Forums IMPORTANT: PLEASE READ PhotoReading, Memory Optimizer About the War...

Anyone in United States worried at all about this one? Just some give me some feedback.

I believe the war is justified, and we have to trust that our government is doing what's best for us without demanding that they declassify everything for us. The Vietnam protests were justified b/c the war was so obviously wrong. In this case I think the opponents should concede and become patriotic again.

I think it might be justified, but we wont know unless we give up our views on Bush and the people who work for him. If we look directly at the issues and less at 'the man' we might get our answer. I have yet to decide.

I finally find someone at least willing to give bush a chance to explain his thoughts. We elected him, we owe it to our system to trust in him. We should not simply reject war simply on the grounds that it is war, i firmly believe in the greater good. And before anyone says, "thats because it wont effect you", let me tell them something:

i signed up for the army, they rejected me based on previous health conditions, i believe the war is for our future and for the benefit of the middle east. please take the time to read some thinktank material so we can make a better decision. Thanks

p.s.-astrowill made my day
p.s.s- back to analysis!

War sucks.

I don't want to leave a long post, so here goes.
I agree that we need to get rid of Saddam, he's clearly maligned in intent and has killed many people unjustly. I don't trust Bush; he hasn't justified war, yet. The Bush administration has publically lied, decieved, and misled the American Public, in adiition to not having been actually elected in the first place. There is no real connection between Al'Qaida and Saddam, and Saddam is not a threat to us-- all of Bush's reasons have tried to pull on our heart-strings from 911. Saddam has basically cooperated with the UN efforts for disarmement. Will we have the wherewithall to stay in Iraq and install a democracy? This is no afghanistan, there is no single group of people which are willing to work against Saddam and for democracy; all of the rebel groups want each others demise, and the rise of their own theo-fascist agenda.

As for regime-change, ha! We have invaded 70 countries since world-war II and not once has a democracy resulted from our actions...not once! I suggest everyone here read their history books-- and not the bollocks that High School text-books present.

God I hope they have a good plan. this better not turn out to be another of our installations of a puppet-dictator so that we can extract oil, after all that is what Saddam is. And finally, why does nobody mention that China also opposes the war, all the news-flashes are about Franco-Germanic collusion.

After Iraq, what is next? Iran, they are more of a threat, as is Libya, North Korea, and Saudi Arabia-- if not for the deep connections between the Bush Family and the Royal Saudis. Re-read that last sentence. If Saddam's life is put on the line what makes us doubt that he will resort to any WMD's that he has?

For intriquing historical and current news analysis I recommend actually reading and reflecting on the work of Dave Emory. www.spitfirelist.com
Although one may not agree with all of his ideas, he certainly has mountains of well-referenced research for ones perusal. I recommend taking a look at what he has to say about the Bush family and their agenda.

Take Care,
K. "Master Trickster and Mask-Addict" O.

"The Bush administration has publically lied, decieved, and misled the American Public, in adiition
to not having been actually elected in the first place."

I don't know what specific lies you're talking about, but at least in this country people can publicly reveal such things. The Iriqis hate living under Saddam--a couple dozen tried to surrender to troops today, and we haven't even started attacking yet. As for not having been elected, a final recount was done some time after the inauguration and it was found that Bush had in fact won. Additionally, more than 70% of Americans currently support the war.

"There is no real connection between Al'Qaida and Saddam, and Saddam is not a threat to us"

Simply untrue. First off, this war on terror is not a conventional war--even if there were no connection to Al Qaeda, Saddam is still a terrorist and a war criminal to his own people and the entire world. As for him not being a threat, that is a dangerous idea. Considering that he lies about his arsenal, he's probably up to no good. If you watched Powell's speech to the U.N. a while back, you should know the connection between Al Qaeda and the safe-haven provided to it in Baghdad.

"Saddam has basically cooperated with the UN efforts for disarmement."

In '91 we brought Saddam to his knees and said "OK so you've had enough. Now we'll put the bombing on hold if you'll get rid of this, this, and all this." It was a cease-fire agreement. In '98 Saddam kicked all the inspectors out. That was enough to convince me, but for you I will continue. Upon returning to Iraq, the latest inspectors were played like puppets, being led around to sites that had had 48 hours to clear out. For this purpose Saddam has mobile labs for building chemical and biological weapons. Of significant interest to the inspectors were the Iraqi scientists, who probably know frightening details. It is a fact that anyone who speaks against the Iraqi government will disappear forever. Because of this the U.N. insisted on doing its interviews outside Iraq. How many of those have we had? One. Have we been allowed to access any site any time? Certainly not, and that's a fact.

"Will we have the wherewithall to stay in Iraq and install a democracy? This is no afghanistan, there is no single group of people which are willing to work against Saddam and for democracy; all of the rebel groups want each others demise, and the rise of their own theo-fascist agenda.

"As for regime-change, ha! We have invaded 70 countries since world-war II and not once has a democracy resulted from our actions...not once!"

Afghanistan was full of warring tribes just like Iraq. Come to think of it, Iraq is a much wealthier nation so it will probably be easier to set up a stable government there. Did we invade 70 countries? That's intriguing and I'll have to take your word for it.

"I suggest everyone here read their history books-- and not the bollocks that High School text-books present."

Great point, schools are too strongly tied to politics, especially history.

"...so that we can extract oil, after all that is what Saddam is."

If you think WE'RE greedy, read up on the French and German ties to Iraq.

"And finally, why does nobody mention that China also opposes the war, all the news-flashes are about Franco-Germanic collusion."

Personally, I don't care what Germany thinks because they have no reason to like us. The reason people are mad at France, though, is that they owe us a lot--if it weren't for America, they'd be speaking German. People don't care about China because we haven't been great friends. I can't believe we actually said France was a friend...after all that.

"After Iraq, what is next? Iran, they are more of a threat, as is Libya, North Korea, and Saudi Arabia-- if not for the deep connections between the Bush Family and the Royal Saudis. Re-read that last sentence. If Saddam's life is put on the line what makes us doubt that he will resort to any WMD's that he has?"

Bush's family is in Texas oil. Besides, going to war with a country does not grant us all its resources--that would be conquering. In taking down Iraq we're actually losing some shady ties between Iraqi thugs and Saudi thugs, from whom we get our oil. Bush is willing to make that sacrifice; France and Germany are not.

I'm going to go Ockham's Razor on this and say if Hussein disarmed, we wouldn't be where we are now. Whether or not the war is justified is irrelevant, whether or not Bush is right or wrong is irrelevant. If the leader of a country threatens war unless you stop violating a resolution banning biochemical weapons, it doesn't matter if he's right or wrong; just stop.

We're in this situation, no matter how you slice it, because:
1) Bush made an ultimatum
2) Hussein opted not to disarm

I also don't buy the argument that Hussein *has* disarmed. Everything I've read on it says, "We are stalling."

In any case, neither side has convinced me on the subject of the war. Somebody asked this in another messageboard, so pardon me if I just copy/paste my original response:

"I'm not really pro-war or anti-war; I don't think either side has made a very good argument either way.

1) "No more blood for oil!" - This is the most simplistic strawman argument I have ever seen. Seriously.
2) "Regime change." - Stupidest request ever made by one state TO ANOTHER.
3) I get the whole weapons of mass destruction argument, and I think it's an excellent argument for wanting to go to war, I just think that it's unwise to start rushing into a country which we're pretty sure has BIOCHEMICAL WEAPONS. Because guess what Sadam's gonna do with all the anthrax he doesn't have? Oh.
4) "Bush should be focusing on DOMESTIC problems, not with the MIDDLE EAST!" - Right. Like how he was focusing on education before 9-11. In response to terrorist attacks or rising turmoil in the middle east, the most appropriate move is to remove ourselves from international politics, and possibly cut back on our defense program. I hate people. Why shouldn't he focus on both?
5) "War will help the economy." - This is the stupidest thing I've ever heard."

Those are my thoughts in a nutshell.

-Ramon http://razor.ramon.com

Im not sure about the whole Sadaam linked to Al'Quiada thing. There are Al'Quiada cells all over the world (germany, Britain, THE UNITED STATES) and ONE in Iraq. He might be linked to the cell in Iraq, but I dont know. I think are just using the fact that it is there as proof, where we might have none. Since september 11, 2001 if anybody is said to be linked to terrorism they are immediatly the biggest threat and needs to be shot.

What ever happened about North Korea and Iran? All this time we have be spending with Iraq, they have been building up their munitions pile, they know they are next AND we do have enough troops to put up three fronts. I think if we are going to war, we should take out Iran and North Korea before we totally screw up our chances of 'winning' against them.

and, BTW, I am against the war

We have to go one country at a time. What I think will happen is that we'll do our thing in Iraq and then Bush will lose the election to a guy who will forget the whole war on terror. I'd rather be led by a cowboy who sticks to his guns and does what's best for Americans than by a sissy who is governed by national opinion polls--not to name names, but that's the kind of person to whom Bush would lose the election. And the problem with following the polls is that they're too simplistic--people may not LIKE something, but the president has much more information than the average idiot. It's just like making a child drink those awful-tasting medicines. In the end they're better off.