or Connect
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › The TCS War Poll
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The TCS War Poll - Page 5

post #121 of 137
Originally Posted by HopeHacker
This is a lot different than Japan. I believe we were attacked by Japan, in Pearl Harbour. We were NOT attacked by Iraq. Just because they're a Middle Eastern Country, and primarily Muslim, doesn't mean we should go in there and take over the country. It was time a LOOONG time ago, for us to get out of Iraq, like maybe the beginning, maybe???

I don't follow the Liberal agenda blindly. I know it was pure stupidity when Moore put in his movie that life was bliss in Iraq before we INVADED. I know life was hell for those people, especially the women, but to be honest, I don't think it's a heck of a lot better for them, noq. Maybe some day, but I doubt it, because they'll still be Muslim, which really isn't a good religion for women. However, it is NOT our business, it never was. Instead of Bush wasting the taxpayers money on REVENGE, he should be going after bin Laden, full force. The thing is, he's not really intersted in getting bin Laden or any of his group, because it won't put money in his pocket, and because Bush didn't have an agenda against bin Laden before he even became President. I don't think Bush is a joke, I think he's an evil War monger. He and his Administration have taken away a lot of our freedoms already and they'd like to keep on doing it, until he became KING DUBYA.

God knows I don't want Hilary running for President in 2008, either. She'd lose it for sure, and Dubya's brother would somehow steal his way into the Presiency.
Yeah I don't want Hil either, I think there is this view that all "libbies' are dying to get her in there, but I know it wouldn't work, plus I am just ready to move on from the Clinton's they were of their era, but just like I think Bush having all these Reagan/Bush sr guys around who were cold war and old school (thus so much as ignored bin Laden at first) I think we need to move on to post 90's life in America.

Right and I don't blindly follow any doctrine. I have been very open to some republicans. I love Michael Moore but I agree, the scene of Iraq was pushing it. I listen to Air America but don't bow to it, in fact I haven't listened lately cause I have the novel "Vanity Faire" on tape and listen on my way in to work! Love it!
post #122 of 137
Wow, miss a week and you miss a lot!

To the original question: Yes, I supported the war when we went in, because the facts *at the time* seemed good (hindsight is always 20/20, so I won't comment on that. It's been covered here), and it was beyond obvious that the UN wasn't going to ever do squat about Saddam (pretty clear why certain members of the the Security Council was so against it as the Oil for Food scandal has played out...). At this point, it doesn't even matter the why's and how's of the beginning. We're there, we need to finish the job. We ARE training the Iraqi's to be their own security forces, in case you missed that bit of news. And also in case you missed it, the insurgents/terrorists are generally targeting their own people now and not our troops (with obvious exceptions).

For those who want to pull out now, either you don't know or don't care what the ramifications of such actions would be. You think it's bad there now? If we pull out now the suicide bombers will multiply exponentially and take over and Saddam could look like Ghandi comparatively. It would be a bloodbath that would make D-Day look civilized. And if you think the US looks bad now, we would be wholly blamed for that.

It's also very obvious who here has any concept of military history and who has none. Where do you think the bases in Germany came from? We established those following our victory in WWII. Guess what? We're still there, now with their blessing but still...we're still there. We're still in Japan and Korea too. Do you really think there were no casualties in Germany following the German surrender? If you do, you're wrong. There were, a lot of them and many of them by people who still supported the fallen regime (sound familiar?). The May 1, 2003 date is obviously also misunderstood. That meant the end of two organized and (basically) civilized military forces going head to head. When was the last time you heard of our troops going up against Saddam's Iraqi Army?
post #123 of 137
Iraq and Japan are very, very different.

I have studied Japanese history and even did a report about post WWII occupied Japan. I'm far less knowledgable of Iraq, but I know enough to say that the situations are completely different, and I'm not just talking about 9/11 vs. Pearl Harbor.
post #124 of 137
Yeah I think any comparisons of Japan/Europe and Iraq are worthless.

And Heidi, now that we are there we can't leave. Maybe the only way to make this work is to actually appeal to people's base drives, you know get them with greed. Get more the Iraqi's financially interested in the success of the country, give them property, just give it away. Then maybe it will spill into the insurgents. Give them franchises of American companies. I mean I am just thinking out loud here, but we are so doomed over there what else can we do?
post #125 of 137
Originally Posted by eatrawfish
Iraq and Japan are very, very different.

I have studied Japanese history and even did a report about post WWII occupied Japan. I'm far less knowledgable of Iraq, but I know enough to say that the situations are completely different, and I'm not just talking about 9/11 vs. Pearl Harbor.
Well, one thing we do know, and that it was not Iraq that attacked on 9/11. It was not Iraq that attacked London, either. I say if they are going to go after the terrorists, they should go after the terrorists.

I do agree with Heidi, that now that we are there in Iraq, we MUST finish the job, but we need to hurry up and finish it, and then if there still is any interest in going after the Terrorists, we should send our troups after bin Laden. Being the SuperPower that we are, we really should be able to capture bin Laden and then the rest of his Nomadic crew.
post #126 of 137
You're all right that comparisons between any two conflicts/wars are practically meaningless because every situation is different. The point that I was trying to make was that historically there has ALWAYS been a period of occupation to build back up what was destroyed in the war. We did it with WWII and Korea, and we're doing it here. It comes with the territory.
post #127 of 137
Who says we are not looking for Osama? Have you ever been to Afghanistan?
Do you know what it is like? The country is huge and riddles with hundred of miles of caves. It is not the most simple thing in the world to find him and in the caves in the mountains. Come on. It is not like finding Sadaam hiding in a hole. And we have captured and killed quite a few high ranking Al Queida
people from what I have heard.
And I like Rush Limbaugh. Very intelligent man He tells it like it is.
post #128 of 137
Originally Posted by ckblv
Do you honestly feel we should just pull out right NOW and come home?
We occupied Japan for years and there were NO hostilities after 60 years ago TODAY, as a matter of fact.
You've compared the occupation of Japan and Iraq several times, but even I can see the differences. Japan did not fight a guerilla war against us and was not in danger of falling into a civil war with several factions.

Please don't make this very poor comparison again.
post #129 of 137
Originally Posted by KTLynn
Quote by katie=^..^=: "The lesson of WWII to Europe and Japan is that war is not an effective way to bring about change..."

The lesson, specifically to Germany, Italy and Japan, was that the free world was not going to lie down while fascists tried to overrun democracies.

Actually Europe and Japan both take the attitude now that not that much is worth sending their men and women to die for. They work much much harder to avoid war than they did before WWII. France, and Germany wanted to wait for the UN inspectors to complete their work, isn't that right? They see our eagernes to fight as hot-dogging it and as arrogant.

Quote by katie=^..^=; "The lesson of WWII to Americans seems to be that it was a glorious time, our greatest moment, and that we want to relive it over and over again. I guess we will be stuck trying to "save" people over and over until we realize that it doesn't work."

Really? Trying to save people doesn't work? You might want to talk to the French about that - the US liberated them from the Nazis as well as every other European country being invaded by Germany. We, and the Allies, smashed the Nazis , saving Germany from a brutal, dictatorial regime, and then helped rebuild the very country that was seeking European domination. Since, WWII, with American assistance, Japan has become an economic superpower and a strong ally to the US. Trying to save people doesn't work? Tell that to the thousands of men, women and children liberated from the unspeakable horror of the Nazi concentration camps.

Back to WWII and trying to save people? I think an argument might be made that Hitler was already nearly exhausted trying to fight the British and the Russians after hard fights in Europe, but even so we were the heros -- and that's my argument -- we long to relive that moment.

A "glorious time"? Hardly. Americans sacrificed - even some foods were rationed. Certain materials became unavailable as they were diverted to the war effort. Americans were not ready for this large scale war, but they worked overtime to ensure that once they were committed to fighting fascism they would indeed be ready. Woman stepped into industrial jobs vacated by the men who were serving, in factories that were converted to manufacturing armaments for the troops. Young men *enlisted* because of the strength of their conviction that they were battling an evil that left unchecked, would take over the world. These responses to going to war is what could be considered glorious.

More of the above. We rightfully loved ourselves and what we achieved. We want to feel that way again.

Was it our "greatest moment"? In a country with many great moments, it was unquestionably one of them. I don't know how much more reason is needed to go to war if not to fight for your freedom, so hard won to begin with. Should we not have stood with our allies to help them remain free as well? Would it have been preferable to allow Hitler to overrun Europe, Asia, and eventually the US?


People who lived through that time are more than justified in being proud of themselves. They pulled together, endured hardships at home, and sent their sons to war, MANY of whom never returned. Looking back at those historic years, we too, should be grateful to them.
I'm not saying anything any different. I'm only saying that was then. This is now. They don't compare. "Winning" that kind of war is over forever. Not that Iraq IS that kind of war. We are fighting a war of aggression, not defense, remember.
post #130 of 137
Wow, so many replies. Did not do any "quotes." Let me just reply to some earlier posts.

1) WMD
It is true that the fact that no WMD has been found does not mean that there are no WMD hidden, even if the US military inspectors doubt it.

But the comment on an earlier post on Saddam's admission is a bit off or rather does not tell the whole picture. The WMD rationale for war is not whether did Iraq EVER had WMD in its history but whether were they destroyed following the conditions imposed at the end of Gulf War I. Saddam admits to having these WMD, specifically the 3.9 tons VX in 1996 cannot remember whether the other figures came from that same admission. But following the 1998 bombings, WMD sites were destroyed. The sites were rebuilt and the presumption was that Iraq did carry on production.

So the point is not whether did Iraq ever had WMD in its past because it did have them. The question is whether did Saddam have them at the time of invasion.

One other point. If WMD was indeed found, do you think Bush would have kept silent about it? It does not make sense does it.

2) Breeding Terrorism 1
As for the figures on terrorism, US state department through the Counterterrorism Center (NCTC), recently released figures for 2004 showing a significant increase from about 170+ to about 650+ incidents and a tri-fold increase in death. Although, it has been argued that the increase may be reflective of new accounting methods.

3) Breeding Terrorism 2
Although I am not a fan of withdrawal, I suppose for the sake of argument I can put up an argument on how Iraq invasion has caused terrorism.

Cause of Terrorism
Terrorism for the most part is often part of a fight to remove perceived foreign invaders from a place they see as their homeland.
some Examples: Sri Lanka: LTTE came up with suicide bombers; N.Ireland; Spain/Basque; Chechnya; Lebanon; Philippines/Mindano; Indonesia/Aceh; Israel/Palestine

Removal of Foreign Element
History have shown that once the foreign element removed, the amount of terrorist incidents falls off dramatically. The arrival of foreign troops in Lebanon resulted in years of terrorist attacks but when they left the amount of terrorist attack fell.

Pre-Iraq Invasion Attacks on US
But there were attacks on the US by Al Qaeda prior to the invasion. True but if you look at his speeches back then he wanted US troops off the ME specifically Saudi Arabia then. US troops came in after the first Gulf War and the first attack on WTC was in 1993. The US troops is the foreign element, even through they were not there as invaders but Al Qaeda viewed them otherwise and managed to recruit people who also thought so.

Remove the Fuel
This argument is particularly strong not because the removal of US troops from Iraq and the ME would result in Osama suddenly starting to sport "Bush-Cheney" stickers or that it would stop all terrorism. But rather it would remove the fuel from which Osama uses as recruitment. There will always be people talking about attacking others, for example white supremist groups, neo-nazis, etc. But the key is to make sure that when they speak no one listens to them.

Problem: Sui Generis Al Qaeda
But personally, the above argument to me is a bit problematic because I personally feel that Al Qaeda is a different type of terrorist organisation. It seem to focus on multiple areas, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Chechnya in contrast to the other terrorist organisations who were for the most part very localised. Unless one were to adopt the view that the attacks on US, the focus on Iraq is all a "sideshow" part of a plan for Al Qaeda to topple the Saudi government.

4) Saddam and Al Qaeda
Their difference are more than mere philosophical. They both want completely different things. Actually, Osama offered to help fight Saddam in the initial Gulf War. Al Qaeda wants to overthrow the governments in the ME, specifically Saudi Arabia to set up their own fundamentalist state. Saddam wants to be in power, hence being a dictator and is a strong secularist. Saddam may hate the US but he is not stupid, why would he co-operate with an organisation to attack the US as such action would be akin to signing his death warrant.
post #131 of 137
Originally Posted by KTLynn
It would be great to capture Bin Laden and string the ******* up, but does anyone really think that if we did that it would be the end of islamo-fascism? Terrorism will not end with Bin Laden's capture or death. As the President told us early on, this is going to be a long battle, and not just in Iraq.

This is mixed-up. The war in Iraq has nothing to do with 9/11 and never did. Fighting it is not helping to end terrorism and making the world safer because the terrorists just have a bigger cause to fight and from their viewpoint
more reason to fight it.

To those who believe that we are *causing* more terrorism because of the Iraq war, please explain the following:
World Trade Center 1993
Khobar Towers 1996
Nairobi 1998
East Timor 1999
USS Cole 2000
NYC, Washington,DC, Shanksville, PA 2001

All of these examples of terrorism occured before the Iraq war. Seems the terrorists don't necessarily need a war as an excuse to commit atrocities.

Yes, we are supposed to be fighting terrorism and Al-Queda. That is not the same as fighting Iraq. The war is only making more Islamic people frightened and angry thus making it easier to recruit people to their cause.

Here's what Australian Prime Minister Howard had to say about the theory of "if we just go home they won't hurt us anymore": "On the issue of the policy of my government, and indeed the policies of the British and American governments in Iraq, the first point of reference is that once a country allows its foreign policy to be determined by terrorism, it's given the game away..." He went on to say that "... the murder of 88 Australians in Bali took place before Iraq. When a group claimed responsibility for the July 7 (UK) attacks, they talked about British policy not just in Iraq but in Afghanistan. Are people suggesting we shouldn't be in Afghanistan?"

Actually our foreign policy is totally being dictated by terrorism and has been since 9/11.

George Bush was not alone in believing there were WMD's in Iraq - he had lots of company. The UN, Great Britain, France, Germany and Russia were convinced too. The US was the only one worried enough to take action.

The US was the only one that wanted that war so much we refused to listen to calmer voices. We could at least have waited for the UN inspections to be completed and seen if the rest of the world agreed with us. Fighting a war of aggression was way unAmerican and I wish it had stayed that way.

Do people realize how foolish it sounds to talk about the President as a "pissed off little boy" seeking vengeance for his father? Or that he and his "cronies" are making money from the war? If that's the case, you'd have to believe he's diabolical and probably mentally deranged. So no one except liberals noticed that? Did he hypnotize all the countries mentioned above, including the Congress and more than half the citizens of the US so that he could wage war for personal reasons? If he "lied", that implies that he had information that NONE of these countries had - please explain how he came by this. Did it make sense for him to invade Iraq if he in fact, KNEW there were no WMD's?

I am sure that President Bush and his cronies are making money from this war and that getting control of the oil supply of Iraq was the purpose of going there. Halliburton -- the vice-president's old company -- is making enough money to pay off our national debt. Also none of our plans for letting the Iraqi's control their own country include giving up control of the oil wells -- the US retains that.

I don't find it hard to believe Bush is diabolical and probably mental deranged in that he is so incredibly greedy. He pretty much ignores all issues that aren't going to make money for him or his supporters.

He used the fear following 9/11 to fool the American people and Congress. Very few countries followed him into war -- and many of those that did had personal reasons regarding their relationships with the US to do so.

It made no sense to invade Iraq the way he did even if they did have some WMD. American has never before fought a war of aggression and it makes me ashamed that we have now.

By the way the opposite of arrogance isn't shame -- it's a healthy sense of oneself.

If the US "thumbed its nose" at the UN they had every reason to. The UN has proven itself to be nothing more than a corrupt, ineffective organization. When the third world member countries committing human rights abuses in their own lands get flush toilets for their citizens, maybe then we'll let them tell the US what it should and shouldn't do to protect itself.

Most of the world sees the UN as one of world's efforts to avoid future wars following WWII. We could at least respect this opinion and speak to it.

Because we didn't find WMDs does not mean there weren't any. Saddam Hussein admitted to having the following:
3.9 tons of VX nerve gas
812 tons of Sarin gas
2,200 gals. of anthrax
Why aren't these considered WMDs? Seems to me you could do a heck of a lot of damage with those amounts.

You could definitely do damage with those. If he admitted it and showed where they were stored, then there were ample ways to handle that problem weren't there?

As far as possible ties with Al-Qaeda - yes, there are philosophical differences between them and Saddam. However, that does not preclude the very real possibility of Saddam making available for sale to Al-Qaeda some of the above weapons. Al-Qaeda and Saddam were united in hatred of the US. In fact, Saddam was the only other "leader" in the mid-east to publicly state his happiness and approval of 9-11.
The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

I'm so tired of that expression being used as an excuse for so many things. We have much more direct ways of attacking Al-Queda than attacking Iraq.

What's terrible is that too many people, some misguided Americans included sorry to say, want to see the war go badly because it will reflect poorly on the President. They are so blinded by hatred of Bush, that they actually take satisfaction in mounting casualties and insurgent attacks. That's what is truly sad and frankly, disgusting.

No American has said anything like that on this thread. I agree, anyone that prejudiced is truly sad and frankly, disgusting.
post #132 of 137
Don't you people know, we were supposed to Wait, and let Sadaam develop his nukes and use them, then we could go in and get him.LOL
Oh yes, definitely, we should listen to the calmer voices of Germany and France as they have such a wonderful track record of knowing who the "bad guy" really is.
They know they can wait and we will save their butts again.
WWII happened and most definitely could happen again. Substitute the Islamic extremest terrorists for the name of Hitler and yes it could happen again. Go get 'em Bush!
I compared Japan to Iraq because they are both countries occupied by the U.S. We will rebuild Iraq just as we rebuilt Japan. The only differance being the insurgent are to stupid to realize how much better it would be if they would just let us rebuild the country.
My dear, this is a public messageboard so if I want to compare the occupation of Japan and Iraq I am allowed.

Oh, one other thing, those so-called UN Inspections were a total joke.
Half the time Sadaam kicked them out and the other half of the time
they were only allowed to inspect where Sadaam said they could. Totally meaningless. Why even bring that up? They meant nothing and were going nowhere. He had 12 years, from '91 to '03. That is plenty of time and he was given plenty of chances.
The U.N. is a joke. Are you saying you wanted to keep the corrupt Oil-For-Food rip off going longer, is that what you are saying? And in the next breath you bring up Halliburton. A bit hypocritical don't you think.
When we leave Iraq the Iraquis will be in possession of their oil not us.
The percentage of oil we get from Iraq is very little.
We rebuilt Japan and helped in Berlin how did we rip those countries off when we left. We left them both better off and democratic.
post #133 of 137
The following is a reply to some points made earlier by others.

1) Waiting for Saddam to develop WMD
The premise of this argument operates on the idea that the war was entered on false pretenses and that Iraq did not have WMD. The case for war was not that Iraq may develop WMD but that it had developed them and they are still around.

There is nothing wrong with a person saying that one should attack before they develop BUT that was not the position of the US and definitely not that of the UK (45 mins remark).

2) UN Inspections (Joke?)
Well it can be argued that the on/off and in/out situation of the Inspections was a joke, they did do their job at least based on the failure of the US inspectors to find any WMD so far. As I said earlier, maybe some WMD may be found later but at the end of the day the Inspections and Embargo did prevent the development of WMD, based at least based on the lack of evidence found by the US inspectors at this moment.

Again there is nothing wrong with saying that the reason for attack is because of the failure of Saddam to allow proper inspections. In fact, a strictly legal argument based on particular interpretation of international law can support such an argument. It generally goes:

A) The peace/ceasefire signed at the end of Gulf War I was conditioned upon the UN inspectors being given free access and to certify that the country was free from WMD.
B) Therefore failure by Saddam to allow UN inspectors free access, meant that one of the conditions of the ceasefire was not satisfied Thus Iraq was in fundamental breach.
C) The original UN authorisation for use of force in Gulf War I was still active AND that there is no need for another security council vote for the use of force.

However, saying the invasion is based on failure to allow inspections is quite different from saying the invasion is based on Iraq having or trying to develop WMD.

3) "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."
Hey I just noticed this little gem. Such statements if used have to be qualified and explained. If not in general application it could be argued that since Al Qaeda is the enemy of Saddam does that mean that Al Qaeda is the friend fo US. But wait that must also mean that the enemy of Al Qaeda is Saddam, which makes the US the friend of Saddam. So they are both our friends?

It does not work with regards to Saddam and Al Qaeda. Just because they both hate the US does not mean that working together would help them. As mentioned in an earlier post if Saddam does help Al Qaeda, it would be an invitation for the US to attack. And if there is one thing dictators like above all others, it is to stay in power.

4) Oil for Food
This is irrelevant to the discussion on whether to go to war. Unless you admit that the initial reasons for war cannot stand and the only reason left is oil for food.

This issue of oil for food does show the need for reform of the UN but it is very much not related to the reasons for invasion. One thing for sure, there is no need to invade to end the program.

Since we are on the topic of oil for food, I might as well talk a bit about it.
According to the US Senate investigation of the scandal, it concluded that the US government were aware that the program violated the sanctions and provided the bulk of the money to Saddam. And on occassion, the US facilitated the illicit oil sales. The investigation also concluded that companies and individual from the US accounted for slightly more than 50% of the kickbacks. The later Duelfer report includes companies from other countries but there was no specific mention of the US individuals and companies because such disclosure is barred by several laws including the Privacy Act. The corruption of the oil for food was not something confined to the UN or even to companies in countries such as Russia, France, Germany, etc but also individuals and companies from the US.
post #134 of 137
Very interesting post. Enlightening. thanks.
post #135 of 137
I voted yes, I like to believe that our President is doing what is in best interest and I support our troops 100%. And the rest I put in the hands of GOD. That way I feel safe at night and as I am out and about.
post #136 of 137
As wierd as it sounds...War has its benifits....Economies can flourish after wars....and the greatest advancements happen due to wars.....But as for this war...I simply can not get behind it...I do not trust our intentions in being thier.
post #137 of 137
Originally Posted by Nebula11
As wierd as it sounds...War has its benifits....Economies can flourish after wars....and the greatest advancements happen due to wars.....But as for this war...I simply can not get behind it...I do not trust our intentions in being thier.
All my life I've heard war is good for the economy. Some people have gone so far as to say "We need a war; it will be good for the economy." I think lives are much more important than money.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › The TCS War Poll