***Official Discussing the Merits of the Iraqi Conflict thread*** How many casualties are acceptable - on both sides?

Fencer128

Platinum Member
Jun 18, 2001
2,700
1
91
I live in the UK - the BBC describes this as the most divisive war in living memory. I can see that too.

Why is it that this war has split opinion in so many countries like no other I can think of? Regardless of your viewpoint (for or against) - why do you think their is such disagreement compared to other military campaigns?

Cheers,

Andy
 

DanJ

Diamond Member
Oct 15, 1999
3,509
0
0
Its a new evolution in war; attacking so that you don't get attacked in the future.

Its a new issue.
 

Fencer128

Platinum Member
Jun 18, 2001
2,700
1
91
Originally posted by: DanJ
Its a new evolution in war; attacking so that you don't get attacked in the future.

Its a new issue.

Thanks. So, why do you think people find that a divisive issue?

Andy
 

dighn

Lifer
Aug 12, 2001
22,820
4
81
Originally posted by: Fencer128
Originally posted by: VBboy
Because it concerns everyone? ;)

Very true. But there was much more support for the '91 gulf war?

Andy

it was very clear that Iraq was to blame back then. Heck they invaded another country
 

Orsorum

Lifer
Dec 26, 2001
27,631
5
81
Originally posted by: Fencer128
Originally posted by: DanJ
Its a new evolution in war; attacking so that you don't get attacked in the future.

Its a new issue.

Thanks. So, why do you think people find that a divisive issue?

Andy

Because it raises many other issues. If you go by the same definitions that the Nuremburg court went by, this could be construed as aggressive war by some.
 

DanTMWTMP

Lifer
Oct 7, 2001
15,908
19
81
Originally posted by: Fencer128
Originally posted by: VBboy
Because it concerns everyone? ;)

Very true. But there was much more support for the '91 gulf war?

Andy

yeah because it mirrored what hitler did to the rhienland.......:) except in WWII, hitler died....

but we made him stay in power....and he killed lots of his own people.....at least nab him for that...
 

DanJ

Diamond Member
Oct 15, 1999
3,509
0
0
Originally posted by: Fencer128
Originally posted by: DanJ
Its a new evolution in war; attacking so that you don't get attacked in the future.

Its a new issue.

Thanks. So, why do you think people find that a divisive issue?

Andy
Because if we continue this theory we might be fighting for a long..long time, all over the world.
 

desy

Diamond Member
Jan 13, 2000
5,446
214
106
Iraq was an invading country looking for territorial gains in 91
Today they are not directly doing anything but we are going to war against their potential.
Its a lot more grey this time
 

Fencer128

Platinum Member
Jun 18, 2001
2,700
1
91
Thanks for your viewpoints. (Forgive me if I assume too much) Any opinions from the "pro-war all along" camp?

Andy
 

Lonyo

Lifer
Aug 10, 2002
21,938
6
81
Minority Report comes to mind, acting before anything happens, although in this case we don't have anyone who can see into the future.
Although, some could say about the ball falling to the floor (from the film) as a kinda pro war argument.
 

T2T III

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
12,899
1
0
Why is Iran calling us a bully? Jeez, Saddam attacked them back in 1980. I guess they soon forget. :(
 

Fencer128

Platinum Member
Jun 18, 2001
2,700
1
91
Originally posted by: Tiles2Tech
Why is Iran calling us a bully? Jeez, Saddam attacked them back in 1980. I guess they soon forget. :(

Could they be mad that the US had a *small* part to play in that little war?

Andy
 

Garet Jax

Diamond Member
Feb 21, 2000
6,369
0
71
Because both sides of the argument have very persuasive cases. I have yet to decide which side I am on. I agree with Bush making his decision, but I also agree with the frustration a lot of countries are demonstrating towards the US.

[EDIT]The problem here is the UN and how they have handled this situation. They laid down some rules that were clearly violated and they did nothing to penalize the violator. This has forced the US to either sit back and do nothing like the UN has chosen to do or to take action and contradict much of what the UN was established to do. I think Bush was faced with a damed if you do and damned if you don't choice. He made the self-serving, but internationally unpopular choice. I wouldn't have wanted to make his decision.[/EDIT]
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
I believe most of the sentiment is aimed at only Bush. Most people agree that Saddam is a tyrant and should be removed from power but they disagree on the way Bush is handling it.

Some are still harboring grudges over the 2000 election and are pining for Al Gore.
Some think President Bush is making up for what his father didn't do (but Bush, Sr.'s task was not to remove Saddam from power but rather to push him out of Kuwait. That's why Powell convinced him to end the war in '91.)
Some think Bush should have been more diplomatic in his efforts to get UN approval.

Toss in general anti-American sentiment in many parts of the world and there ya go!
 

smp

Diamond Member
Dec 6, 2000
5,215
0
76
Originally posted by: Lonyo
Minority Report comes to mind, acting before anything happens, although in this case we don't have anyone who can see into the future.
Although, some could say about the ball falling to the floor (from the film) as a kinda pro war argument.

except that movie was really stupid..........



This is such a huge issue because people all over the world are generally more educated than they used to be. Because one country is breaking UN mandate by attacking another country on the grounds that it is breaking UN mandates... someone said "grey" area, it looks pretty black and white to me.
Lets ignore that the Turks killed kurds, lets ignore that Israel is killing palestinians, but lets persecute the Iraqi people for having a dictator, who, by the way, has been pretty docile for the past 12 years.
Lets forget about Noriega, lets forget about Pinochet, lets forget about Nicaragua and lets not report on what is happening in Columbia as we speak.
Lets forget that Afghanistan's opium crop has skyrocketed since we backed the northern aliance and lets forget that democracy is something by the people, for the people. Lets pretend that we can "give" a country democracy through undemocratic means and unsanctioned warfare. Lets forget the burning of the Reichstaag and lets forget that the Mossad warned our government about 9/11 ahead of time, and that they didn't listen. Lets forget about the sh!tty economy to burn trillions in military might.
 

Fencer128

Platinum Member
Jun 18, 2001
2,700
1
91
Originally posted by: conjur
I believe most of the sentiment is aimed at only Bush. Most people agree that Saddam is a tyrant and should be removed from power but they disagree on the way Bush is handling it.

Some are still harboring grudges over the 2000 election and are pining for Al Gore.
Some think President Bush is making up for what his father didn't do (but Bush, Sr.'s task was not to remove Saddam from power but rather to push him out of Kuwait. That's why Powell convinced him to end the war in '91.)
Some think Bush should have been more diplomatic in his efforts to get UN approval.

Toss in general anti-American sentiment in many parts of the world and there ya go!

I kind of agree with you. Most people (myself included) believe that due to the character of Mr. Hussein - a war was on the cards. The problem a lot of people have is the diplomatic mess that has been created.

Andy
 

desy

Diamond Member
Jan 13, 2000
5,446
214
106
Wow this thread hasn't been blown radically out to lunch yet.
I might add that maybe the build up was too soon. It reaslitically could have carried out in the fall just as effectively, but I think the mass of troops, coming summer, painted Blair and Bush into a deadline that was unmovable. You don't land 1/4 million troops and support them in the feild as a deterent. I knew as soon as they started to land it was inevitable.
 

Ornery

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
20,022
17
81
"You don't land 1/4 million troops and support them in the feild as a deterent."

Why couldn't Saddam figure that out? Honest to God, we should have finished this 12 years ago. Now we have to listen to this crap about a "rush to war".
rolleye.gif
 

shifrbv

Senior member
Feb 21, 2000
981
1
0
I think another thing that really bothers people is the fact that after inspectors were out of the country for several years and all we did was patrol the no-fly zone, we only gave physical inspections a very short time and then said they weren't working. It didn't seem logical. And when you look at spending billions of dollars in a bad economy, it didn't look like the Bush team was trying every approach that they could have. They seemed in a rush to judgement which didn't seem prudent with so much at stake.

Also, alot of people don't trust the supposed "evidence" the Bush team has presented since they've lied about Saddam's connection to 9/11 and Al-Quada and even used forged documents to try and support the case that Saddam has WMD's. Then, they went and bugged the UN on top of it and tried to brush it over in the US media. It just looked shady and untrustworthy from an administration that claims to be "righteous".

Plus, the double-standard when they show pictures of Rumsfeld and Saddam shaking hands and smiling together. The chemical weapons that former administrations sold them. And then the contracts that Dick Cheney has to rebuild the country.

Then we have Bush's secretive post-war agenda which people are still not sure of what that will actually entail. I'm afraid alot of Iraqi's might be in for a rude shock when they get a leader so distant from them like the one in Afghanistan that is only alive due to 24/7 bodyguards. They are expecting freedom. Yet, they fail to see that this administration has been taking freedom away from Americans at an unprecedented pace since this whole "war on terrorism" started. I'm afraid they will be disappointed with the end results. I've seen some Iraqi's here in America talking about "liberation not occupation". Apparently, they haven't been clued into the Bush plan. I don't the military has either. They think they will be able to get this war over and come home. While other reports have been talking about stationing 100,000 troops there to keep the peace after the fighting is over.

Then, when 3/4 of the world says we don't believe it either, it only adds to the suspicion.

When I start seeing so many things like that, things that clearly seem at odds with my own moral character, I have a hard time believing in it or supporting it. It just doesn't seem right.

And many other Americans feel that way as well. Alot of people are scared. But those people don't make it on to the evening news or the world stage because there never was any serious debate about this war. The Bush team had made up their minds about this once 9/11 hit. Actually, long before, but 9/11 allowed them to go ahead with it because there was so much hate in the country.
 

LocutusX

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
3,061
0
0
Originally posted by: Tiles2Tech
Why is Iran calling us a bully? Jeez, Saddam attacked them back in 1980. I guess they soon forget. :(

Uh duh... maybe because Bush considers Iran part of the axis of evil... ?
 

konichiwa

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
15,077
2
0
Originally posted by: Ornery
"You don't land 1/4 million troops and support them in the feild as a deterent."

Why couldn't Saddam figure that out? Honest to God, we should have finished this 12 years ago. Now we have to listen to this crap about a "rush to war".
rolleye.gif

With inspectors out of Iraq for years after Gulf War I, and no threat towards war, it IS a rush to war that Bush and co. have made this such a priority in the past several months.