Who here is against the war on Iraq

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

wnied

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 1999
4,206
0
76
I have to agree with Reitz on this one. I havent been shown ANY credible proof that Saddam aids and abets Al Qaeda in anyway.
I do however believe that President Bush has it in for Saddam. Enough so that now instead of McCarthy pulling a Communist outta his ass to chase around for public consumption, Bush attaches a "terrorist" badge to those undesireable countries and tries to create a reason to attack in the name of national security. Whilst cutting deals with american and american friendly oil companies to divvy up the countries assets amongst themselves.

It's all about the oil.
~wnied~
 

Mill

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
28,558
3
81
Everyone seems to ignore where Skoorb said that Saddam has been giving money to families of suicide bombers. How is that not promoting terrorism?
 

mithrandir2001

Diamond Member
May 1, 2001
6,545
1
0
I don't see the urgency for an attack. I'm not comfortable with the US striking a sovereign nation because we think they are doing bad things. If that's the logic, we have a LOT of nations to attack. Including Isreal.
 

Emos

Golden Member
Oct 27, 2000
1,989
0
0
Islamic terrorists are not a threat to our national security.
Ummm...who flew jetliners into the WTC and Pentagon? Amish terrorists?
rolleye.gif
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
I'd prefer we didn't have to, but i'm more comfortable dealing with the consequences of attacking Iraq than i am with the idea of having to fill in the kilometer-wide crater that used to be Tel Aviv, or San Francisco.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,268
126
Originally posted by: Millenium
Everyone seems to ignore where Skoorb said that Saddam has been giving money to families of suicide bombers. How is that not promoting terrorism?

So Saddam goes up to someone and says "Hey, heres 10 grand, go blow yourself up"? That causes terrorists? People are waiting around looking for an Al- McMahon from Terrorist Clearing House?

Yes he gives money to terrorists families after the fact, but this is not cause and effect.
 

Torghn

Platinum Member
Mar 21, 2001
2,171
0
76
Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
Originally posted by: Millenium Everyone seems to ignore where Skoorb said that Saddam has been giving money to families of suicide bombers. How is that not promoting terrorism?
So Saddam goes up to someone and says "Hey, heres 10 grand, go blow yourself up"? That causes terrorists? People are waiting around looking for an Al- McMahon from Terrorist Clearing House? Yes he gives money to terrorists families after the fact, but this is not cause and effect.

What are you stupid? He has openly offered huge sums of money to anyone willing to kill jews. This IS cause and effect.
 

SmooveB

Member
Jun 5, 2002
115
0
0
No

Americans really haven't been shown a good reason to go to war, other than "we think they have weapons of mass destruction".
In 1967 the U.S. had over 30,000 nuclear warheads.
The U.S. is the only country to use a nuke on a population.

Should Sadam be removed from power? Probably. Should the U.S. go in without U.N. approval? No. Is oil a deciding factor on going to war? Probably. In my opinion Bush could prove to be as dangerous a person to have in power as Sadam.

I'm against it... but my guess is that there will be a declaration of war before November.

If you're going to claim something like the following:
what of the fact that he pays families of palestinian suicide bombers?
... site your source ... and maybe i'll vote yes... that is what everyone and his brother has said for months but there is never anything there to back it up.
 

Mill

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
28,558
3
81
Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
Originally posted by: Millenium
Everyone seems to ignore where Skoorb said that Saddam has been giving money to families of suicide bombers. How is that not promoting terrorism?

So Saddam goes up to someone and says "Hey, heres 10 grand, go blow yourself up"? That causes terrorists? People are waiting around looking for an Al- McMahon from Terrorist Clearing House?

Yes he gives money to terrorists families after the fact, but this is not cause and effect.

How is that not cause and effect? A major thing preventing them from blowing themselves up is that they think their families would be even poorer.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
what of the fact that he pays families of palestinian suicide bombers?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

... site your source

There's hundreds of sources with that report. Here's the Yahoo news version...

Yahoo
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,268
126
Originally posted by: Torghn
Ofcourse we should attack. They have and use chemical weapons, they are actively trying to get nukes. Even if they don't have weapons of mass distruction (which they do and are developing), what's the down side? One less evil dictator in the world is GOOD thing.

Well Targh,
I guess you know stupid. You define it so well by the above statement.
What's the down side? Well if you have been clueless today, US soldiers were attacked in Kuwait today. One died. There is the start of your down side. Undoubtedly you have no clue why this happened. Probably believe it was a for profit drive by paid by Saddam.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,268
126
Originally posted by: Millenium
Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
Originally posted by: Millenium Everyone seems to ignore where Skoorb said that Saddam has been giving money to families of suicide bombers. How is that not promoting terrorism?
So Saddam goes up to someone and says "Hey, heres 10 grand, go blow yourself up"? That causes terrorists? People are waiting around looking for an Al- McMahon from Terrorist Clearing House? Yes he gives money to terrorists families after the fact, but this is not cause and effect.
How is that not cause and effect? A major thing preventing them from blowing themselves up is that they think their families would be even poorer.

Millenium, I am not suggesting this is a good thing, but I do not believe that someone who is willing to strap a bomb on themselves or their child is too worried about money. God will provide. I have seen many interviews with Palestinians, and have never once heard that they would kill themselves if they had a few more bucks.

Know what I really think of Saddam? He is a lousy bastard beyond redemption. If he is assinated, I won't be bothered a bit. For me that is pretty harsh. Now do I think that brings us to the threshold necessary to do what JFK would not with Castro? No.
I am concerned that soldiers and civilians worldwide. I believe that attacking Iraq will cause the perception that the US is the Enemy. If we were attacked by Bin Ladin for no good reason, then saying we are the friends of the Iraqi people and bombing the hell out of them is going to create a whole lot of Bin Ladin supporters. It will promote one of his stated goals, that is a holy war against us. I believe attacking Iraq right now is in effect supporting terrorism, and we are doing just what Al Quida wants.
 

lowtech1

Diamond Member
Mar 9, 2000
4,644
1
0
I'm against all war, and the present situation is just a political stunt.

www.bangkokpost.com

War on Iraq involves threat to democracy


SHIBLEY TELHAMI

One of the most appealing thoughts about a possible war with Iraq is that it could help spread democracy, transforming a rotten political order in the Middle East.

But more likely, such a war would render the Middle East more repressive and unstable than it is today. Democracy cannot be imposed through military force, even if force is used successfully to oust anti-democratic dictators.

And America's vital aims in fighting terrorism, securing oil supplies and protecting the lives of American soldiers will, in the context of the Middle East, almost certainly ensure that the spread of democracy will again take a back seat to its national priorities.

Aside from the significant challenges in Iraq itself, the picture in the rest of the region will be troubling. Regardless of America's real objectives, most Arabs and Muslims will see in the war American imperialism.

Governments in the region may support the war for fear of being on the losing side, or may simply stay neutral.

Because support goes against the overwhelming sentiment of their citizenry, they will likely endorse the American course through political repression. If King Abdullah of Jordan, like other rulers in the Middle East, has to face a choice between supporting the war while repressing his people and yielding to Jordanian public opinion by opposing the American effort, it's clear what America's preference will be.

For that its people need not dig deep into history: their commitment to fighting al-Qaeda has understandably defined their current relationship with Pakistan in a way that has caused them to put aside democratic values in order to achieve a more vital goal. These values will likely be sacrificed in America's relationship with other nations in the Middle East, even with the best of intentions.

At the same time, America would not be comfortable if democratic change in the region resulted in the victory of radical Islamist groups, as happened in Algeria a decade ago. Nor is it likely that it would be willing to accept democratically elected militant Islamist groups to run the Saudi government and control the world's largest oil reserves as well as the pulpit of Mecca.

The political order in the Middle East is bankrupt today, and if stability means the continuation of the status quo, that would not be appealing. Change is necessary for the good of the people of the Middle East and for the good of the world. But not any change, and not through any means.

The use of military force may be necessary for other reasons, but it is more likely to stifle than to nurture democracy movements in authoritarian Arab states.

America's political success has undoubtedly been bolstered by its superior military power. But its military power itself is a product of a successful economic and political system.

Those around the world who sought change of their political and economic systems did so in large part on their own _ and in many cases with America's political and economic success as a model. Those who want to achieve that success will have to emulate the model. And those who don't will likely fail.

Powerful ideas are willingly accepted because they inspire, not threaten. Even those who are reluctant to embrace democracy, like the leaders in Beijing, have understood the need to emulate much of America's economic approach. And in embracing a new economic approach, they have also unleashed a political process they will not be able fully to control.

Ultimately, America's role is to assist in the spread of democracy and, above all, to inspire.

Wars may simultaneously open up new opportunities for change, as in Afghanistan, and close others, as in Pakistan. But democracy cannot be dictated through war, especially when war is opposed by people of the region.

The thought that, because America has unequalled power, it knows what is best for others _ even better than they do themselves _ would not be comforting to most Americans. Certainly, such a notion is not compatible with the very ideal of democracy the United States seeks to spread.

uShibley Telhami, professor of government and politics at the University of Maryland and senior fellow at the Saban Centre at the Brookings Institution, is author of the forthcoming book, ``The Stakes: America and the Middle East''.
 

Cyberian

Diamond Member
Jun 17, 2000
9,999
1
0
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Ummm...who flew jetliners into the WTC and Pentagon? Amish terrorists?
Amish terrorists? Those of the infamous Horse and Buggy Bombs?
Q: What goes: Clip clop, clip clop, clip clop, bang-bang, clip clop, clip clop?
A: An Amish drive-by shooting!



 

Ime

Diamond Member
May 3, 2001
3,661
0
76
You guys are going to call me lots and lots of bad names, but I think we should consider nuking Saddam if we can locate him.

Seriously!

If we invade Iraq with ground troops, thousands of Americans will die, as will HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS of Iraqis.

Seriously, why do that? Find out were his ass is hiding, and use a small nuke to take him out. A small nuclear weapon might kill fewer people overall.

Actually, if our intelligence is good enough, maybe a massive (conventional) airstrike will do the job. Realistically though, it would probably require a small "tactical" nuclear weapon.

If Saddam wants nukes that badly, let's give him one.

/me hops into his flame-proof bunker awaiting the attacks that are certain to come.
 
Feb 24, 2001
14,513
4
81
Just going to point out that your thread title and poll question are opposites, so the results may be a bit skewed. I was about to vote the opposite until I read that you did a 180 on the question and the thread title. Just a heads up.
 

cmdavid

Diamond Member
May 23, 2001
4,114
0
0
im all about it.. not necessarily a war but somehow getting rid of saddam, whether that be assassination or war.. president bush and the white house know more than we do or anybody for that matter.. he's in his position because he has the best interest of the country at heart, he'll do whats best and I support him....
 

lowtech1

Diamond Member
Mar 9, 2000
4,644
1
0

president bush and the white house know more than we do or anybody for that matter.. he's in his position because he has the best interest of the country at heart, he'll do whats best and I support him....

The same thing were said during the Vietname war era when the US administration sentence more than 50,000 of there own men to death + 100, 000 missing or wounded. And, an additional of 2,000,000 North & South Vietnamese casualties.
 

jer22

Senior member
Oct 5, 2000
237
0
0
ok, 150,000 over a four to five year span, you math folks take the almost 5000 people that were lost in 1- 1 1/2 hours. knowing that we have cells already in our country. and didn't expect "conventional" non nuke weapons. i.e. airplanes. do ya not think that we need to knock out all support for these marxist, communist, totallitarian, muslim(extremist) murdering sob's. run the #'s, and let me know. if we don't stop it now it's going to a holy/racial war if there is another attack. this is not a good thing, there are a lot of hard working people from other countries here, but we need to nip this in the bud. p.s. screwe france. jer
 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
1
0
Originally posted by: glenn1
Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
what of the fact that he pays families of palestinian suicide bombers?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

... site your source

There's hundreds of sources with that report. Here's the Yahoo news version...

Yahoo


From your link...

But Saddam is not the only one giving money. Charities from Saudi Arabia and Qatar - both U.S. allies - pay money to families of Palestinians killed in the fighting, including suicide bombers.


Damn Saudi Arabia and Qatar! I say we attack both of them tomorrow for having ties to Palestinian terrorists!
 

lowtech1

Diamond Member
Mar 9, 2000
4,644
1
0

ok, 150,000 over a four to five year span, you math folks take the almost 5000 people that were lost in 1- 1 1/2 hours. knowing that we have cells already in our country. and didn't expect "conventional" non nuke weapons. i.e. airplanes. do ya not think that we need to knock out all support for these marxist, communist, totallitarian, muslim(extremist) murdering sob's. run the #'s, and let me know. if we don't stop it now it's going to a holy/racial war if there is another attack. this is not a good thing, there are a lot of hard working people from other countries here, but we need to nip this in the bud. p.s. screwe france. jer

What you are spouting is the same rhetoric that the Muslim & Jewish extremists are preaching to their youth, and the same goes for Sadam & Bush.

Are you volunteering to be the first one come home in a pine box, or are you telling your & neighbors children to die for you because it is a honorable thing for them to do?

I urge you to take a moment to think why we have the WW memorial day.

In Flanders Fields....
In Flanders fields the poppies blow
Between the crosses, row on row,
That mark our place; and in the sky
The larks, still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard amid the guns below.

We are the Dead. Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved and were loved, and now we lie
In Flanders fields.
By: John McCrae