was in Korea that America never declared war, that it why it is referred to as the "Korean Conflict", it was a "policing action" not a war. Similar to Kosovo. I was always under the impression that Vietnam was a declared war, but maybe I'm mistaken... Looks, like I was correct on this one... Linkage 3rd question down Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke Skywalker Posted March 17, 2003 Share Posted March 17, 2003 I'm 100% with you Eagle. Its about fear. It's very similiar to the Third Reich Propaganda techniques in World War Two. I'm very busy at the moment but when I get back home I'll follow up with some arguements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ckcsaber Posted March 17, 2003 Share Posted March 17, 2003 Just to have a final vote here: How many people still support the war? 1.Yes, I support the US government's decision to go to war. Second: Why doesn't Bush address the problems already existing in the States? 2. Its like cleaning the exterior of your car when you know its going to get dirty in an hour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zygomaticus Posted March 17, 2003 Share Posted March 17, 2003 I heard that he was going to give Saddam the option of stepping down as leader of Iraq or he'd have to go to war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazy_dog no.3 Posted March 17, 2003 Share Posted March 17, 2003 Originally posted by Havoc Stryphe Because Vietnam was in threat of becoming a communist nation, and America's political stance was it hated everything communism stood for, so to protect the world from falling, via "the domino effect", into communism America decided to send troops to help those in Vietnam who wanted "democracy" and "freedom" and fight against the communistic Vietcong. We thought it was in the best interest of the world to protect democracy in every nation so much so that we declared war in a country on the other side of the world, and yet stood nothing to gain by winning the war, other than another democratic nation, but we stood to lose nothing, immediately and perhaps ever, if we abstained from getting involved. Yet we got involved and lost millions of dollars in military expenses and thousands of american lives and we lost the war when it was all said and done. The American People were sick of war, WW2, Korea, etc. they didn't think we belonged there and that it had nothing to do with us. American citizens could only see their sons and grandsons being killed the death toll rise and wonder why we ever got involved. Protests were staged throughout the entire war, and eventually America's hatred for the war fell onto the soldiers who faught in Vietnam. Here were guys who risked their lives, lived through hell, and many were wounded because their nation sent them and they did their duty and the people detested them and turned their back on them. It was a dark chapter in American History, and it seems we are destined to repeat it... Hah! I wasn't paying attention in history and u did my homework for me! Hah! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Young David Posted March 17, 2003 Share Posted March 17, 2003 It's gonna be broadcasted here at 2 am ... maybe I'll watch it ... It's 3 hours from now, but there's enough homework to fill my time... And please ... don't exept me to join your debates ... I won't join your war either oh and Havoc ... thanx, I never understood the purpose of that war ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admiral Odin Posted March 17, 2003 Share Posted March 17, 2003 Vietnam: Was lost because the government didn't allow the military to actually fight. They tied their hands. It was a tragic event in history. On thing to think about. When the US handed over the War to South Vietnam, it took a couple years for that country to fall. It wasn't immediate. My final and last thoughts for I'm tired of these pointless debates. Bush tonight will give Saddam an Ultimatum. Shortly thereafter a war will begin. A war in which under 1341 we have every right to wage. There will be civilian causulties however they will be relativly few. Nothing like Vietnam. The United States doesn't target civilians nor do we want to kill them. Saddam will try to use them as human shields and their deaths will be on his head. I have listened to others saying Saddam should be given more time. I believe 12 years is more than enough. He has failed to disarm, the UN has failed to enforce the resolutions. So now the US and her allies will do it for them. The sooner this is dealt with the better. Hopefully after Iraq the situation in North Korea can be resolved. About democracy, we have listened to the other side and rejected what they have said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Artoo Posted March 17, 2003 Share Posted March 17, 2003 I don't even have to post anything relating to facts in this thread, all I've got to say is, IT'S ABOUT TIME. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tie Guy Posted March 17, 2003 Share Posted March 17, 2003 First of all, i want to know who said this war would kill 2 million people? And second of all, what was he trippin' on? We certainly aren't going to lose that many, we didn't lose 10% of that in all of WWI, and i doubt Iraq even has that many soldiers. Some civilians will be killed on accident by us, more probably killed Saddam himself, but 2 million?!? Heck no. Maybe absolute worst case with nukes and what not, but that's not going to happen. Oh, but i heard a report the other day that says 6000 children are killed in Iraq every month because of the UN's policies and inaction. We're saving A LOT more than 3000 people here. Qui-Gon, why is going against the Security Council a crime? they themselves declared "serious consequences" for Iraq if they don't fully comply. Well they haven't, we still haven't seen everything or interviewed all those we need to. Iraq has made a few minor concessions, and now everyone saying he is disarming. What the heck? You think that destroying a few missle at the rate of one a day is disarming? He could just detonate them in the desert all at once, causing no harm and no time, but he doesn't. Nope, he takes weeks to disarm, which buys time while still making everyone think that he is disarming. You really think all Saddam has is a few missles and a drone? No, but those are what we found so he has to destroy them. What about the thousands of other wepaons he used to have that he hasn't accounted for? How about the poison gas and nerve agents? We know he had them and he hasn't proven he doesn't anymore, so where does that leave us? He obviously either still has them or he's hiding the evidence of their destruction (to get us to destroy him or something ). Look 1441 promised "serious consequences", and it was UNANIMOUSLY passed, by France and every other nation. Now, it is clear that he has not fully complied, but when we want to impose the "serious consequences," people oppose us? France and the others are turning their backs on themselves, afraid to carry out the sentence they gave. What message does that send to Iraq, to Saddam? He clearly has them in his pocket, because they are willing to protect Iraq from themselves no matter what. And you know, i doubt it has anything to do with French investment in Iraqi oil refineries or mines. The French are just nice and benevolant people who simply want peace and happiness for everyone worldwide, and at no cost to anyone. The crime here, is NOT stopping this mass murderer. If the UN decides he hasn't killed enough, then that's their perogative. We don't need the UN to attack a threat to us, we only went their to see if we could get our allies on our side and make the whole thing much easier. And i've just about enough of your USA and particurally Bush bashing. At least, that must be what you're doing if you think we are going to bomb Iraqi houses and families, because it certainly doesn't make any sense otherwise. We aren't going to attack civilians. There might be some innocent lives lost, and that's tragic, but it's brought on not by us, it's brought on by Iraq's corrupt and despotic leadership. Oh yeah, and i just want you to tell me that the 6000 or so people who died in Iraq last month because of starvation from Saddam's policies and spending didn't want him removed? You'd rather thousands of people die every month than for the US to "warmonger." Better them than you, i guess, huh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pbguy1211 Posted March 18, 2003 Share Posted March 18, 2003 this may be the shortest war ever.... their troops will retreat faster than they did last time.... and 2 million? 2 million what? ants in the sand? it's not like we ever attack innocent civilians on purpose. that'd be very, VERY bad and would not make us look any better than we already do. damn republicans... And it's at 8 PM! (Eastern ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Young David Posted March 18, 2003 Share Posted March 18, 2003 it's 2 am (Yaaaaaawn) I saw it ... not impressed. It would be fun if Saddam just left Iraq ... how would Bush react Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke Skywalker Posted March 18, 2003 Share Posted March 18, 2003 "Not impressed" is an understatement. I'm gathering my hippy clothes to go protest... there will be mass protests... I can gurantee you that... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tie Guy Posted March 18, 2003 Share Posted March 18, 2003 Originally posted by Luke Skywalker "Not impressed" is an understatement. I'm gathering my hippy clothes to go protest... there will be mass protests... I can gurantee you that... Why? what did he say that would make you protest? Was it us giving Saddam a last chance? Was it our promise to help the Iraqi people? Was it our request to do this peacefully if possible? He didn't say anything offensive, nothing belligerant or warmongering, i just don't get what's the problem. The UN promised consequences, we've given him 14 years and he's done nothing. Now he is receiving his just consequences and it is every bit neccessary and legitimate. We've exhausted every other avenue, and now we've given him one final chance. If he doesn't take it, why shouldn't we go to war to prevent the mass slaughter of Iraqi's and the training of terrorists? I really don't get it. There won't be mass protests, there never have been. A hundred thousand, a hundred million even, is still an incredibly small percentage of the population, not exactly what i'd call "mass." Americans support the war in every poll i've seen. Some disagree, but even more disagree with those who disagree. Why should protests increase now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zygomaticus Posted March 18, 2003 Share Posted March 18, 2003 Some people are so anti-Bush, they don't look at the content of what he says and they judge before they listen. Now I'm not necessarily pointing any fingers...not on this forum atleast...Just thought I ought to say my mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darthfergie Posted March 18, 2003 Share Posted March 18, 2003 People in america will protest anything, even without a reason. Give them a reason and they'll protest louder and with a larger group. I assure you, protests will grow in number, but only from a shrinking pool. As we have commited ourselves to the conflict, then many will see no point in protesting a moot point any longer and throw support behind the war effort. There is no way the US will back out of this now. Not a chance in a million. So why try to halt it all together...it's like standing directly in front of a stampede. But you can help direct the stampede by staying near the sides and help turn and guide the wave. If you want to get run over and say "STOP NOW! IT'S TOTALLY WRONG! BUSH YOU SUCK!" then that's your perogative. If you want to help in guiding the war to its safe end, then make some decent critisisms of the effort instead of challenging the very foundation of the large well built forttress that is the US political policy regarding Iraq. The Democrats attacked Iraq during their tenure and the Republicans have now done it twice in their two Bushes. Democrats and Republicans have handled the situation in the same way. Only some radical nuts *points to various forummites* think this is crazy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.