Topic: the war (Read 49218 times)

trekchick · « **on:** July 15, 2006, 10:19:10 PM »

i looked for one like this, but only found the iran one... which is close but not quite...

are you pro or against the war in iraq and yadda yadda

sociald1077 · « **Reply #1 on:** July 15, 2006, 11:31:02 PM »

Short version: I am not totally for it, but at the same time I have seen first hand that not everything is as bad as the media makes it out to be. I support the rebuilding of Iraq and the fact that you can not put a time limit on that peice of it. No matter how much it sucked, if I had to go back agian, I would.

Vespertine · « **Reply #2 on:** July 16, 2006, 01:27:09 AM »

Here's my very short version.

I don't think we should be there. For that matter, I don't think we had any business going there in the first place.

BizB · « **Reply #3 on:** July 16, 2006, 08:50:37 AM »

1) We cooked up a reason to invade but it was an excellent strategic move on our part
2) We weren't prepared for the terrorism after the war - The military's job is to kill people and break things, not police civilians.
3) We need to be there, not just to maintain security and assist to rebuild, but for strategery in the Iran situation
4) Iran must shit or get off the pot, now - unfortunately, it seems they've decided to shit
5) History might see the Afghanistan/Iraq military actions as brilliant

jeee · « **Reply #4 on:** July 16, 2006, 09:15:42 AM »

I think the US is facing his second Vietnam.

Crystalmonkey · « **Reply #5 on:** July 16, 2006, 10:55:13 AM »

We may need Iraq considering the middle east is going straight to hell in a hand basket.

There are plenty of dictators that we DON'T deal with because we just don't care enough about their countries.

We should probably start training people to be a policing force as well...

Vespertine · « **Reply #6 on:** July 16, 2006, 01:09:19 PM »

Quote from: Crystalmonkey on July 16, 2006, 10:55:13 AM

We may need Iraq considering the middle east is going straight to hell in a hand basket.

<snip>

I've got a question about that. Why on earth should we be involved in what happens in the middle east? I mean, the middle has existed for centuries; long before our young little country came into being. They know their politics and history (which is very complicated) far better than we do. Why not just pull every American out of the region and let all those countries just continue to battle it out the way they always have? I just don't understand why we should be involved in a situation that really has no upside for us, and will only lead us farther into debt while racking up the body count. Tack on to that the fact that our involvement in that region is generally viewed as unwelcome and uninvited, and you really have a no-win situation.

Chris · « **Reply #7 on:** July 16, 2006, 01:31:56 PM »

I'm guessing a big part of it is because of the oil in that region.

trekchick · « **Reply #8 on:** July 16, 2006, 01:45:41 PM »

first of all, let me just tell you that i am for it.

Quote from: jeee on July 16, 2006, 09:15:42 AM

I think the US is facing his second Vietnam.

PLEASE tell me what you ment by that was that it is going to be a failure, and not "its like vietnam bc of all the deaths the us has"

since i am not at my reg. computer... this one sucks, and i will have to go into more depth for my opinion once i get back home.

BizB · « **Reply #9 on:** July 16, 2006, 02:29:45 PM »

Vespertine, I think a hands-off scenario is a lose-lose situation for the US. It used to be that localized wars in the ME didn't impact world economics. In this global economy, any instability in any oil-producing nation is reason enough to get involved.

Are we there to "steal" the oil? Nope.
Are we there to insure the free-flow of oil at market value. Perzactly.

Well, the free flow of oil, and strategically positioning ourselves for WWIII.

trekchick · « **Reply #10 on:** July 16, 2006, 02:52:45 PM »

do i believe that oil is a cause of it now? yes

and im sure that was a +... but i dont think it was the main reason

remember saddam terrorized his people (yes, i know other countries have that same problem, but just bare with me)

he refused to let UN inspectors into the country to look for WMD's along with refusing to work with the UN. leading the UN to believe that he did have WMD's

and i can go on a long spill... but i wont... instead i will spread it out over time

but you have to agree that the us is doing a tremendous good over there.

personally, i cant wait to join the military, and get over there.

Vespertine · « **Reply #11 on:** July 16, 2006, 02:58:44 PM »

Quote from: BizB on July 16, 2006, 02:29:45 PM

Vespertine, I think a hands-off scenario is a lose-lose situation for the US. It used to be that localized wars in the ME didn't impact world economics. In this global economy, any instability in any oil-producing nation is reason enough to get involved.

Are we there to "steal" the oil? Nope.
Are we there to insure the free-flow of oil at market value. Perzactly.

Well, the free flow of oil, and strategically positioning ourselves for WWIII.

Biz, while I do understand the oil and global economy argument, I don't know that I agree with it. I say this because there are many other places in the world that are oil producing. Granted, I am totally not an expert on oil but, off the top of my head, I can think of at least three regions that pump out a massive amount of oil: South America, Central America and Russia. It seems to me that if we capitalized on these other markets, the middle east might just feel enough of an economic impact that they'd attempt to keep themselves in line a bit more, if only to bring the money back. Top all of that off with the fact that I truly question how much longer we will be oil dependent, and I just don't see any reason (other than positioning for WWIII) for us to be involved in conflict that will ultimately kill thousands and thousands of people who didn't want us there to "protect" them in the first place.

Vespertine · « **Reply #12 on:** July 16, 2006, 03:08:44 PM »

Quote from: trekchick on July 16, 2006, 02:52:45 PM

do i believe that oil is a cause of it now? yes

and im sure that was a +... but i dont think it was the main reason

remember saddam terrorized his people (yes, i know other countries have that same problem, but just bare with me)

he refused to let UN inspectors into the country to look for WMD's along with refusing to work with the UN. leading the UN to believe that he did have WMD's

and i can go on a long spill... but i wont... instead i will spread it out over time

but you have to agree that the us is doing a tremendous good over there.

personally, i cant wait to join the military, and get over there.

1. Don't get me wrong, I'm saying Saddam is a good guy. BUT, there are despotic assholes all over the planet who torture and kill their own people. It is not our job to go hopping around the globe, removing them from power. If the people of a given country or region want it badly enough, they will find a way to stage an uprising that will remove the "government" in question.

2. I do not agree that the U.S. is doing "a tremendous amount of good over there". For that matter, I don't think we're doing much good at all. Instead of Iraq being ruled by a tyrant (but otherwise stable), our actions have pushed the country to the brink of a civil war (and all of the instability that is inherent in that condition). Please explain to the families of the 100,000+ dead Iraqi civilians how much better off they are now.

Evonus · « **Reply #13 on:** July 16, 2006, 04:29:16 PM »

Quote from: Vespertine on July 16, 2006, 02:58:44 PM

Biz, while I do understand the oil and global economy argument, I don't know that I agree with it. I say this because there are many other places in the world that are oil producing. Granted, I am totally not an expert on oil but, off the top of my head, I can think of at least three regions that pump out a massive amount of oil: South America, Central America and Russia.

Well actually North America has a lot of oil as well. The U.S. produces 70% of its own oil. We also consume more oil than any other country on the planet which is why our need is so high. One of the key reasons for the U.S. wanting Nafta, besides cheap labor, is because Mexico has oil, lost of it, and so we are trying to get oil from them. Is it working? Yes, but it's very hard to change your markets overnight. Most of South America hates us for what we did in the 1900's so we'd be doing the same thing we'd be doing in the middle east. Central America has a lot of ongoing problems, so they also need to "get it together", not to mention, most of them are also part of OPEC. Russia would be a superb choice, but much of their oil is frozen, and the advancements in technology it would take to harvest a lot of that would be more trouble than it's worth.

Quote

It seems to me that if we capitalized on these other markets, the middle east might just feel enough of an economic impact that they'd attempt to keep themselves in line a bit more, if only to bring the money back.

Oil isn't the only reason we're involved in the middle east. Many kings/sultains/dictators, in the middle east have large investments in U.S. stock, which allows our economy to grow. It would not be in our best interest to lose these investments.

Quote

Top all of that off with the fact that I truly question how much longer we will be oil dependent, and I just don't see any reason (other than positioning for WWIII) for us to be involved in conflict that will ultimately kill thousands and thousands of people who didn't want us there to "protect" them in the first place.

The people who rule the world are mostly oil tycoons. Oil tycoons are the kings/sultains/dictators of the middle east. They are the politicians in Russia. They are the presidents of the U.S. and Mexico. Basically, the world is controlled by those who sell oil. If you controlled where money was distributed, would you choose to fun a project that would cause the industry you were a CEO of to go bancrupt?

Basically, do I agree with the war in Iraq. Nope. Why don't I agree with it? Because of the time we did it mainly. If we had done it in the 90's I would've been gungho for it. But doing in now just creates problems because we are spreading ourselves so thin. As much as I hate dictators and oil lord, including good ol' Dubya, I realize that they have to be slowly removed, because if oil were just suddenly dropped, the world economy would collapse. That being said, the reason I think we are even in Iraq is to make the Sultain of Saudi Arabai happy, because he's our biggest investor and oil supplier, and he hasn't liked Sadam since the end of the Iran-Iraq war in the late 80's.

xolik · « **Reply #14 on:** July 16, 2006, 04:36:08 PM »

Quote from: jeee on July 16, 2006, 09:15:42 AM

I think the US is facing his second Vietnam.

That sure is a popular sentiment to toss out everytime the US gets invovled in ANY kind of battle nowadays.

TheJudge · « **Reply #15 on:** July 16, 2006, 05:46:46 PM »

Quote from: trekchick on July 16, 2006, 02:52:45 PM

do i believe that oil is a cause of it now? yes

and im sure that was a +... but i dont think it was the main reason

remember saddam terrorized his people (yes, i know other countries have that same problem, but just bare with me)

he refused to let UN inspectors into the country to look for WMD's along with refusing to work with the UN. leading the UN to believe that he did have WMD's

and i can go on a long spill... but i wont... instead i will spread it out over time

but you have to agree that the us is doing a tremendous good over there.

personally, i cant wait to join the military, and get over there.

What WMD's? It seems you are a victim of propaganda.

BizB · « **Reply #16 on:** July 16, 2006, 06:01:36 PM »

Quote from: TheJudge on July 16, 2006, 05:46:46 PM

What WMD's? It seems you are a victim of propaganda.

Thank you for opening that door for me, Judge.

The UNSCUM and IAEA inspectors' purpose in Iraq prior to 2003 was to inventory and catalog all remaining WMD that had been identified (By same) in the 1990s. Saddam was ordered to dismantle these weapons and was not allowed to own any misiles capable of traveling a very short distance (180 miles rings a bell).

The object was not supposed to be a cat/mouse game. Saddam was to cooperate with the inspectors and demonstrate evidence of either the destruction of the WMD, or the location of same.

Saddam was about as cooperative with the inspectors as the Bush administration would be with Michael Moore and a guy with a camera. Clearly, he was in violation of the cease fire agreement signed at the end of his removal from Kuwait as well as several UN Security Council mandates.

Since Saddam could not, or would not produce evidence that he dismanteled these weapons or produce the weapons for inventory purposes, the conservative approach to take was to assume that he still had these weapons.

I'm so sick of the "There were no WMDs" argument. It's completely misleading to say that we were wrong to invade because there were no WMD. However, there are plenty of legit reasons why we were wrong to invade.

sociald1077 · « **Reply #17 on:** July 16, 2006, 10:32:07 PM »

America has made enemies.
We have trained or supplied many of our current enemies. The government supplied Iraq with money and weapons durn the Iran/Iraq conflict. We trained Osma Bin Laden. The list goes on. After the government loses interest in a given area it has a tendency to cut those contacts and alliances off. America has been a target for a long time, and after 9/11 and the full realization that we are not immune to the terrorisim that the rest of the world already deals with, the government decided that we need some place to take the fight that was not our own back yard.

Iraq is a sponge for the enemies of our government. We fight there as a way to take the violence away from our cities. It's a focus point for the disgruntled. It is also esay to access for those that want to kill Americans. Is it full proof to keep terroist attacks off our land? No. Is it morally ethical? No. Is it big business doing what big business does? Yes.

Sorry, if thats hard to fallow. I'm not the best at collecting my thoughts and putting them down.

trekchick · « **Reply #18 on:** July 16, 2006, 10:38:57 PM »

Quote from: BizB on July 16, 2006, 06:01:36 PM

Thank you for opening that door for me, Judge.

The UNSCUM and IAEA inspectors' purpose in Iraq prior to 2003 was to inventory and catalog all remaining WMD that had been identified (By same) in the 1990s. Saddam was ordered to dismantle these weapons and was not allowed to own any misiles capable of traveling a very short distance (180 miles rings a bell).

The object was not supposed to be a cat/mouse game. Saddam was to cooperate with the inspectors and demonstrate evidence of either the destruction of the WMD, or the location of same.

Saddam was about as cooperative with the inspectors as the Bush administration would be with Michael Moore and a guy with a camera. Clearly, he was in violation of the cease fire agreement signed at the end of his removal from Kuwait as well as several UN Security Council mandates.

Since Saddam could not, or would not produce evidence that he dismanteled these weapons or produce the weapons for inventory purposes, the conservative approach to take was to assume that he still had these weapons.

I'm so sick of the "There were no WMDs" argument. It's completely misleading to say that we were wrong to invade because there were no WMD. However, there are plenty of legit reasons why we were wrong to invade.

i could NOT have put it better myself.

Vespertine · « **Reply #19 on:** July 17, 2006, 12:33:14 AM »

Quote from: trekchick on July 16, 2006, 10:38:57 PM

i could NOT have put it better myself.

I assume you also agree with the very last sentence about there being "plenty of legit reasons why we were wrong to invade"?

jeee · « **Reply #20 on:** July 17, 2006, 05:21:32 AM »

Quote from: xolik on July 16, 2006, 04:36:08 PM

That sure is a popular sentiment to toss out everytime the US gets invovled in ANY kind of battle nowadays.

Maybe so, but in this case I really think it's gonna be a failure. Afghanistan was a justified cause and the US along with coalition forces did a good job there. But the middle east is and always will be an unstable region. Establishing a democracy there is a lost cause but that's my opinion. The Iraq war is draining the US economy and puts a heavy burden on it's military. Once there is simply no more money to fight the war the US eventually have to withdrawn their forces and I seriously doubt that they have reached their goals before the pit is empty.

If the war was justified or not ? I don't think so but discussing that is useless since it is a fact. The outcome is what has my interest.

trekchick · « **Reply #21 on:** July 17, 2006, 09:24:27 AM »

Quote from: Vespertine on July 17, 2006, 12:33:14 AM

I assume you also agree with the very last sentence about there being "plenty of legit reasons why we were wrong to invade"?

ok... for this part in particular, i think that there werea few wrong reasons... but i think the main thing was that they shoul haveplanned it a lot better. i dont think they planned far enough ahead, or didnt put into detail into it

Demosthenes · « **Reply #22 on:** July 17, 2006, 12:14:57 PM »

I was going to comment on this thread, but V beat me to it on pretty much every point and appears to have this well in-hand.

Carry on.

pbsaurus · « **Reply #23 on:** July 17, 2006, 12:22:19 PM »

I don't believe that the US should be the world policeperson. I was against the invasion from the beginning and still don't support our actions. If Exxon/Mobil and Chevron/Texaco want stability/instability in the Middle East (the later is probably more accurate which is why the administration installed the oil minister that they did), I say let them foot the bill. If the big engineering firms- CH2M Hill, Bechtel, MW, Haliburton, et al want to go in and rebuild, fine, but why are the US taxpayers paying for it? The current administration has continually cut funding to R&D for alternative energy programs and continues to subsidize the petroleum and coal industries. If the same money was spent on developing the infrastructure for celluosic ethanol that we spent on the war, we'd already be petroleum free.

In other words I'm in Vespertine's camp.

pbsaurus · « **Reply #24 on:** July 17, 2006, 12:25:00 PM »

Oh and that is the Republican version of redistribution of wealth. Take from the populace and give to the petroleum and engineering firms. Just slightly more absurd than the Democrat version. Why anyone would vote someone from either party is beyond me.

News:

Recent Forum Posts

Shout Box

Author Topic: the war (Read 49218 times)