Why are People Against a war with Iraq?

[Dari]

That question has been bothering me for a while.

If it means cheaper oil for me, then let's do it.
If it means one less fanatical dictator to worry about down the road, then let's do it.
If it means less weapons of mass destruction, then let's do it.
If it means a more accountable and democratic Iraq (and eventually Middle East), then let's do it.
If it means a more pro-american government in the region with a bright future, then let's do it.

For all these reasons, I see nothing wrong with invading iraq for the good of this country and for the good of the iraqi people. Why listen to wannabees (Germany and France), dictatorship/fascist states (China), theocracies (The Vatican and Iran) and other states of concern when it comes to the good of THIS country?

In the case of Iraq, the end justifies the means.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Do you really believe your outcomes are realistic?

If you do . . . what price are you willing to pay for them?

 

[aswedc]

If it means dozens of US soldiers dead...lets do it?
If it means we're holding a double standard for other countries (ahem North Korea)...lets do it?

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Do you really believe your outcomes are realistic?

If you do . . . what price are you willing to pay for them?

Iraq has a lot of potential as a country, aside from oil. It has one of the most intellectual citizenry in the entire region. The people there aren't as ignorant as others in the Middle East.

 

[SnapIT]

Originally posted by: Dari
That question has been bothering me for a while.

If it means cheaper oil for me, then let's do it.
If it means one less fanatical dictator to worry about down the road, then let's do it.
If it means less weapons of mass destruction, then let's do it.
If it means a more accountable and democratic Iraq (and eventually Middle East), then let's do it.
If it means a more pro-american government in the region with a bright future, then let's do it.

For all these reasons, I see nothing wrong with invading iraq for the good of this country and for the good of the iraqi people. Why listen to wannabees (Germany and France), dictatorship/fascist states (China), theocracies (The Vatican and Iran) and other states of concern when it comes to the good of THIS country?

In the case of Iraq, the end justifies the means.

You are pretty dense, but i guess you already know that...

 

[Geekbabe]

Maybe because they don't want to see that section of world made even more unstable than it is already?

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: aswedc
If it means dozens of US soldiers dead...lets do it?

we lost 58,000 soldiers (please correct me if I'm wrong) in both Vietnam and the Korean War. The best we got was a divisive Korea with no change in borders.

 

[feralkid]

Why are People Against a war with Iraq?




What people?.......Oh, you mean like 'Most of The Entire Friggin' Planet?' Beats me, sick of killing , i guess. What a bunch of wimps.

 

[dahunan]

When exactly did Iraq spill blood on our soil?

When has Iraq openly threatened to do harm against the United States? (Unprovoked harm - sure they have threatened to defend themselves..etc..)

Tell me what Iraq has done that China hasn't and that NOrth Korea hasn't and that Saudi Arabia hasn't?

 

[wQuay]

If it means cheaper oil for me, then let's do it.

Cheaper oil is not worth human lives. And even so, war is not cheap, and t a x p a y e r s will get the bill.

If it means one less fanatical dictator to worry about down the road, then let's do it.

Does it? And why are we worried about Saddam in the first place? Has he ever threatened the American homeland, verbally or otherwise?

If it means less weapons of mass destruction, then let's do it.

No. If Saddam realizes he's going down, you can bet his last act will be to distribute WMD to all anti-American takers.

If it means a more accountable and democratic Iraq (and eventually Middle East), then let's do it.

I could be wrong, but most analysts seem to think a war would destabilize the democratic and moderate governments in the region.

If it means a more pro-american government in the region with a bright future, then let's do it.

That kind of thinking created Saddam in the first place.

Gotta love America's armchair generals: arrogant, selfish, and ignorant.

 

[SnapIT]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: aswedc
If it means dozens of US soldiers dead...lets do it?

we lost 58,000 soldiers (please correct me if I'm wrong) in both Vietnam and the Korean War. The best we got was a divisive Korea with no change in borders.

And you don't think that was enough?

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: dahunan
When exactly did Iraq spill blood on our soil?

When has Iraq openly threatened to do harm against the United States? (Unprovoked harm - sure they have threatened to defend themselves..etc..)

Tell me what Iraq has done that China hasn't and that NOrth Korea hasn't and that Saudi Arabia hasn't?

As for the first couple of questions, read my first post. As for the last one, patience. All is in due time.


EDIT: For those that haven't realized it yet, we are in a new era. Our power stretches far beyond our borders. It is immense compared to any other nation. By acting in a multilateral and isolationalist manner, all we do is squander our power. Time to put them to good use for us. We can't sit around and wait until states of concern become problematic. Pre-emptive action makes a lot of sense for a country with this amount of power.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: aswedc
If it means dozens of US soldiers dead...lets do it?
If it means we're holding a double standard for other countries (ahem North Korea)...lets do it?

double standard? we're letting china, SK, and japan take care of it, since they're so obviously able to and have such obvious interests in a stable peninsula.

 

[her209]

I NEED CHEAP GAS FOR MY GAS GUZZLING SUV.

 

[etech]

That kind of thinking created Saddam in the first place.

Nope, wrong, try again. The US had nothing to do with Saddam's rise to power.

 

[Evadman]

Hey, we have to get rid of our excess bombs somehow.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: SnapIT

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: aswedc
If it means dozens of US soldiers dead...lets do it?

we lost 58,000 soldiers (please correct me if I'm wrong) in both Vietnam and the Korean War. The best we got was a divisive Korea with no change in borders.

And you don't think that was enough?

its china's fault NK exists. let them deal with it, since they probably will.

 

[dahunan]

Is this what you call an "invasion"

Iraq Faces Massive U.S. Missile Barrage

WASHINGTON, Jan. 24, 2003
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/24/eveningnews/main537928.shtml


(CBS/AP)



"We assure you this report contains no information that the Defense Department thinks could help the Iraqi military."
CBS News Anchor Dan Rather


(CBS) They're calling it "A-Day," A as in airstrikes so devastating they would leave Saddam's soldiers unable or unwilling to fight.

If the Pentagon sticks to its current war plan, one day in March the Air Force and Navy will launch between 300 and 400 cruise missiles at targets in Iraq. As CBS News Correspondent David Martin reports, this is more than number that were launched during the entire 40 days of the first Gulf War.

On the second day, the plan calls for launching another 300 to 400 cruise missiles.

"There will not be a safe place in Baghdad," said one Pentagon official who has been briefed on the plan.

"The sheer size of this has never been seen before, never been contemplated before," the official said.

The battle plan is based on a concept developed at the National Defense University. It's called "Shock and Awe" and it focuses on the psychological destruction of the enemy's will to fight rather than the physical destruction of his military forces.

"We want them to quit. We want them not to fight," says Harlan Ullman, one of the authors of the Shock and Awe concept which relies on large numbers of precision guided weapons.

"So that you have this simultaneous effect, rather like the nuclear weapons at Hiroshima, not taking days or weeks but in minutes," says Ullman.

In the first Gulf War, 10 percent of the weapons were precision guided. In this war 80 percent will be precision guided.

The Air Force has stockpiled 6,000 of these guidance kits in the Persian Gulf to convert ordinary dumb bombs into satellite-guided bombs, a weapon that didn't exist in the first war.

"You're sitting in Baghdad and all of a sudden you're the general and 30 of your division headquarters have been wiped out. You also take the city down. By that I mean you get rid of their power, water. In 2,3,4,5 days they are physically, emotionally and psychologically exhausted," Ullman tells Martin.

Last time, an armored armada swept into Kuwait and destroyed Saddam's elite republican guard divisions in the largest tank battle since the World War II. This time, the target is not the Iraqi army but the Iraqi leadership, and the battle plan is designed to bypass Iraqi divisions whenever possible.

If Shock and Awe works, there won't be a ground war.

Not everybody in the Bush Administration thinks Shock and Awe will work. One senior official called it a bunch of bull, but confirmed it is the concept on which the war plan is based.

Last year, in Operation Anaconda in Afghanistan, the U.S. was badly surprised by the willingness of al Qaeda to fight to the death. If the Iraqis fight, the U.S. would have to throw in reinforcements and win the old fashioned way by crushing the republican guards, and that would mean more casualties on both sides.

 

[HappyPuppy]

could be wrong, but most analysts seem to think a war would destabilize the democratic and moderate governments in the region.


What democratic governments in the region are you speaking of? Please give links and proof for your statement.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Iraq has a lot of potential as a country, aside from oil. It has one of the most intellectual citizenry in the entire region. The people there aren't as ignorant as others in the Middle East.

The USA has a lot of potential as a country. It has a highly intellectual citizenry at the margin. But the people there are quite ignorant compared to others in the West.

 

[aswedc]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: aswedc
If it means dozens of US soldiers dead...lets do it?
If it means we're holding a double standard for other countries (ahem North Korea)...lets do it?

double standard? we're letting china, SK, and japan take care of it, since they're so obviously able to and have such obvious interests in a stable peninsula.

Let China and South Korea take care of it? You mean let them beg NK to put down the nukes with no consequences while we tell Saddam he has to prove he has no nukes in record time or we kick his ass? How can the US and the UN have any legitimacy being the "worlds police" (and thats what we are, don't deny it, what has Saddam done to us?) with behavior like this?

 

[dahunan]

And how about this

Collateral Chaos?
Air Force Report Expects Numerous Civilian Deaths, Damaging Publicity

By The ABCNEWS Investigative-Legal Unit
Jan. 23 ? The Air Force is preparing to fly as many as 1,500 sorties a day if there is war with Iraq and is seriously concerned about the public relations backlash from an expected high level of collateral damage, according to a 104-page report, portions of which were obtained by ABCNEWS.

The report, called "'PSAB CAOC Tiger Team: Interim Report and Recommendations," was commissioned last year to examine communication and staffing problems at the Combined Air Operations Command located at the Prince Sultan Air Base in Saudi Arabia, which would coordinate an air war against Iraq.
The report found "collateral damage concerns, the CNN effect and casualty aversion are all placing additional tensions on the CAOC." The so-called "CNN effect" is the ability of television viewers around the world to have ongoing, often real-time, access to coverage which was unavailable before the advent of cable news and improved satellite technology.

The Air Force report says the Saudis permitted only 350 additional personnel at the base during Operation Enduring Freedom, the Afghanistan Air War, and that at least 1,000 more personnel will be needed if war begins with Iraq.

But the report cautioned that even with the additional 1,000 personnel, there could still be problems.

"There's little room for error, no cushion for fog and friction," the report said.

The report also warns that fatigue and "requirements for collateral damage estimates" could wear out the Air Force personnel who worked 14- to 19-hour days "with no time off for 60 days" during the Afghanistan operation.

The report also found "significant confusion about roles, responsibilities and chain of command" throughout key areas within the CAOC. It blamed a lack of clear organization and training by commanders.

"For our premier USAF Weapons system we do not man our force smartly," the report said.

Air Force officials had no immediate comment on the report.

LINK for rest of story

 

[Dari]

The UN is already irrelevant.

 

[jteef]

Originally posted by: aswedc
If it means dozens of US soldiers dead...lets do it?
If it means we're holding a double standard for other countries (ahem North Korea)...lets do it?

our soldiers know full well what they signed on to do and what it could mean to their life. It is not your place to question their decision.

and north korea isn't settled yet.

jt

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Iraq has a lot of potential as a country, aside from oil. It has one of the most intellectual citizenry in the entire region. The people there aren't as ignorant as others in the Middle East.

The USA has a lot of potential as a country. It has a highly intellectual citizenry at the margin. But the people there are quite ignorant compared to others in the West.

Where is your rationality?