Why are People Against a war with Iraq?

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

rufruf44

Platinum Member
May 8, 2001
2,002
0
0
Because rather than wasting resources in Iraq, its better to fix up this fuc**** up economy first. If the reasoning is to get rid off Saddam, I'm sure a group of commando can do the job quite effectively, rather than sending 4 fleets and half a dozen division, with thousands of missile barrage.
You also have the liberal and their anti-war policy, and the cowards who wouldn't want to risk their behind for anything and everything.
 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
its china's fault NK exists. let them deal with it, since they probably will.

Damn skippy. NK is definitely herpes . . . the gift that keeps on giving.

What democratic governments in the region are you speaking of? Please give links and proof for your statement.
If you use an extremely liberal definition of democratic then countries that may become destabilized are Turkey, Jordan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia.
 

her209

No Lifer
Oct 11, 2000
56,336
11
0
Originally posted by: 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
Men and women didn't sign up for the Armed Forces to help corrupt politicians get rich.

EDIT: And their corporate friends.
 

feralkid

Lifer
Jan 28, 2002
16,843
4,941
136
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.



Touche.
 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
Where is your rationality?

Most would consider my statement very rational.

Does anybody think the US lacks potential . . . great potential no less?

Does anybody deny our elite thinkers are comparable if not superior to the elite from any other nation (granted we borrow from a lot of nations)?

Do you really think the typical American knows anything of significance about the world outside of their family, job, and Joe Millionaire?
 

etech

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
10,597
0
0
Originally posted by: 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?

"Record time." Hehe, that's funny.


Under UNSCR 687

Under UNSCR 687 - UN Special Commission and the International Atomic Energy Agency were given the remit to designate any locations for inspection at any time, review any document and interview any scientist, technician or other individual and seize any prohibited items for destruction.

UNSCR 687 stated that Iraq had to give "full, final and complete disclosures" to its weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a range over 150 kilometers.

To date they have given:
3 full, final and complete disclosures with regard to ballistic missiles;

3 full, final and complete disclosures with regard to chemical weapons; and

5 full, final and complete disclosures with regard to biological weapons.

3 Apr 1991
U.N. Security Council Resolution 687 (1991), Section C, declares that Iraq shall accept unconditionally, under international supervision, the "destruction, removal or rendering harmless" of its weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a range over 150 kilometers. Requires Iraq to make a declaration, within 15 days, of the location, amounts, and types of all such items.

10 Apr 1991
Iraq accepts Resolution 687.

18 Apr 1991
Iraq provides initial declaration required under Resolution 687. This declaration includes some chemical weapons and materials and 53 Al-Hussein and Scud type surface-to-surface ballistic missiles. Iraq declares it has no biological weapons program.

16 May 1991
Iraq submits revised declarations covering additional chemical weapons and a refinement of its missile declaration.

May 1991
Through an exchange of letters between U.N. Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali and Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz, Iraq accepts the privileges and immunities of the Special Commission (UNSCOM) and its personnel. These guarantees include the right of "unrestricted freedom of entry and exit without delay or hindrance of its personnel, property, supplies, equipment ..."

9 Jun 1991
UNSCOM conducts its first chemical weapons inspection.

17 Jun 1991
The Security Council adopts Resolution 699, which confirms that the Special Commission and the IAEA have the authority to conduct activities under section C of Resolution 687.

30 Jun 1991
UNSCOM conducts its first missile inspection.

2 Aug 1991
UNSCOM conducts its first biological weapons inspection.

15 Aug 1991
The Security Council adopts Resolution 707, demanding that Iraq immediately provide full, final and complete disclosures (FFCDs), as required by Resolution 687.

19 Mar 1992
Iraq declares the existence of 89 previously undeclared ballistic missiles, chemical weapons and associated material. Iraq claims that it unilaterally destroyed most of these undeclared items in the summer of 1991, in violation of Resolution 687.

May 1992
Iraq provides its first FFCDs for its prohibited biological and missile programs. Iraq says it had only a defensive biological weapons program.

Jun 1992
Iraq provides its first FFCD for its prohibited chemical weapons program.

Mar 1995
Iraq provides the second FFCD of its prohibited biological and chemical weapons programs.

Aug 1995
Iraq provides the third FFCD for its prohibited biological weapons program.

8 Aug 1995
General Hussein Kamel, Minister of Industry and Minerals and formerly Director of Iraq's Military Industrialization Corporation with responsibility for all of Iraq's weapons programs, leaves Iraq for Jordan.

Iraq says that Hussein Kamel had hidden important information on the prohibited weapons programs from UNSCOM and the IAEA.

Iraq withdraws its third biological FFCD and admits a far more extensive prohibited biological weapons program than previously admitted, including weaponization.

Iraq also admits greater progress in its efforts to indigenously produce long-range missiles than it had previously declared.

Iraq provides UNSCOM and the IAEA with large amounts of documentation related to its prohibited weapons programs which subsequently leads to further Iraqi disclosures concerning its production of the nerve agent VX and its development of a nuclear weapon.

Nov 1995
Iraq provides second FFCD on its prohibited missile program.

Nov 1995
The government of Jordan intercepts a large shipment of high-grade missile components destined for Iraq.
Iraq denies that it had sought to purchase these components, while acknowledging that some of them were in Iraq. An UNSCOM investigation concludes that Iraqi authorities and missile facilities have been involved in acquiring sophisticated guidance and control components for proscribed missiles.

22 Jun 1996
Iraq provides the fourth FFCD of its prohibited biological weapons program.

Jun 1996
Iraq provides third FFCD of its prohibited chemical weapons program.

Jul 1996
Iraq provides the third FFCD of its prohibited missile program.

Sep 1997
Iraq provides a fifth FFCD for its prohibited biological weapons program.

Oct 1997
UNSCOM completes the destruction of additional large quantities of chemical weapons, related equipment, and precursor chemicals. Iraq had previously denied that some of the equipment had been used for chemical weapons production. Iraq admitted in May 1997, following an UNSCOM investigation, that some of the equipment had been used in the production of VX.

Early Feb 1998
A group of international experts and UNSCOM inspectors conduct two technical evaluation meetings (TEM) in Baghdad, reviewing Iraq?s VX and missile warhead programs.

The report submitted to the Security Council states the group?s unanimous conclusion that Iraq has still not provided sufficient information for the commission to conclude that Iraq had undertaken all the disarmament steps required of it in these areas. The commission?s experts brief the Council on the outcome of these two TEMs in March 1998.

8 Apr 1998
The report of the biological weapons technical evaluation meeting is transmitted to the council. Following this TEM, experts unanimously conclude that Iraq?s declaration on its biological weapons program is incomplete and inadequate.

5 Aug 1998
The Revolutionary Command Council and the Ba?ath Party Command decide to stop cooperating with UNSCOM and the IAEA until the Security Council agrees to lift the oil embargo as a first step towards ending sanctions.

 

UltraQuiet

Banned
Sep 22, 2001
5,755
0
0
Originally posted by: her209
Originally posted by: 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
Men and women didn't sign up for the Armed Forces to help corrupt politicians get rich.

EDIT: And their corporate friends.

If you can prove that I will walk into my CO's office Monday morning and tell her I quit. Otherwise please be quiet.

 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,133
38
91
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Where is your rationality?

Most would consider my statement very rational.

Does anybody think the US lacks potential . . . great potential no less?

Does anybody deny our elite thinkers are comparable if not superior to the elite from any other nation (granted we borrow from a lot of nations)?

Do you really think the typical American knows anything of significance about the world outside of their family, job, and Joe Millionaire?


Again, I ask, where is your rationality? Your statements are stupid at best, and non-debatable (sic?) at worst.
 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
I'm a touch lost, Dave. Are you saying people signed up for the Armed Forces to make corrupt politicians (and their corporate conspirators) rich(er)?
 

DaveSimmons

Elite Member
Aug 12, 2001
40,730
670
126
Originally posted by: jteef
Originally posted by: aswedc
If it means dozens of US soldiers dead...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.
But in a democrarcy it is the place of every citizen to question the decisions of our elected leaders and their orders to the military.

As citizens we decide whether freeing Iraq is worth no dead American soldiers, a few, or thousands. We also decide how many civilian deaths ("collateral damage") we're willing to accept. Then we contact our elected representatives and/or express our decisions at the polls.
 

her209

No Lifer
Oct 11, 2000
56,336
11
0
Originally posted by: DaveSohmer
If you can prove that I will walk into my CO's office Monday morning and tell her I quit. Otherwise please be quiet.
Are you saying that the US isn't going to try and get free oil if we invade Iraq, at the cost of lives and tax money? If you believe the propaganda the Bush administration has fed you then I feel sorry for you.
 

SnapIT

Banned
Jul 8, 2002
4,355
1
0
Originally posted by: etech
Originally posted by: 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?

"Record time." Hehe, that's funny.


Under UNSCR 687

Under UNSCR 687 - UN Special Commission and the International Atomic Energy Agency were given the remit to designate any locations for inspection at any time, review any document and interview any scientist, technician or other individual and seize any prohibited items for destruction.

UNSCR 687 stated that Iraq had to give "full, final and complete disclosures" to its weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a range over 150 kilometers.

To date they have given:
3 full, final and complete disclosures with regard to ballistic missiles;

3 full, final and complete disclosures with regard to chemical weapons; and

5 full, final and complete disclosures with regard to biological weapons.

3 Apr 1991
U.N. Security Council Resolution 687 (1991), Section C, declares that Iraq shall accept unconditionally, under international supervision, the "destruction, removal or rendering harmless" of its weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a range over 150 kilometers. Requires Iraq to make a declaration, within 15 days, of the location, amounts, and types of all such items.

10 Apr 1991
Iraq accepts Resolution 687.

18 Apr 1991
Iraq provides initial declaration required under Resolution 687. This declaration includes some chemical weapons and materials and 53 Al-Hussein and Scud type surface-to-surface ballistic missiles. Iraq declares it has no biological weapons program.

16 May 1991
Iraq submits revised declarations covering additional chemical weapons and a refinement of its missile declaration.

May 1991
Through an exchange of letters between U.N. Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali and Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz, Iraq accepts the privileges and immunities of the Special Commission (UNSCOM) and its personnel. These guarantees include the right of "unrestricted freedom of entry and exit without delay or hindrance of its personnel, property, supplies, equipment ..."

9 Jun 1991
UNSCOM conducts its first chemical weapons inspection.

17 Jun 1991
The Security Council adopts Resolution 699, which confirms that the Special Commission and the IAEA have the authority to conduct activities under section C of Resolution 687.

30 Jun 1991
UNSCOM conducts its first missile inspection.

2 Aug 1991
UNSCOM conducts its first biological weapons inspection.

15 Aug 1991
The Security Council adopts Resolution 707, demanding that Iraq immediately provide full, final and complete disclosures (FFCDs), as required by Resolution 687.

19 Mar 1992
Iraq declares the existence of 89 previously undeclared ballistic missiles, chemical weapons and associated material. Iraq claims that it unilaterally destroyed most of these undeclared items in the summer of 1991, in violation of Resolution 687.

May 1992
Iraq provides its first FFCDs for its prohibited biological and missile programs. Iraq says it had only a defensive biological weapons program.

Jun 1992
Iraq provides its first FFCD for its prohibited chemical weapons program.

Mar 1995
Iraq provides the second FFCD of its prohibited biological and chemical weapons programs.

Aug 1995
Iraq provides the third FFCD for its prohibited biological weapons program.

8 Aug 1995
General Hussein Kamel, Minister of Industry and Minerals and formerly Director of Iraq's Military Industrialization Corporation with responsibility for all of Iraq's weapons programs, leaves Iraq for Jordan.

Iraq says that Hussein Kamel had hidden important information on the prohibited weapons programs from UNSCOM and the IAEA.

Iraq withdraws its third biological FFCD and admits a far more extensive prohibited biological weapons program than previously admitted, including weaponization.

Iraq also admits greater progress in its efforts to indigenously produce long-range missiles than it had previously declared.

Iraq provides UNSCOM and the IAEA with large amounts of documentation related to its prohibited weapons programs which subsequently leads to further Iraqi disclosures concerning its production of the nerve agent VX and its development of a nuclear weapon.

Nov 1995
Iraq provides second FFCD on its prohibited missile program.

Nov 1995
The government of Jordan intercepts a large shipment of high-grade missile components destined for Iraq.
Iraq denies that it had sought to purchase these components, while acknowledging that some of them were in Iraq. An UNSCOM investigation concludes that Iraqi authorities and missile facilities have been involved in acquiring sophisticated guidance and control components for proscribed missiles.

22 Jun 1996
Iraq provides the fourth FFCD of its prohibited biological weapons program.

Jun 1996
Iraq provides third FFCD of its prohibited chemical weapons program.

Jul 1996
Iraq provides the third FFCD of its prohibited missile program.

Sep 1997
Iraq provides a fifth FFCD for its prohibited biological weapons program.

Oct 1997
UNSCOM completes the destruction of additional large quantities of chemical weapons, related equipment, and precursor chemicals. Iraq had previously denied that some of the equipment had been used for chemical weapons production. Iraq admitted in May 1997, following an UNSCOM investigation, that some of the equipment had been used in the production of VX.

Early Feb 1998
A group of international experts and UNSCOM inspectors conduct two technical evaluation meetings (TEM) in Baghdad, reviewing Iraq?s VX and missile warhead programs.

The report submitted to the Security Council states the group?s unanimous conclusion that Iraq has still not provided sufficient information for the commission to conclude that Iraq had undertaken all the disarmament steps required of it in these areas. The commission?s experts brief the Council on the outcome of these two TEMs in March 1998.

8 Apr 1998
The report of the biological weapons technical evaluation meeting is transmitted to the council. Following this TEM, experts unanimously conclude that Iraq?s declaration on its biological weapons program is incomplete and inadequate.

5 Aug 1998
The Revolutionary Command Council and the Ba?ath Party Command decide to stop cooperating with UNSCOM and the IAEA until the Security Council agrees to lift the oil embargo as a first step towards ending sanctions.

You never get tired of posting that same old stuff, now do you? ;)

And you complain that my quotes are long... LOL
 

Evadman

Administrator Emeritus<br>Elite Member
Feb 18, 2001
30,990
5
81
Men and women didn't sign up for the Armed Forces to help corrupt politicians get rich.

EDIT: And their corporate friends.

If you can prove that I will walk into my CO's office Monday morning and tell her I quit. Otherwise please be quiet.


Wait a minute, dave, are you saying that people who sign up for the military only sign up to help corrupt politicians and their corporate friends get rich? and there can be no other explanation? :confused:
 

HappyPuppy

Lifer
Apr 5, 2001
16,997
2
71
Originally posted by: rufruf44
Because rather than wasting resources in Iraq, its better to fix up this fuc**** up economy first. If the reasoning is to get rid off Saddam, I'm sure a group of commando can do the job quite effectively, rather than sending 4 fleets and half a dozen division, with thousands of missile barrage.
You also have the liberal and their anti-war policy, and the cowards who wouldn't want to risk their behind for anything and everything.


I hope you are being sarcastic, otherwise you are being extremely ignorant.

If it was possible for commandos to get rid of Saddam it would have been done long ago.

 

aswedc

Diamond Member
Oct 25, 2000
3,543
0
76
Originally posted by: etech
Originally posted by: 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?

"Record time." Hehe, that's funny.


Under UNSCR 687

Under UNSCR 687 - UN Special Commission and the International Atomic Energy Agency were given the remit to designate any locations for inspection at any time, review any document and interview any scientist, technician or other individual and seize any prohibited items for destruction.......

What happened to that timeline 1998-Present? Then all of a sudden good old George W. and Rummy decide Iraq poses a substantial threat to the security of the United States and they proceed with the war rhetoric despite the inspections being incredibly rushed, a "B" for Iraq's cooperation, and the opposition of critical important members of the security counsel?

Meanwhile, NK kicks inspectors out, removes monitoring devices from its nuclear equipment, and starts putting out their own war propaganda. And the administration plays down the threat.

 

UltraQuiet

Banned
Sep 22, 2001
5,755
0
0
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
I'm a touch lost, Dave. Are you saying people signed up for the Armed Forces to make corrupt politicians (and their corporate conspirators) rich(er)?

Now you know damn well I'm not. You too evadman. I worded my response poorly.

 

Evadman

Administrator Emeritus<br>Elite Member
Feb 18, 2001
30,990
5
81
Originally posted by: DaveSohmer
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
I'm a touch lost, Dave. Are you saying people signed up for the Armed Forces to make corrupt politicians (and their corporate conspirators) rich(er)?

Now you know damn well I'm not. You too evadman. I worded my response poorly.

Well, I for one did not know. I have very few opinions made up on people here, you included. I was just about to make one though :)
 

etech

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
10,597
0
0
aswedc

What happened to that timeline 1998-Present? Then all of a sudden good old George W. and Rummy decide Iraq poses a substantial threat to the security of the United States and they proceed with the war rhetoric despite the inspections being incredibly rushed, a "B" for Iraq's cooperation, and the opposition of critical important members of the security counsel?

What can I say, Clinton was a wuss. At least I didn't vote for him.

After seeing that list of Iraqi lies, subterfuge and deception are you wanting me to belive that Saddam suddenly found Jebus and decided to be a good boy and completely destroyed all of his banned weapons? Is that really what you want me to believe?, well you can leave out the Jebus part but you know what I mean.

Read up on the Iraqi Liberation Act passed in 1998.
Congress First Voted to Back Regime Change in Iraq in 1998
 

0dd

Junior Member
Jan 11, 2003
20
0
0
Originally posted by: Dari
The UN is already irrelevant.

Reading your other posts, I would have thought that you meant that the rest of the world is irrelevent.
 

rufruf44

Platinum Member
May 8, 2001
2,002
0
0
Originally posted by: HappyPuppy
Originally posted by: rufruf44
Because rather than wasting resources in Iraq, its better to fix up this fuc**** up economy first. If the reasoning is to get rid off Saddam, I'm sure a group of commando can do the job quite effectively, rather than sending 4 fleets and half a dozen division, with thousands of missile barrage.
You also have the liberal and their anti-war policy, and the cowards who wouldn't want to risk their behind for anything and everything.


I hope you are being sarcastic, otherwise you are being extremely ignorant.

If it was possible for commandos to get rid of Saddam it would have been done long ago.

No, but US also have a non writen policy about assasination of another country's leader. Saddam extensive use of body doubles also make it harder, but it still can be done. Unlike Bin Laden, he can't move from one country or the other or dissapears from the public view completely and risk a possible coup.
 

UltraQuiet

Banned
Sep 22, 2001
5,755
0
0
Originally posted by: her209
Originally posted by: DaveSohmer
If you can prove that I will walk into my CO's office Monday morning and tell her I quit. Otherwise please be quiet.
Are you saying that the US isn't going to try and get free oil if we invade Iraq, at the cost of lives and tax money? If you believe the propaganda the Bush administration has fed you then I feel sorry for you.

Either prove it or buy a chin strap for your tin-foil hat.

 

Evadman

Administrator Emeritus<br>Elite Member
Feb 18, 2001
30,990
5
81
Originally posted by: DaveSohmer
Originally posted by: her209
Originally posted by: DaveSohmer
If you can prove that I will walk into my CO's office Monday morning and tell her I quit. Otherwise please be quiet.
Are you saying that the US isn't going to try and get free oil if we invade Iraq, at the cost of lives and tax money? If you believe the propaganda the Bush administration has fed you then I feel sorry for you.

Either prove it or buy a chin strap for your tin-foil hat.


Here, borrow mine.

.__
/:)\
 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
Iraq has a lot of potential as a country, aside from oil.
Definitely . . . granted the majority of countries have untapped potential . . . including the US.

It has one of the most intellectual citizenry in the entire region.
Outside of Israel it is probably challenged by other oil-rich countries only . . . not to mention a cultural heritage measured in millenia.

The people there aren't as ignorant as others in the Middle East.
True. Good systems of K-12 education and encouraging travel tends to produce an enlightened population. Granted, they were kind of hindered by multiple wars started by Saddam. Across the globe in America, many children suffer from poor systems of K-12, rarely travel outside their state much less the country, and spend much of their time engaged in video games, drivel television, and pr0n. To add insult to injury they elected a man who had traveled to exactly ONE foreign country . . . the one bordering his adopted home state. The leader of the free world without a passport . . . damn that's ignorant.
 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,133
38
91
I think the main reason why people are against war with iraq is either they're anti-american or they're afraid of our growing power throughout the globe. Considering that the Middle East is one the most important places on the globe (it's the oil, stupid), they fear our consolidation of power in that region will leave us in control of the oil flow. Our surrounding of Iran is no accident. Our outreach to those dictatorships in Central Asia is no accident. We have an agenda. For those that don't like it, we americans don't give two squirts of piss. For those that follow our lead, they will be rewarded generously.

As for North Korea, it will be dealt with in an unprecendented way.