• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

To those who oppose the War... Why?

RedShirt

Golden Member
Aug 9, 2000
1,793
0
0
PLEASE NO FLAMES!!!! NO FLAMES PLEASE!!!!!

I have been confused to why people have opposed the war. People always give reasons, but I fell that these people really do not know truly what led to this war. They give reasons that don?t make much sense.

Some of these reasons include:

We are fighting for oil:
The U.S. has stated many times that the oil will remain Iraq?s and will be a source of wealth to the Iraq people when Saddam is out.

We should have waited longer before going to war:
France said they would veto ANYTHING at the U.N. that had to do with IRAQ. This destroyed diplomacy. Iraq has been giving the world the finger for 12 whole years since the first gulf war. They were supposed to allow weapon inspectors full access to all areas, but they never did this. They have not complied in 12 years.

Innocent people are going to die:
This is an actual true argument. While I do not wish for any American, or any other member of the coalition of the willing to die, many people die in Iraq by Saddam. Saddam kills his own people. Saddam and his own sons have killed family and many other people in Iraq. I?ve heard the number of direct deaths by Saddam is in the thousands. How could someone that is against the death of innocent people want Saddam to remain in power?

We shouldn?t go to war because the whole world doesn?t agree:
TOUGH! It does not matter. Some people in the world are never going to agree with the U.S.A. They hate the idea of democracy and hate what we stand for. They just disagree out of hate for us. Who cares what these countries think, they are never going to help us with anything.

There are other arguments, and I would be happy to give my take on them, but what it all boils down to is Saddam is a lunatic that kills his own people that has disobeyed U.N. resolutions for 12 years, and people think it?s just fine that he does that. They think it is fine that he gives the world the finger.
 

flavio

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
6,823
0
76
I'm going to flame you for somehow being blind enough to think this would be a new topic.
 

RedShirt

Golden Member
Aug 9, 2000
1,793
0
0
I never claimed it to be a new topic...
Perhaps I should have ammended this to another topic.

It really doesn't matter... I want to know WHAT these people are thinking (and yes, I see other topics with the same theme).

Please excuse the start of a new thread. I didn't mean to offend anyone by doing so.
 

RedShirt

Golden Member
Aug 9, 2000
1,793
0
0
Sigh...

This is NOT THE POINT of my thread... Please, I don't want an arguement about it being a repost of a similar thread!

I gave common arguments in the first post of this thread to cut out all the crap arguements!

My purpose was not to create havok by confusing people because there are two similar threads. I wanted one that was right to the point, addressed the common arguements, and to see if there was actually a legit arguement against the War.

flavio, I got your message in your first post. I also saw that thread. Please, give me a break.
 

flavio

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
6,823
0
76
I'm just confused why you just didn't jump into one of the other threads. This way we would have to start all over.
 

RedShirt

Golden Member
Aug 9, 2000
1,793
0
0
NM.. I'm out! LOCK THIS SUCKER!!!

I just didn't want to read through 120 messages that all give some BS answer that I refuted in my original post.

I wanted this thread to be to the point and no flames.

I wanted this thread to be civilized and to only deal with the topic at hand.

Basically, I wanted a civilized discusion. But you just had to go and for 3 posts not drop the fact this this thread is similar to another. As people read my original post and then go down and read down to this message, the whole theme will be lost and the usefulnes of the thread will be gone.
 

Yossarian

Lifer
Dec 26, 2000
18,010
1
81
All of the reasons have already been stated elsewhere. They aren't as naive as your first post indicates.
 

flavio

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
6,823
0
76
Originally posted by: RedShirt

I just didn't want to read through 120 messages that all give some BS answer that I refuted in my original post.
But you're original post didn't refute any of the 120 messages. Actually, maybe 1 of the messages. But if you check it out most of you're points have already been refuted in that thread.

I suggest you go over there and join the discussion. See you there.

 

Kadarin

Lifer
Nov 23, 2001
44,302
9
81
Argument: We should have given the inspectors more time and/or greatly expanded the scope of the inspections.
Answer: The only reason inspectors returned to Iraq was the threat of US/Coalition applied force. Remove that immediate threat, bye-bye inspectors. Would France/Russia continue to pay to keep the 3rd Infantry Division in Kuwait ready to go on a moment's notice? I didn't think so..
 

Martin

Lifer
Jan 15, 2000
29,178
1
81
Here is my position:

The US is going to war in order to secure their dominant position in the world. This includes protecting the dollar, securing oil supplies, gaining influence in the middle east and ignoring the UN amongst other things.

How can I support this war, when its only purpose is making sure future americans will have enough money to buy useless trinkets? Do 1000s of people (iraqis, americans and british) have to die for that?

Now, before you say "But Marty, think of the poor Iraqis yearning for freedom, how can you be so cruel and deny them the freedom they so desperately seek?" let me say: Yes, you are right, I don't give a ?uck about the Iraqis, but then again, neither does anyone else. Almost every war supporter who claims that he cares about iraqis is full of sh¡t. Liberation and WMDs are just excuses that were used it order to sell this war to the public..and it worked...in the US at least. And if the Iraqis are so desperate for freedom, they would have fought against saddam long ago. The people of eastern europe wanted freedom and they got it, the kurds in iraq wanted freedom and they got it. But as the last week has shown, Iraqis seem to prefer saddam over an american puppet government, otherwise they wouldn't be blowing themselves up along with US soldiers.
 

Martin

Lifer
Jan 15, 2000
29,178
1
81
Originally posted by: Astaroth33
Argument: We should have given the inspectors more time and/or greatly expanded the scope of the inspections.
Answer: The only reason inspectors returned to Iraq was the threat of US/Coalition applied force. Remove that immediate threat, bye-bye inspectors. Would France/Russia continue to pay to keep the 3rd Infantry Division in Kuwait ready to go on a moment's notice? I didn't think so..
Inspectors could have worked, but the US had no interest in letting them work. What was needed was a better resolution, the type Canada, Chile and a few others tried to push. I mean, within MINUTES of Chile's presentation the US said there was no time for such a resolution. The Bush admin never cared about actual disarnament, they just wanted regime change at any cost. What was needed was not the ambiguous 1441, but a very explicit one:

1. Show us what you did witht he VX gas by March 25th, or face war.
2. Show us what you did with these alledged chemical weapons by april 3rd or face war.
3. Destroy your missles by....
etc.

Whether France & Russia would have agreed we will never know, since such a resolution was never tabled, never talked about seriously. France said they would veto a second resolution, but they were talking about a VERY DIFFERENT resolution!!! They were talking about a resolution authorizing war, not one giving saddam specific goals and timelines with the threat of war....
 

Kadarin

Lifer
Nov 23, 2001
44,302
9
81
Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak
Originally posted by: Astaroth33
Argument: We should have given the inspectors more time and/or greatly expanded the scope of the inspections.
Answer: The only reason inspectors returned to Iraq was the threat of US/Coalition applied force. Remove that immediate threat, bye-bye inspectors. Would France/Russia continue to pay to keep the 3rd Infantry Division in Kuwait ready to go on a moment's notice? I didn't think so..
Inspectors could have worked, but the US had no interest in letting them work. What was needed was a better resolution, the type Canada, Chile and a few others tried to push. I mean, within MINUTES of Chile's presentation the US said there was no time for such a resolution. The Bush admin never cared about actual disarnament, they just wanted regime change at any cost. What was needed was not the ambiguous 1441, but a very explicit one:

1. Show us what you did witht he VX gas by March 25th, or face war.
2. Show us what you did with these alledged chemical weapons by april 3rd or face war.
3. Destroy your missles by....
etc.

Whether France & Russia would have agreed we will never know, since such a resolution was never tabled, never talked about seriously. France said they would veto a second resolution, but they were talking about a VERY DIFFERENT resolution!!! They were talking about a resolution authorizing war, not one giving saddam specific goals and timelines with the threat of war....
It's hard to say what France would "allow" nor what they wouldn't, given that their motivations seem to be both economic and anti-US. However, I tend to agree with the US position that "inspections" only work when they're designed to verify with the cooperation of Iraq disarmament. That was not the case here.

Please also address my point about the US threat of force being the only impetus for inspectors being allowed by Saddam's regime back into Iraq in the first place. If there is no threat of force (and to Saddam, a UN resolution is NOT a threat of force), any inspectors would eventually be kicked out, as they were in 1998.
 

seawolf21

Member
Feb 27, 2003
199
0
0
"We are fighting for oil" all depends on which context you interpret it as:
As in we will nationalize Iraqi oil ? I personally don?t agree with because monetary and political cost too high for 10% of known world reserves.
As in we need to get involve because an instable Middle East threatens our oil suppliers in the region ? I believe this plays an important role for going to war. My view is that this is the second reason the Administration is going to war (First being WMD and potential link to terrorism). Those believing this is saying our economy?s dependence on oil is causing us to get into the Middle East whenever a crisis there emerges. As a result of us getting involved in the Middle East, terrorism against the US developed. I am against the war because of this interpretation of ?we are fighting for oil? and fighting this war is only going to bring people who previously didn?t buy into Osama?s teachings into it. Al Qaeda couldn?t have ask for a better recruitment drive that Operation Iraqi Freedom.

I believe ?We should have waited longer before going to war? goes hand in hand with ?We shouldn?t go to war because the whole world doesn?t agree.? Our role in at the UN hasn?t been exactly been stellar. We agreed to Resolution 1441 last September. It stated that we are giving Iraq a final chance to comply regardless of his past actions and that UN inspectors must conduct inspections and return with a report on Iraqi compliance since the passage of 1441. Furthermore, 1441 stated that if Iraq was not incompliance, the UN meet again to deal with non-compliance.

What ended up happening is that Blix came back in March and said he needed several months to reach a conclusion. We decided that several months is unacceptable and push for a resolution authorizing the immediate use of force. In other words, we agreed to given Iraqi a final chance at compliance last September but changed our minds after Blix said he needed more time. We pretty much backed out of our own agreement.

However, I?ll also note that 1441 didn?t authorize the use of force even if Iraq is in non-compliance. It just stated that the UN will reconvene to deal with the issue. So, even if we had given Blix the months he wanted, we would still need to put another resolution on the table authorizing force. Who is to say how France and other would have voted if 1441 has been fulfilled to the letter? That point is moot. What did happen is that we backed out on our agreement. I?m mixed on this issue. 1441 required the UN to reconvene if UN inspectors declared non-compliance. This is just stupid. For this, I don?t believe this is a good anti-war argument. But at the same time, the Administration signed it with the intent of backing out of it if things didn?t go our way. Bush said it himself when he address the UN last September. For this, I believe this is a good anti-war argument because it just shows that the US can?t be trusted to honor its agreements.

Innocent people are going to die ? I agree this is a not a good anti-war argument. Innocent people were going to die regardless of the war. As stated by the pro-war camp, Saddam kills his own by the thousands.

The other thing that is annoying is the Administration tackling on the ?we are freeing the Iraqi public from Saddam line? as a reason for war. We are not there to free the Iraqi public. It just so happens that Iraqis are ?freed? by the removal of Saddam. If we were so righteous, there are a lot of innocent populations we should be freeing around the world. We are ?freeing? them because it just so happens the Iraqis have a madman with WMDs and live in an oil rich region.
 

render

Platinum Member
Nov 15, 1999
2,816
0
0
France said they would veto ANYTHING at the U.N. that had to do with IRAQ.
Wrong translation. It has been covered several times if I remember correctly.
 

LatexRat

Member
Aug 27, 2000
168
0
0
how could someone argue we are fighting for oil? We already pay for oil . I think it all comes down to certain people are against the war because they don't think our guys should die for a good cause. If you consider the facts.. It is a good cause. The antiwar movement will look for anything they can bring up.

Part II.
Lets say this is all true . we are killing an murderous/lying/heartless dictator just to get control of the country and their oil. Even then. We would be doing an amazing thing for the people of iraq, and i don't think they would mind.


Thanks.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak
Here is my position:

The US is going to war in order to secure their dominant position in the world. This includes protecting the dollar, securing oil supplies, gaining influence in the middle east and ignoring the UN amongst other things.

How can I support this war, when its only purpose is making sure future americans will have enough money to buy useless trinkets? Do 1000s of people (iraqis, americans and british) have to die for that?

Now, before you say "But Marty, think of the poor Iraqis yearning for freedom, how can you be so cruel and deny them the freedom they so desperately seek?" let me say: Yes, you are right, I don't give a ?uck about the Iraqis, but then again, neither does anyone else. Almost every war supporter who claims that he cares about iraqis is full of sh¡t. Liberation and WMDs are just excuses that were used it order to sell this war to the public..and it worked...in the US at least. And if the Iraqis are so desperate for freedom, they would have fought against saddam long ago. The people of eastern europe wanted freedom and they got it, the kurds in iraq wanted freedom and they got it. But as the last week has shown, Iraqis seem to prefer saddam over an american puppet government, otherwise they wouldn't be blowing themselves up along with US soldiers.
I know this is probably like talking to a brick wall, but let me ask you something. You oppose the war in Iraq because of our motivations, you said so yourself. Yet unless you have mystical powers, I very much doubt that you can read the minds of our leaders. Yet you, and many other anti-war people, state your uneducated conjecture as fact time and time again. To me, that is the height of ignorance. You would rather cling to your version of reality than admit that you could be wrong and try to find the truth. Since I promised a question, here it is. Why would you rather form a very strong opinion based off of nothing more than your guess as to the motivations of those involved rather than form an opinion (even if it is a shacky one) based on facts?

For me, I support the war because I believe it will have a positive outcome. A brutal dictator will be ousted from power, and maybe we can prevent another group of state supported terrorists from killing more innocent people. I think that leaving people like Saddam in charge of a lemonade stand would threaten peace in the entire world. He is a thug, nothing more. Except that he has a large army and the capability to kill many innocent people. These are all facts, and that is what I base my opinion on. I don't know Bush's motivations, so I won't base my opinions on them.
 

Conky

Lifer
May 9, 2001
10,709
0
0
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak
Here is my position:

The US is going to war in order to secure their dominant position in the world. This includes protecting the dollar, securing oil supplies, gaining influence in the middle east and ignoring the UN amongst other things.

How can I support this war, when its only purpose is making sure future americans will have enough money to buy useless trinkets? Do 1000s of people (iraqis, americans and british) have to die for that?

Now, before you say "But Marty, think of the poor Iraqis yearning for freedom, how can you be so cruel and deny them the freedom they so desperately seek?" let me say: Yes, you are right, I don't give a ?uck about the Iraqis, but then again, neither does anyone else. Almost every war supporter who claims that he cares about iraqis is full of sh¡t. Liberation and WMDs are just excuses that were used it order to sell this war to the public..and it worked...in the US at least. And if the Iraqis are so desperate for freedom, they would have fought against saddam long ago. The people of eastern europe wanted freedom and they got it, the kurds in iraq wanted freedom and they got it. But as the last week has shown, Iraqis seem to prefer saddam over an american puppet government, otherwise they wouldn't be blowing themselves up along with US soldiers.
I know this is probably like talking to a brick wall, but let me ask you something. You oppose the war in Iraq because of our motivations, you said so yourself. Yet unless you have mystical powers, I very much doubt that you can read the minds of our leaders. Yet you, and many other anti-war people, state your uneducated conjecture as fact time and time again. To me, that is the height of ignorance. You would rather cling to your version of reality than admit that you could be wrong and try to find the truth. Since I promised a question, here it is. Why would you rather form a very strong opinion based off of nothing more than your guess as to the motivations of those involved rather than form an opinion (even if it is a shacky one) based on facts?

For me, I support the war because I believe it will have a positive outcome. A brutal dictator will be ousted from power, and maybe we can prevent another group of state supported terrorists from killing more innocent people. I think that leaving people like Saddam in charge of a lemonade stand would threaten peace in the entire world. He is a thug, nothing more. Except that he has a large army and the capability to kill many innocent people. These are all facts, and that is what I base my opinion on. I don't know Bush's motivations, so I won't base my opinions on them.
I would like to expand on your post.

I think George W. Bush is a sincere person who honestly does not want any blood shed but is doing what he deems necessary to prevent terror from becoming a US daily occurance as Israel now suffers. I really think Bush is a good man. The type who you want on your side when the sh!t hits the fan.

Saddam is an anti-social paranoid psychotic with murderous tendencies. He is not a religious man and only pretends to be religious in hopes of gaining support from uneducated arabs and muslims(which is the case in that region, literacy rates are unbelievable there). This works, I never said the guy was stupid.

And as far as the US-dominance BS, why should supporting the dollar and our economy be considered such a bad thing?
Do we want to live in a country where our economic livelihood is decided by fanatics and tryants in other countries? Personally, I would like the USA economy to stay stable and let those people go back to killing themselves in the name of allah... maybe I'm weird.

I am saddened by the lack of intelligence from these pro-Saddam types.
 

elzmaddy

Senior member
Oct 29, 2002
479
0
0
War = killing people = bad.

Could it be that simple? Hmmm....

Well, I should add more to this post. This war is killing people now based on the possibility that people could be killed in the future. This possibility is imagined, it only exists in the mind. It may or may not happen. Saddams atrocities have already happened -- that cannot be changed. But the mass murder that is happening now in the world is a new and fresh atrocity, which is what we are trying to prevent from happening again. Moreover, what is happening in Iraq now is pretty much the equivalent of a WMD attack (the bombings, firefights, etc all added together) since the result of all this violence is all the same, really. The number of Iraqi soldiers and civilians has reached into the thousands and could reach a number comparable to 9/11. The manner of how these human beings are killed is not that important since the end result is the same. Of course we don't see it this way, as human beings killing each other. We see Americans, Iraqis, bad guys, good guys, etc. And so this is the foundation for the "us" vs "them" attitude: Kill them now because they may possibly kill us in the future. Good for Americans; bad for the Iraqis and bad for humanity.
 

Conky

Lifer
May 9, 2001
10,709
0
0
Originally posted by: elzmaddy
War = killing people = bad.

Could it be that simple? Hmmm....
Yes, in a perfect world.

Let me ask you this so it doesn't come off as a flame... Is this world perfect? Is anything on this planet that simple?

 

elzmaddy

Senior member
Oct 29, 2002
479
0
0
Yes, in a perfect world.

Let me ask you this so it doesn't come off as a flame... Is this world perfect? Is anything on this planet that simple?
Well, the concept is that simple. But of course the world is not. I am with the belief that war does not solve anything in the long run. It sets a bad example for the rest of the world and we remain stuck in the cycle of violence. Of course, this belief would be considered in the philosophical realm which is probably not something that people want to hear about now. We want to be concerned with the immediate, which is to remove weapons that may or may not exist that may or not be used to inflict a large number of human casualties. This is being done at the expense of a large number of human casualties.
 

flavio

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
6,823
0
76
Originally posted by: Rainsford<br Why would you rather form a very strong opinion based off of nothing more than your guess as to the motivations of those involved rather than form an opinion (even if it is a shacky one) based on facts?

You are ridiculous. Your opinions you consider as facts but everyone else just has "opinions".

Facts:

1. Iraqis for the most part would rather have their dictator then have the US control them.

2. Operatio Iraqi Freedom is nothing more than a marketing campaign

3. We weren't being threatened by Iraq, but everyone will hate us after this war.

4. If and when the US does win the "war" it won't magically be all pretty for anyone involved.

 

Conky

Lifer
May 9, 2001
10,709
0
0
Originally posted by: elzmaddy
War = killing people = bad.

Could it be that simple? Hmmm....

Well, I should add more to this post. This war is killing people now based on the possibility that people could be killed in the future. This possibility is imagined, it only exists in the mind. It may or may not happen. Saddams atrocities have already happened -- that cannot be changed. But the mass murder that is happening now in the world is a new and fresh atrocity, which is what we are trying to prevent from happening again. Moreover, what is happening in Iraq now is pretty much the equivalent of a WMD attack (the bombings, firefights, etc all added together) since the result of all this violence is all the same, really. The number of Iraqi soldiers and civilians has reached into the thousands and could reach a number comparable to 9/11. The manner of how these human beings are killed is not that important since the end result is the same. Of course we don't see it this way, as human beings killing each other. We see Americans, Iraqis, bad guys, good guys, etc. And so this is the foundation for the "us" vs "them" attitude: Kill them now because they may possibly kill us in the future. Good for Americans; bad for the Iraqis and bad for humanity.
You cannot say that Saddam gassed only a few thousand of his own people and would never do anything like that to the USA which he holds in high esteem. You can't say that.

You can't say Saddam killed many thousands of people and we should trust him to stop. You can't say that.

So a few thousand more Iraqi people die there as a result of this. The end result is we don't have to deal with a 1 million persons casualty attack in NYC or wherever because we cut these @ssholes off before they could even get started. The number of people who may die during this war will still be much less than Saddam would have normally killed, if he is still alive.

State sponsored terrorism must end!

I don't care how much you worship Saddam.

:p






 

ASK THE COMMUNITY