OT: General opinion on war with Iraq [Archive]

Serpent

01-23-2003, 05:07 PM

Sing loud...

To the tune of "If you're happy and you know it"

If you cannot find Osama, bomb Iraq.
If the markets are a drama, bomb Iraq.
If the terrorists are frisky,
Pakistanis looking shifty,
North Koreais too risky,
Bomb Iraq.

If we have no allies with us, bomb Iraq.
If we think someone has dissed us, bomb Iraq.
So to hell with the inspections,
Let's look tough for the elections,
Close your mind and take directions,
Bomb Iraq.

It's "pre-emptive non-aggression", bomb Iraq.
Let's prevent this mass destruction, bomb Iraq.
They've got weapons we can't see,
And that's good enough for me
'Cos it'all the proof I need
Bomb Iraq.

If you never were elected, bomb Iraq.
If your mood is quite dejected, bomb Iraq.
If you think Saddam's gone mad,
With the weapons that he had,
(And he tried to kill your dad),
Bomb Iraq.

If your corporate fraud is growin', bomb Iraq.
If your ties to it are showin', bomb Iraq.
If your politics are sleazy,
And hiding ain't that easy,
And your manhood's getting queasy,
Bomb Iraq.

Fall in line and follow orders, bomb Iraq.
For our might knows no borders, bomb Iraq.
Disagree? We'll call it treason,
Let's make war not love this season,
Even if we have no reason,
Bomb Iraq.

_

joedoe

01-23-2003, 05:07 PM

What annoys me the most is that our Prime Minister is so far up GWB's arse that they found him up there when GWB had his colonoscopy. We have only sent off a couple of hundred troops, but to me it is all pretty premature. I hate the thought of good
men & women being put into harm's way unnecessarily, not to mention how stupid it makes Australia look.

joedoe

01-23-2003, 05:09 PM

Nice one Serpent :D

Stranger

01-23-2003, 05:12 PM

September that any military action would not be a show of US might, but an enforcement of UN authority. What does it then say if the USA and its allies then go ahead and attack Iraq without UN approval?

I think I can explain his logic behind this statement.

Bush argues that he is fighting to uphold the UN resolution that ended the last Gulf War. In his eyes the fact that the UN will not enforce this resolution does not negate our right to enforce it. The resolution is still on the books, the US (and others) paid for the victory in money and blood, and if Saddam acts up five years down the line once he gets his WMD program rolling at full speed the US will likely shoulder a greater responsibility trying to take him out.

Also consider that the first likely target of any Saddam SCUD would be Israel. Israel has traditionally held relatively little influence in the UN (it is in the unaligned voting bloc). Israel is however an ally of the US, which might be shaping our policy in the region.

diego

01-23-2003, 05:12 PM

Originally posted by joedoe
What does it then say if the USA and its allies then go ahead and attack Iraq without UN approval?

that monkeyboys pops coka reserves are hitting shallow and saddam bestta start fronting more oil, before george blows shiat up hiroshima!.

thats how i read it anywho.....

Serpent

01-23-2003, 05:13 PM

Bush himself is a puppet. Howard is Bush's puppet. That makes him the puppet of a puppet and he's deliberately ignoring the will of the people and the extreme opposition of the Opposition. How's that for a clumsy sentence!

Anyway, Howard said that any commitment would be a bilateral decision. Crean stood at the dock and told the troops that he didn't think they should be going and the huge majority of the Australian public are against our involvment, yet still Howard sends them in. He's more interested in pleasing Dubya than the country he is supposed to run.

It sickens me how much this country is disappearing up the arse of the US. Something has to give soon. We could solve a huge amount of the problems in the world today by taking out Bush and Howard.

Serpent

01-23-2003, 05:15 PM

What about N Korea? It has admitted to all the things Iraq is accused of, yet Bush is not interested in war there. Why?

Oil.

Bush's investment in the cost of this war is going to be offset by enormous profits from oil.

joedoe

01-23-2003, 05:19 PM

Originally posted by Stranger

I think I can explain the logic behind this statement, although I do not agree with it.

Bush argues that he is fighting to uphold the UN resolution that ended the last Gulf War. In his eyes the fact that the UN will not enforce this resolution does not negate our right to enforce it. The resolution is still on the books, the US (and others) paid for the victory in money and blood, and if Saddam acts up five years down the line once he gets his WMD program rolling at full speed the US will likely shoulder a greater responsibility trying to take him out.

Also consider that the first likely target of any Saddam SCUD would be Israel. Israel has traditionally held relatively little influence in the UN (it is in the unaligned voting bloc). Israel is however an ally of the US, which might be shaping our policy in the region.

So if the UN fails to enforce its own resolution the US has a right to do it instead? Interesting. Let me think on that one for a while.

joedoe

01-23-2003, 05:22 PM

Originally posted by Serpent
What about N Korea? It has admitted to all the things Iraq is accused of, yet Bush is not interested in war there. Why?

Oil.

Bush's investment in the cost of this war is going to be offset by enormous profits from oil.

This is also something I have been curious about. Granted, there is a UN resolution prohibiting Iraq from developing weapons of mass destruction that doesn't apply to N Korea (or is there a UN resolution there too?). However, the US didn't seem to have a problem with India or Pakistan developing & testing nukes, and they are probably the most likely place where a nuclear conflict will erupt.

Stranger

01-23-2003, 05:25 PM

What about N Korea? It has admitted to all the things Iraq is accused of, yet Bush is not interested in war there. Why?

We have no UN mandate to limit the weapons program in NK, just a national interest in it.

Oil?????

Where was the oil plundered in the last war?

I could be wrong, but I highly doubt this great oil robbery scenario. Logistically, how could this be done on any level that would warrant the cost of a Second Gulf War? I believe Collin Powell when he states that the oil would remain the property of the Iraqi people, which is more than what can be said for Saddam's treatment of the Kuwaiti's oil when he fled that country.

Stranger

01-23-2003, 05:29 PM

US didn't seem to have a problem with India or Pakistan developing &

Once again, there is no UN resolution to control the WMD programs of these countries.

testing nukes,

They violated international treaties when they tested their nukes above ground. We responded with sanctions and no more, because that is our foreign policy when enforcing that treaty (we didn't declare war on France when they tested above ground a few years back).

Molk

01-23-2003, 05:33 PM

Besides what Stranger said, everyone knew that North Korea was taking advantage of all the drama to get things that they wanted. They were always fronting knowing that in an effort to get them to back down we would give them almost anything they wanted.

joedoe

01-23-2003, 06:02 PM

OK, all fair enough.

Back to the original topic, what is the general opinion? Have there been any surveys that give an indication on how the general populace feel about attacking Iraq?

Serpent

01-23-2003, 07:12 PM

As far as I've heard the general consensus in the UK is very similar to Australia. Anyone confirm that?

What about in the US?

What about other countries around the world, even though they may not be involved?

prana

01-23-2003, 08:25 PM

war sux ! I am ashamed for being Australian, I will not be voting for the short red rooster the next election.

My vote goes to the party that will create Australias first autobahn, or the greenies, and not the party that turns Australasia into the United Supporters of America.

Do you think its safe to label Bush the anti-christ now ?!

logic

01-23-2003, 10:24 PM

My general opinion
Like Prana said war sux

I believe that evidence is needed, but then I think does it have to be a smoking gun.

War,, If necessary I'd say yes

I think-
What would the world be like today if we did nothing with the empire of Japan back in WW2?
Didn't do anything with Hitler and Nazi Germany?
Did nothing with Italy and it's dictator Mousulini (Wrong spelling)

War isn't pretty, but sometimes necessary with the right evidence and I guess thats the key, Evidence

That must be a hard thing to do in a country the size of texas and the people scard for their lives and family.

He has killed a town of his own people chemically
Killed thousands of Iranians chemically.
invaded kuwate to conquer.
Invaded a town in Saudi Arabia to conquer.

BUT, does he pose a threat to us now.
Thats another key word-
NOW.

joedoe

01-23-2003, 10:50 PM

Well, I don't like the idea of war either. If you have to go to war, then you have to go to war I guess. However, myself and about 70-75% of my countrymen do not believe that it is time to go to war - yet.

DragonzRage

01-24-2003, 12:49 AM

It seems to me that at least here in Los Angeles, California, most people do not favor war against Saddam at all. Everyone here seems so anti-war. In a way it annoys me. Don't get me wrong, I agree that the U.S. should not launch a war without U.N. approval (altho let's face it, we pretty much own the U.N. anyway). And if someone has an informed opinion about what's going on and an intelligent reasoning behind an anti-war stance, I think that's fine. But the thing is a lot of people here seem blatantly anti-war even though they have no idea why. When u ask them to explain why they feel the way they do, they respond with some ridiculous answer like, "Um, well...because war sux." All they know about is the tiny bit they've heard as they were flipping past CNN to watch Friends. They have no understanding of the issue and probably wouldn't know Iraq from Saudi Arabia.

Oh, and as for North Korea, do you really think they'd be acting the way they are if this whole Iraq thing wasn't going on? One of the main reasons they're willing to take this militant stance right now is because they know we're caught up with Iraq. It is actually a pretty smart political move. First of all, they know that in our current committed situation we are not ready to even think about threatening them with military action. So by announcing that they have nuclear projects and capabilities they know that the world will give them more respect, and that the U.S. will have to bargain to resolve the situation.

Repulsive Monkey

01-24-2003, 05:33 AM

Generally people in the UK are unsupportive of Tony Blair's stance towards his support or leaning support of Bush's commercially rooted reasons for an attack on Iraq. If people in the UK do think that war is good thing, then they haven't been reading enough news and are easily swayed individuals. It's nice to hear that prominent figures are making a stance against the government from Rob Del Naj' of Massive Attack from my hom town Bristol to Glenda Jackson Labour MP to many others. Blair made a comment in the papers the other day that he felt he had the support of the majority of people in his intentions to follow through with an attack on Iraq. The poor deluded fool believes his own hype too much, and managed to lose contact and trust/respect with the public about 3 years ago, and its got worse since. His allegiance to Bush is most unsettling and I think he is too deaf to the public's needs nowadays to realise that he has isolated himself off from what this country cries out for.
I totally resonate towards Prana's statement, but amend to say that I am totally ashamed to be British at this moment in time when my government currently goes ahead and does what it wants for its own personal gain and not for the gain of humanity in general.
If Iraq is attacked, my only concerns will be for the innocent Iraqis who will die unjustly.
THIS WAR IS WRONG.

djh

01-24-2003, 06:12 AM

This conflict is bullsh*t. Bush should pull his head in. :mad:

MightyB

01-24-2003, 06:51 AM

Serpent, That was funny. :D It's actually quite a catchy tune too. It's not often that I laugh out loud at my computer...

Repulsive Monkey

01-24-2003, 06:55 AM

Which bit don't you agree with????

rogue

01-24-2003, 07:20 AM

I believe that we do have information on Sadaams WMD plans. I find it hard to believe that Blair would be Bush's poodle if the populace of the UK is against the war, since both men really dislike each other.

I say F!!! the UN and we do what we want. The only reason France wants to delay the war is that they need more white flags and need to learn to say "We surrender" in Arabic.

Really though, France and Germany know that once we go into Iraq their support of Iraq and Irans WMD programs will be exposed.

rogue

01-24-2003, 07:24 AM

Oddly the only ones who don't believe in Iraqs WMD programs are dim bulb anti-war protesters (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030124/ap_on_re_mi_ea/turkey_iraq_15)

Stranger

01-24-2003, 07:56 AM

If Iraq is attacked, my only concerns will be for the innocent Iraqis who will die unjustly.

I don't know if it is true or not, but I was watching a British documentary on PBS that stated that Saddam has killed more Muslims than any other person in the history of mankind. If this statement is true, than perhaps the best thing for the Iraqi people and the Ummah of Islam in general is to see Saddam go bye-bye.

A question for the Brits: Do you see a lot of British pro-war documentaries on your TV? We are bombarded with them over here. It seems like whenever I watch a documentary arguing for the need to take out Saddam, invariably the producers and crew are British. I'm not being accusing the British of stiring up the sh1t, maybe British reporters can travel more freely in that part of the world than American reporters.

I had hoped for UN approval, but don't know if we can safely wait just to receive some diplomatic backing from countries that won't be doing much of the fighting. Like logic stated, in a country as big as Iraq with a fearful poulation, we can be looking a long time before we turn up the evidence to rally all of our allies around us. There are thousands of chemical weapons and hundreds of bio weapons that were in Iraq when the inspectors were thrown out, and now they are unaccounted for.

We are ****ed if we do fight, and ****ed if we don't.

rogue

01-24-2003, 08:09 AM

"It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy course; who at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat."
THEODORE ROOSEVELT
(Paris Sorbonne,1910)

red5angel

01-24-2003, 09:20 AM

joedoe - it's roughly 43% who do not approve of war with Iraq.

I say let's do it, knock off with all the pretense and just kick Saddams butt from here to Allah.....

MightyB

01-24-2003, 09:53 AM

you do realize that Teddy was insane though, don't you? But he was what this country needed at that time.

Stranger

01-24-2003, 09:59 AM

you do realize that Teddy was insane though, don't you?

Literally or figuratively?

rogue

01-24-2003, 12:26 PM

He seemed sane enough the last time I talked with him. Well I don't talk to him like he's really in front of me that would be nuts. He channels himself though my dog and then talks to me.

rogue

01-24-2003, 12:36 PM

"For us, the second idea is that war is always an admission of failure and the worst of all solutions. Everything should be done to avoid it."

President Chirac of France
(January 22, 2003 Paris)

Chirac continuing a fine French tradition.

Savate anyone? :D

TibetanKF

01-24-2003, 01:54 PM

I've read all of your posts and am amazed at how uninformed and naive most (not all) of you are. To think that George Bush would send Americans to die over oil or to finish his dad's war is just ridiculous. He's doing it because he truly believes that Sadam is a threat to the US and it's allies. You can choose not to agree with him (though you'd be wrong) and that 's your right, but at least make that decision based on facts. I get sooooo sick of hearing the same tired emotional and irrational arguments.

I feel bad for the innocent civilians that will die in the war:
Me too. War is sad and terrible, but it's also necessary. A lot of innocent Germans and Japanese were killed in WWII, but how many more innocents would have died if we and our allies hadn't fought for what was right? Sadam is equally as evil as Hitler and has to be removed before it's too late. Will innocents die in this war? Yes, but I guarantee you that the number won't even be close to the number of innocents that Sadam has killed in the past or will kill in the future.

Bush is doing this for the oil:
In a speech last week, bush said that after the war the oil fields would be run by the UN (not the US) until Iraq has a new government in place and that ALL proceeds would go to the people of Iraq. How much of this oil money do you think the people of Iraq see now? Try none.

We shouldn't do it without UN approval:
The UN resolution has to do with inspections, we went this rout to make our supposed allies happy, but it was not necessary. Iraq has repeatedly gone against agreements made specifically with the US and the UN. Not to mention, they've repeatedly tried to shoot down our planes, which should be enough reason. Sadam repeatedly ignored both the original and new resolution and has lied repeated about his weapons of mass destruction.

There's no proof that he has weapons of mass destruction:
This may be the most ridiculous of all the arguments against this war. We knew going in to the inspections of specific chemical and biological weapons that he has. The resolution was just giving him the opportunity to come clean, which he of course didn't. The inspectors found warheads and the inspectors found plans for an existing nuclear program. What more proof do you need? Should we wait until he actually uses these weapons that WE KNOW he has?

If you are in the United States you should have access to all sides of the argument and be able to make an informed / intelligent decision. Those of you in Australia or the UK, I'm not sure what kind of coverage you get on the issue, but it sounds pretty one sided. I would suggest learning a little more about the issue. Somehow in the news coverage and in the views of many nations the US has become the enemy and Iraq the victim. Take a closer look at Iraq an you will change your view. Sadam is the world's enemy and apparently the US is the only country brave enough to do anything about it.

diego

01-24-2003, 05:45 PM

thats all dandy, but when bush is talking about axises of evil all many here is christians vs muslim and commies...noone talks about american liberty vs saddams bigotry...if it was anyone besides bush or anyone tied to his cokehead ways then peeps would be down for justice...i love america but dont trust bush...axis of evil fight for god...how is that america???

but that def is the partyslogans for the whiteamerica of old who fucqed shiat up!.

Disagree?.

bush isnt dropping science hes gaining jimmy swaggert support and the world really doesnt need that fanatical mentality agianst the fight of greater fanatics.

diego

01-24-2003, 05:50 PM

Bush is doing this for the oil:
In a speech last week, bush said that after the war the oil fields would be run by the UN (not the US) until Iraq has a new government in place and that ALL proceeds would go to the people of Iraq. How much of this oil money do you think the people of Iraq see now? Try none.
\

bush also said oh thiers blacks in brazil
:confused:

:D Peace

rogue

01-24-2003, 06:30 PM

Well if you must know Bill Clinton and his crew did more wheeling and dealing for oil than Bush has. Anybody remember Roger Tamraz (http://www.metroactive.com/papers/sonoma/10.02.97/washington-9740.html) ? Is oil an interest to the US? Of course but right now we have oil available off the coast and in Alaska and don't need Iraqi oil. Here's some more information for you, France is wheeling and dealing for oil with both Iraq and Iran, and it's one reason for it's foot dragging over going to war.

diego

01-24-2003, 08:37 PM

rogue heres my take on clinton or anyone else in power who hasnt faught in the frontlines of a war or grew up around disenfranchised individuals... im on a kf forum and i dont know how to spell faught? :)

as you saw in my other thread about vancouvers prime minister and dui...well more info came out and it turns out he was driving 40 miles over the limit and he had a blood alchohol level double the limit...and this guy is suppossed to be mr clean conservative just like bush...and all his peeps are supportting them...so really i think we're on our way to hell...all these politicians are goofs is how i see it...our pm was a ****ing lawyer before he came into politics...now my thinking as a lawyer even if you know the guy raped the girl its your job to get him off even if your conscious says otherwise...and then this person goes into politics with ease as he grew up rich....i can just imagine what kind of bribes these politrix take bieng they all dont find it concerning to drive around ****ed at over a 100 miles an hour in a 60 zone, or get your **** sucked in office...thier all goofoff frat boys..frankly IM SCARED:cool:

diego

01-24-2003, 08:42 PM

then thiers also huge stigmas agianst the bushes, such as they all own oil companys in some form or another

then thiers the whole when bush was a senator or guvner in the 60s he or raegan voted agianst civil rights...then raegan gets into power and bush is his puppetmaster and only conservative americans respect the raegan era...thiers more wich i couldnt be ****ed to find and post

all clinton has on him is he was abit of a hippy in his college days

yalls prezs father your former prez voted agianst ****ing civil rights...WHAT/WHEN did he all the sudden change his mind and realize america is all its citizens and not just its elite movers and shakers?.

Mr Punch

01-25-2003, 12:35 AM

I don't agree that this war is right at this time.

And I don't think Bush's main reason is oil, but that is one of them.

And no, I don't mean, like some people seem to be suggesting (mentioning no Tibetan KFs :rolleyes: :D ), that Bush will personally direct his army to go into Iraq and individually reapportion every barrel of oil to singlehandedly take back to the US for sale. I mean that with Saddam out and the right man in, and an even more obliterated infrastructure, the trades deals will flow like the ... er ... oil!

I think that's fine. think wanting a safe and long-lasting supply of oil from a safe and more democratic government in return for development aid is a much better idea than having a teetering despot killing his own people, and waving a big fat finger at the world.

The general principle that many Americans seem to go for that you are the only people with the cohones to get done what everybody wants is fundamentally flawed in that most people seem to want UN backing.

Apart from that, and not wanting to kill lots of civilians, my main concern is that:

trade tariffs will become even more unbalanced between 'developed' and 'developing' countries as the balance of 'free' trade becomes even less free with the US monopolising Iraq's reserves.

So no, I don't think that the US wants to 'steal' Iraqi oil. I believe that the US government will use the outcome of the war to further ingrain their suicidal post-capitalist deteriorated economic model into an already reeling world economy.

Plus of course, it would seriously undermine at least one major European economy (France) whose reasons for not wanting the war are mainly due to trades deals for that same oil.

So without a mandate from the only (though admittedly flawed) international regulatory body (the UN) I think it's wrong.

Shucks. Just an opinion.

rogue

01-25-2003, 02:49 PM

Diego, there's more to Clinton than smoking dope. Also you have to really look into any "Civil Rights" bill that tries to get past. Some of the rights people are trying to gain are already covered in the Bill of Rights or are special treatment that benefit the few at great expense.

diego

01-25-2003, 03:43 PM

Rogue im abit confused with the end of your post...im talking about bush sr in the 60s voted agianst the civil rights bill wich obviously passed or you wouldnt have gone to school with coloreds, and that was when he was like a senator...who knows what he did as a prez

crack and compton anyone:D

Thier hopeless issues...im just glad i can mock bush, and do pray he makes wise decisions...if anything me calling monkeyboy a cokehead should inspire him to prove me wrong:)

So, hows your training going?.

Stranger

01-25-2003, 03:48 PM

crack and compton anyone

Another conspiracy theory that nobody has even come close to providing evidence of.

**********************************
"Colored" is a really un-PC term.

diego

01-25-2003, 04:39 PM

Stranger thanks for that fascinating update i have achieved bhuddahood now...PROPS!!!

n thanx fo the pc etiquette for ones pc...i'l be sure to apease your english proffess'n azz nexta time!.

Stranger

01-25-2003, 04:56 PM

:confused:

rogue

01-25-2003, 05:01 PM

I was referring to more current bills that try to gain additional rights based upon ones uncontrollable urge to eat big macs or upon ones sex practice preferences.

Just so you have all the facts.

http://gi.grolier.com/presidents/ea/bios/41pbush.html

The Republicans were divided between conservatives and moderates in the 1960's. Then, and later, Bush sometimes seemed to oscillate between the two sides. Certainly his voting record in the House was generally conservative. The liberal Americans for Democratic Action gave Bush a zero rating in 1968. He had opposed the public accommodations provision of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, arguing that moral persuasion at the local level was more effective. But in the House he supported open-housing legislation, which was unpopular in his district. Most often he endorsed NIXON administration policy on the Vietnam War. Yet he broke with conservatives by supporting birth-control programs and opposing financing of the supersonic transport.

Text of Civil Rights Act of 1964. (http://www.law.stetson.edu/courses/civilrightsact1.pdf)

diego

01-25-2003, 05:34 PM

Thanks for the info rogue!.:)

and stranger if you werent bieng a smartass i was...so no confusion Bro:D

Stranger

01-25-2003, 05:48 PM

That's cool. :)

Sasha

01-29-2003, 10:28 AM

Originally posted by TibetanKF

If you are in the United States you should have access to all sides of the argument and be able to make an informed / intelligent decision. Those of you in Australia or the UK, I'm not sure what kind of coverage you get on the issue, but it sounds pretty one sided. I would suggest learning a little more about the issue. Somehow in the news coverage and in the views of many nations the US has become the enemy and Iraq the victim. Take a closer look at Iraq an you will change your view. Sadam is the world's enemy and apparently the US is the only country brave enough to do anything about it.

I'm curious. Does it actually occur to people like you that it's conceivably possible that it's your own press which is biased, not everyone elses?

Anyone with any sense knows that there's no such thing as an unbiased news source, so it's when people maintain absolutely that the facts they have are the Correct ones that those of us with some semblance of intelligence get suspicious.

And looking at these things from a generally objective perspective, do you think the media is less likely to be biased within the country proposing the war, or those countries that stand to be less directly affected by it, and are capable of distancing themselves to an extent?

Sorry if this comes across as being a bit trollish, but it's variations on attitudes like this all over the world that will make it difficult for the human race to actually survive the next century or so intact.

HighRoller

01-29-2003, 01:24 PM

Well in my opinion there is no un-biased new source, period! I think the best thing to do is to get news from the most diverse sources and try to find the truth on your own. The web is a great place for hearing different sides of an issue. Still its hard to tell truth from fiction and opinion.

Anyway back to the topic:

I'm an American and personally I'm against a war with Iraq, at least as things stand now. I think going into iraq will cause far more problems for the US then solutions. It will be a hit to our already hurting economy, distract attention and resorces from fighting terrorism and give terrorists more recruiting propaganda.

I also think the problems in korea are happening now because they know the US is tied up in iraq and no one else will stop them. Where's the UN on the korean crisis??? Where does the EU stand on anti-proliferation??

The only people who stand to benifit from a US attack on Iraq are the Iraqis who would be much better off with a new government then the tyrant they have now. Quite frankly though thats not something I'm willing to die for.

Laughing Cow

01-29-2003, 02:22 PM

Originally posted by HighRoller
The only people who stand to benifit from a US attack on Iraq are the Iraqis who would be much better off with a new government then the tyrant they have now. Quite frankly though thats not something I'm willing to die for.

I am not so sure if that is actually true.

Many times I am told that under a new regime the Iraqi's will benefit from the Dollars generated by the Oil-sales and so on.

Recent History and globalisation has shown us that:
1.) Very little money if ever filters down to the average joe in the road.
Who will rap the koney from the Oil, the oil-corporations and the owners of those oil-fields NOT the average citizen.
2.) Restructuring and rebuilding is dependant on foreign money and aid.
So far little has really been done in Kosovo and afghanistan on those points.
3.) A lot of Iraqi will be alienated from their fellow Muslims if they appear to be bowing to the USA too much.

Was is always a loose-loose situation for everybody involved.
Something that not many Americans have realised as they haven't had a major war/invasion on home-soil since the civil-war and never experienced first-hand the devastaion and after-effects of War.
More people were killed in 1 squirmish in WW I or WW II than during the whole US Civil War.

Thus we also have the differing stances/views about going to War in the EU and the USA.
We Europeans remember WW II a lot more clear and still feel a lot of the effects of it.

Just my Opnion.

rogue

01-29-2003, 03:09 PM

More people were killed in 1 squirmish in WW I or WW II than during the whole US Civil War. Which skemish?
Civil War Military deaths 970,227.
WWII Military deaths 1,078,162.

Thus we also have the differing stances/views about going to War in the EU and the USA.
We Europeans remember WW II a lot more clear and still feel a lot of the effects of it.

I guess you Europeans forgot about WWI pretty quick as you guys then through another WW pretty soon after.

Question, which European country turned back the Germans?
The Dutch, Swiss, Belgians...?:p

dezhen2001

01-29-2003, 03:13 PM

Which skemish? now the numbers may be a slight exaggeration - but we know for sure that the Battle of the Somme for example wiped out sooo many people on both sides of the trenches, all for a few feet of dirt. u cant forget something like that so easily.

dawood

HighRoller

01-29-2003, 03:15 PM

Hi cow...

I totally agree with your first few points although iraq is much more modern and educated then afganisan. If they were a more free society (with out economic sanctions) they could prosper I think.

I must disagree with you on Americans not fearing the effects on war at home. The whole reason that Bush is giving for justifing this war with iraq is to "fight a small war now so we wont have to fight a big war later". There is a real fear that if saddam has and sells nuclear weapons to terrorists they will be smuggled into and used in the US.

The gulf war lasted 100 hours after the ground offensive started. The government is betting that a second iraq war can remove saddam quickly at a minnimum loss of life.

Now I'm not buying that argument and I think this war is going to cause far more problems then it will solve. I dont think Americans are ignorant about the distruction of war, though. I think it is just that fear (after 9-11-01) that is allowing Bush to press ahead against so much resistance.

Just an opinion but it might help Europeans understand why many Americans might be suppoting this war.

rogue

01-29-2003, 03:19 PM

The previous numbers were US dead only. Here's a more complete breakdown by country, military deaths, civilian deaths and total deaths for that country.

USSR 12 million 17 million 29 million
Poland 597,000 5.86 million 6.27 million
Germany 3.25 million 2.44 million 5.69 million
Yugoslavia 305,000 1.35 million 1.66 million
Romania 450,000 465,000 915,000
Hungary 200,000 600,000 800,000
France 245,000 350,000 595,000
Italy 380,000 153,000 533,000
Great Britain 403,000 92,700 495,000
United States 407,000 6,000 413,000
Czechoslovakia 7,000 315,000 322,000
Holland 13,700 236,000 249,000
Greece 19,000 140,000 159,000
Belgium 76,000 23,000 99,000

Maybe we should have stayed out of that one too?

Laughing Cow

01-29-2003, 03:27 PM

US Civil War Lost = 498.000 from different causes or les than 1.5 % of the Population.

WW II US loses = 407.000 or less than 1% of population.

The Battle of the Somme had more than twice as many deatsh as the USA had deaths and wounded in the civil war.

The US never hd to rebuild their country after any major conflict or suffer occupation from enemy troops.
And it does effect you and change your perception for generations afterwards.

When Europeans fought their enemies usually were only a few hundred kilometres away and not across an ocean, thus retaliation and similar take on a very different aspect.

Thus the americans that have never fought in war only know those images from TV, even the troops that fought hardly ever had to suffer the after-effects of the devastation.

How many US Citizens can truly understand fire-bombing or grwoing up in a City where there is NO single pane of glass intact and most of the City is in ruins.
Food has to be scavenged or stolen from farms, etc.

The USA lost troops only, the rest of Europe lost a major part of their population, women and Kids included.

This is not a criticism of the USA, but facs and Opinions shared by many People outside the USA.

As to who fought the germans during WW II, The USA alone, I doubt it.
We learned the major forces were, Russian, British, French, United states.
Plus all the local armies and underground troops.

Sometimes I really think that Americans believe that the WHOLE of Europe just rolled over during WW II and waited for the US-troops to rescue us.

red5angel

01-29-2003, 03:33 PM

"How many US Citizens cna truly understand fire-bombing or grwoing up in a City where there is NO single pane of glass intact and most of the City is in ruins.
Food has to be scavenged or stolen from farms, etc.

This is not a criticism of the USA, but facs and Opinions shared by many People outside the USA."

Yet someone else claiming to know the opinion of everyone else on americans......

Exaclty how many europeans at this point REALLY understand what it is like to grow up in a city where no glass is intact and the buildings mostly rubble? What is the percentage do you think?
Also, how about you and anyone else who feels the need, not try to speak for every non american out there on how they feel about us ok?

Laughing Cow

01-29-2003, 03:38 PM

Exaclty how many europeans at this point REALLY understand what it is like to grow up in a city where no glass is intact and the buildings mostly rubble? What is the percentage do you think?[/B]

About EVERY European that still has Parents and Grandparents that lived and experienced it for starters.

Want to see some pictures of my Family living through it?

Want to hear how europeans feel about it, for starters try reading the international press and european newspapers..

red5angel

01-29-2003, 03:43 PM

LC - :rolleyes: keeerist man, although the war didn't happen on american soil we had plenty of parents and grandparents who lived through it, whats your point? War changes anyone who experiences it.
Regardless of that, if Iraq continues to be a threat to american safety, we will go to war whether the rest of the world likes it or not.
oh but wait, I forgot it's all about the oil.....:rolleyes:

Laughing Cow

01-29-2003, 03:52 PM

r5a.

Point being.
Experiencing a war fought on foreign soil is VERY different to having one on your doorstep.
It is like talking/hearing about sex and doing it.

But I guess you guys will never concede that point.
:D

No Iraq is only partly about oil. The real reason is a show of power and determination for the rest of the world.

Braden

01-29-2003, 03:56 PM

"The US never hd to rebuild their country after any major conflict or suffer occupation from enemy troops.
And it does effect you and change your perception for generations afterwards.

When Europeans fought their enemies usually were only a few hundred kilometres away and not across an ocean, thus retaliation and similar take on a very different aspect."

If this is your belief, doesn't it makes those 400,000 some US deaths MORE meaningfull, rather than less so?

"No Iraq is only partly about oil. The real reason is a show of power and determination for the rest of the world."

Funny how a few months ago a few of us were arguing with half the board trying to convince you it wasn't all about oil. Now that Bush is the single biggest pusher of non-oil energy solutions in the world, you guys gotta scramble to get new conspiracy theories, eh? For the sake of good sportsmanship, we'll give you a bit more time.

red5angel

01-29-2003, 04:03 PM

"No Iraq is only partly about oil. The real reason is a show of power and determination for the rest of the world."

You need to try harder then that LC, you don't think it's enough to be THE world power militarily? Now, according to you we also need to go shoving it around the world to let people know it's still there?
hmmmm, let's see, spend billions of dollars and waste hundreds of thousands of potential lives so we can show people we can do what we want when we need to?

Laughing Cow

01-29-2003, 04:08 PM

[[/b]
If this is your belief, doesn't it makes those 400,000 some US deaths MORE meaningfull, rather than less so?
[/b]

Dath is death, there is no meaningful to it.

Funny how a few months ago a few of us were arguing with half the board trying to convince you it wasn't all about oil. Now that Bush is the single biggest pusher of non-oil energy solutions in the world, you guys gotta scramble to get new conspiracy theories, eh? For the sake of good sportsmanship, we'll give you a bit more time.

Eeeh, come again.
Who has developed and is using the electric, hybrid and fuel-cel cars

BTW, we are still waiting for you guys to sign the Kyoto treaty and others?

Nice try, but you guys are still way behind on non-oil energy.

But as always you guys are sooo superior and we are soo wrong that ANY discusion with you guys is futile.

Keep going, attack Iraq and make more enemies in the world.
Even economically the world is turning towards Asia and away from the USA.

joedoe

01-29-2003, 04:08 PM

Historically in the US isn't there an economic growth period after war since there is a large military-based industry?

Souljah

01-29-2003, 04:09 PM

erm joined this thing late but...

Exaclty how many europeans at this point REALLY understand what it is like to grow up in a city where no glass is intact and the buildings mostly rubble? What is the percentage do you think?

erm, alot of people man - the balkans

maybe not a huge percentage of europe.....but still alot.

these conversations keep arising and no1 moves an inch.
so what is the point.....if everyone is so stuck in their ways to not take the other party seriously why do we have these dicussions?

Laughing Cow

01-29-2003, 04:10 PM

Originally posted by red5angel
You need to try harder then that LC, you don't think it's enough to be THE world power militarily? Now, according to you we also need to go shoving it around the world to let people know it's still there?
hmmmm, let's see, spend billions of dollars and waste hundreds of thousands of potential lives so we can show people we can do what we want when we need to?

That's exactly what it is all about.

Saying I got a big gun and plan to use it gets old very soon.
Soon People will call you out on it and say "Yeah, do it than."

joedoe

01-29-2003, 04:11 PM

Now that Bush is the single biggest pusher of non-oil energy solutions in the world

Bush may be pushing the non-oil energy solutions, but the population of the USA is still guzzling up the oil. I don't have any figures to support this, but I would suspect that the USA is probably one of the highest oil consumers per capita.

Braden

01-29-2003, 04:16 PM

Laughing Cow

"Dath is death, there is no meaningful to it."

Fair enough, if that's your position.

So long as you realize it invalidates your original argument. Which is all my statement was intended to do anyway. So I'm good either way.

"Eeeh, come again."

I'm not American, so your reply of all the things "us guys" do is a non-reply. It's a non-reply anyway, since you didn't actually challenge what I said.

joedoe

"Bush may be pushing the non-oil energy solutions, but the population of the USA is still guzzling up the oil."

What's your point?

joedoe

01-29-2003, 04:20 PM

Originally posted by Braden
Laughing Cow

"Dath is death, there is no meaningful to it."

Fair enough, if that's your position.

So long as you realize it invalidates your original argument. Which is all my statement was intended to do anyway. So I'm good either way.

"Eeeh, come again."

I'm not American, so your reply of all the things "us guys" do is a non-reply. It's a non-reply anyway, since you didn't actually challenge what I said.

joedoe

"Bush may be pushing the non-oil energy solutions, but the population of the USA is still guzzling up the oil."

What's your point?

My point is that the population of the USA creates a huge demand for oil. How popular do you think Bush would be if he allowed the oil prices to rise, let alone if the oil supplies dried up?

Laughing Cow

01-29-2003, 04:22 PM

Originally posted by Braden
So I'm good either way.

No wonder we mistake you for a Yankee with an opinion like that.

Better move country.
;) :p

This is not a contest, but a sharing of opinions, if you can't take it as such, stay out of it.

As for the Opinions on the different viewpoints on the war between the EU and the USA there are many articles and editorials that support the points I raised. Funny most of those writers are not americans.

Acutally Data and some parts of my posts were directly taken from those.

Have fun.

Braden

01-29-2003, 04:36 PM

Laughing Cow

"No wonder we mistake you for a Yankee with an opinion like that.

Better move country."

Wow. I'm glad you have such a non-partisan and unprejudiced world view.

I'm unsure if you didn't understand, simply refuse to reply, or for some reason disagree with my logic, as you choose to reply with this instead of something reasonable.

"This is not a contest, but a sharing of opinions, if you can't take it as such, stay out of it."

I didn't take it to be a contest. I also didn't take it to be people shouting rhetoric at each other until they were bored.

I took it to be a discussion where you critically assess you own and other people's arguments.

If you can't take it as such, you can still stay in, as I believe in freedom of speech. I'm sure there's something partisan you can remark about that.

You can stay in, but don't oblige anyone to take you seriously.

joedoe

"My point is that the population of the USA creates a huge demand for oil. How popular do you think Bush would be if he allowed the oil prices to rise, let alone if the oil supplies dried up?"

And my point was that everyone's previous claim was that Bush had a conspiracy-theory style monopoly to personally gain from oil sales and was abusing his position as president to further his shadowy company's oil-guzzling ends; furthermore, that the American people are aware and disagree with this conspiracy.

This is what I was showing to be rejected.

If you're saying the American people are selfish oil guzzlers who are trying to manipulate their president based on their own desires, and he's just trying to do the best job he can... I won't argue with you.

joedoe

01-29-2003, 04:56 PM

Originally posted by Braden
...
joedoe

"My point is that the population of the USA creates a huge demand for oil. How popular do you think Bush would be if he allowed the oil prices to rise, let alone if the oil supplies dried up?"

And my point was that everyone's previous claim was that Bush had a conspiracy-theory style monopoly to personally gain from oil sales and was abusing his position as president to further his shadowy company's oil-guzzling ends; furthermore, that the American people are aware and disagree with this conspiracy.

This is what I was showing to be rejected.

If you're saying the American people are selfish oil guzzlers who are trying to manipulate their president based on their own desires, and he's just trying to do the best job he can... I won't argue with you. [/B]

So you are cool with the idea of attacking another country to satisfy the oil guzzling requirements of the US people?

Braden

01-29-2003, 04:59 PM

Er, no...

I mean I wouldn't argue with your interpretation of what's going on.

joedoe

01-29-2003, 05:12 PM

Interesting :)

Braden

01-29-2003, 05:35 PM

I'm being inaccurate in my haste.

What I mean specifically is that, if that is your stance; it is not your stance which I meant to indicate was disqualified by my original note in this thread. I recognize that, in light of what I noted, it's still a reasonable stance.

I do agree with your stance. However, I don't agree that it's a major reason behind the potential war. So I would argue with you on that account, but I recognize nothing said here is an argument with you on that account.

Er... I think that makes sense.

joedoe

01-29-2003, 05:47 PM

After reading that my head hurts :)

Who knows what the real reasons for this war are? I don't think we will ever really find out. Whatever reason is given to us, people will always doubt it.

It's been fun discussing this with you though Braden :)

mantis108

01-29-2003, 05:52 PM

Well I just wanted to wish the good men and women of the Australia contingent good luck and please, please stay out of FRIENDLY FIRE ;) But then nothing much you can do if you find yourself under one. *sigh* Politicans think war can solve every because they don't have to be on the frontline. If you asked them to pick a gun and stay there, I think they will think twice before giving the "W" word.

Mantis108

Laughing Cow

01-29-2003, 05:57 PM

Originally posted by mantis108
Well I just wanted to wish the good men and women of the Australia contingent good luck and please, please stay out of FRIENDLY FIRE ;) But then nothing much you can do if you find yourself under one. *sigh* Politicans think war can solve every because they don't have to be on the frontline. If you asked them to pick a gun and stay there, I think they will think twice before giving the "W" word.

Mantis108

I agree with that and also think that they would think twice if their families, homes and simialr were under the possibility of being directly attacked during the War.

It is easy to talk about war and similar if the impact on your lifelyhood is minimal.

LC.