Why are People Against a war with Iraq?

[BaliBabyDoc]

<Louis Gosset Jr.> NORTH CAROLINA! THERE'S ONLY TWO THINGS THAT COME OUTTA NORTH CAROLINA. STEERS AND .....

Of course but that was a lowly non-com speaking to a future officer.

We're actually more pork and fowl than cattle in NC. Next in line would be tobacco and then Krispy Kreme doughnuts. As for the end of that comment, I'm legally married in NC so at least technically I don't qualify.

 

[aswedc]

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: aswedc

Originally posted by: etech
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

ok, Saddam is a certified Bad Guy. But so are many, many other leaders around the world. I don't have a problem taking out Saddam, I don't have any sympathy for him or his regime. However, I do have a problem when, as the worlds most powerful nation, we enforce our justice inconsistently and often only when it benefits us.

You mean like in Afghanistan when we took out the Taliban?

If not you'll have to give me a clue about what this administration has done that you are talking about.

Back to the original point of why Saddam and not North Korea? Why are we totally ignoring the opinion of the rest of the world? If we wanted to do whats right, why are we basically ignoring the UN?

 

[UltraQuiet]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
<Louis Gosset Jr.> NORTH CAROLINA! THERE'S ONLY TWO THINGS THAT COME OUTTA NORTH CAROLINA. STEERS AND .....

Of course but that was a lowly non-com speaking to a future officer.

Ouch. That's gonna leave a mark.

We're actually more pork and fowl in NC..

You said it, not me.

 

[rufruf44]

Originally posted by: aswedc

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: aswedc

Originally posted by: etech
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

ok, Saddam is a certified Bad Guy. But so are many, many other leaders around the world. I don't have a problem taking out Saddam, I don't have any sympathy for him or his regime. However, I do have a problem when, as the worlds most powerful nation, we enforce our justice inconsistently and often only when it benefits us.

You mean like in Afghanistan when we took out the Taliban?

If not you'll have to give me a clue about what this administration has done that you are talking about.

Back to the original point of why Saddam and not North Korea? Why are we totally ignoring the opinion of the rest of the world? If we wanted to do whats right, why are we basically ignoring the UN?

Like other has point out, there's a country called China that stands behind North Korea. The last time North Korea got beat up pretty badly by the marines, next thing you know you got a million screaming chinese man pouring down on you. China can exert and control North Korea as they pleased, nothing similar can exert control to Sadam.

 

[classy]

A lot of folks hate Saddam. But you have to have reason to start killing folks. And right now I see no reason for people to die.

 

[0dd]

Originally posted by: 0ddetech

How much death and suffering are you willing to inflict on other people just so that your standard of life can marginally increase?

The question is how much death and suffering are you willing to turn a blind eye to? The plight of the Marsh Arabs How about the Kurds? Read this and then come back and tell me about suffering. Iraq dossier

Read my post carefully. There is a lot of death and suffering in this world. But the United States did not kill the Shias or the Kurds. Saddam did. Dari here is advocating that the United States should go in and kill Iraqis so that he can pay less for gas. I am not turning a blind eye to the conditions in Iraq or elsewhere, but I am not going to justify killing someone else so that I can save a few cents the next time I fill up my car.

 

[MacBaine]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: MacBaine

Originally posted by: Dari
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.

S you are calling those who oppose the war anti-american? Those who question the decisions of our government are far more American than people like you who follow them blindly.

yeah, I've seen the anti-war demonstrations. I've seen the anti-semitism spewing from the demonstrators rancid mouths. I've seen the anti-globalism at those marches. I've seen the socialist/communist agendas spewed at those marches. Those people are against the american system. They oppose american values. While I value free speech, I can't debate with anyone that ties several issues together, all at once. The aforementioned issues that they tie together makes their anti-war arguments moot.

So in your eyes, there are only two sides; Those who support the war, and the redicals who protest against it? Pull your head out of your ass and stop being so ignorant. Do you think that all of us on ATOT and everyone else in America who oppose the war are going to go pick up signs and spout communistic ideals on the street corners? I'm sorry... I will try to keep my opinions to myself. I don't want to be labeled a communist.

Oh, and don't forget to set your clock back to 1950 tonight...

 

[aswedc]

Like other has point out, there's a country called China that stands behind North Korea. The last time North Korea got beat up pretty badly by the marines, next thing you know you got a million screaming chinese man pouring down on you. China can exert and control North Korea as they pleased, nothing similar can exert control to Sadam.

Well I can't argue with you there about North Korea being under control as far as threatening world stability. However, I still don't think its fair, and I still don't think we have justifiable reason to be taking out Saddam, and the world apparently agrees. To quote classy, "But you have to have reason to start killing folks. And right now I see no reason for people to die. "

 

[novon]

Be against war.

 

[MacBaine]

Originally posted by: rufruf44

Originally posted by: MacBaine

Originally posted by: Dari
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.

S you are calling those who oppose the war anti-american? Those who question the decisions of our government are far more American than people like you who follow them blindly.

In the case of specific group of people (Berkeley's and some of our prestige and delusional member of the college educator), yes I'll call them anti-american. Someone just bomb and kill 3,000 of your fellow American, and you oppose any retaliatory effort against them (Al-Qaeda & Taliban), and kept blaming your own people for that ? :|
For the rest, I'll just consider it a different in opinion.

So you are suggesting that we're un-American if we blindly follow our leaders out of a desire for revenge?

 

[rufruf44]

Originally posted by: MacBaine

Originally posted by: rufruf44

Originally posted by: MacBaine

Originally posted by: S you are calling those who oppose the war anti-american? Those who question the decisions of our government are far more American than people like you who follow them blindly.

In the case of specific group of people (Berkeley's and some of our prestige and delusional member of the college educator), yes I'll call them anti-american. Someone just bomb and kill 3,000 of your fellow American, and you oppose any retaliatory effort against them (Al-Qaeda & Taliban), and kept blaming your own people for that ? :|
For the rest, I'll just consider it a different in opinion.

So you are suggesting that we're un-American if we blindly follow our leaders out of a desire for revenge?

Huh? where's that come from ?

 

[0dd]

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: 0dd

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Stefan

Why are People Against a war with Iraq?

People are just sick of the US trying to be the world police. If anyone finds a REAL reason to go to war then people wont be against it.

they weren't so against it when we had to go and bomb serbia for them.

I believe that we did have a real reason to go and bomb Serbia. The entire Balkan region was in a state of civil war that threatened to spill over into the rest of Europe. We put troops in Albania to keep them out of it and troops in Macedonia to keep Greece out of it. Instabilities in that region have led to both World Wars.

Was there a UN resolution for that action?

Good question. It seems that the answer is yes and no. There were resolutions by the UN Security Council calling for Serbia to take certain actions that it failed to do leading NATO to bomb them without a specific resolution calling for force. Could be useful in the current situation to see what kinds of inaction prompts a response.

However the situation in the Balkans is different from Iraq in that NATO responded to a crises that directly threatened some of its members which is exactly what it was created to do.

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: 0dd

Originally posted by: 0ddetech

How much death and suffering are you willing to inflict on other people just so that your standard of life can marginally increase?

The question is how much death and suffering are you willing to turn a blind eye to? The plight of the Marsh Arabs How about the Kurds? Read this and then come back and tell me about suffering. Iraq dossier

Read my post carefully. There is a lot of death and suffering in this world. But the United States did not kill the Shias or the Kurds. Saddam did. Dari here is advocating that the United States should go in and kill Iraqis so that he can pay less for gas. I am not turning a blind eye to the conditions in Iraq or elsewhere, but I am not going to justify killing someone else so that I can save a few cents the next time I fill up my car.

That is Dari's argument, it is not mine and I do not agree with it. I believe that the oil is a very minor component of why Saddam should be taken out. That component is based on what he would do with billions of dollars of oil dollars once the sanctions are lifted and lifted soon they must be.

I also must disagee with the way you phrase the statement "the United States should go in and kill Iraqis". That will be the outcome, some Iraqis will die, but the intent is to remove Saddam. There is a difference and it should be noted.

Your words.

I don't have a problem taking out Saddam, I don't have any sympathy for him or his regime.

did you change your mind between posts.

N.Korea is a different situation. Look on a map to understand why.

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: 0dd

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: 0dd

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Stefan

Why are People Against a war with Iraq?

People are just sick of the US trying to be the world police. If anyone finds a REAL reason to go to war then people wont be against it.

they weren't so against it when we had to go and bomb serbia for them.

I believe that we did have a real reason to go and bomb Serbia. The entire Balkan region was in a state of civil war that threatened to spill over into the rest of Europe. We put troops in Albania to keep them out of it and troops in Macedonia to keep Greece out of it. Instabilities in that region have led to both World Wars.

Was there a UN resolution for that action?

Good question. It <a class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.rferl.org/balkan-report/2000/07/52-140700.html" target=blank>seems</A> that the answer is yes and no. There were resolutions by the UN Security Council calling for Serbia to take certain actions that it failed to do leading NATO to bomb them without a specific resolution calling for force. Could be useful in the current situation to see what kinds of inaction prompts a response.

However the situation in the Balkans is different from Iraq in that NATO responded to a crises that directly threatened some of its members which is exactly what it was created to do.

How did the mess in Kosovo directly threaten some of it's members? I'm really curious. I really didn't support using Nato for that mission. I thought that Europe should have dealt with it as it was in their backyard.

But if that logic was used to authorize force then the same logic applies to Iraq.

 

[MacBaine]

Originally posted by: rufruf44

Originally posted by: MacBaine

Originally posted by: rufruf44

Originally posted by: MacBaine

Originally posted by: S you are calling those who oppose the war anti-american? Those who question the decisions of our government are far more American than people like you who follow them blindly.

In the case of specific group of people (Berkeley's and some of our prestige and delusional member of the college educator), yes I'll call them anti-american. Someone just bomb and kill 3,000 of your fellow American, and you oppose any retaliatory effort against them (Al-Qaeda & Taliban), and kept blaming your own people for that ? :|
For the rest, I'll just consider it a different in opinion.

So you are suggesting that we're un-American if we blindly follow our leaders out of a desire for revenge?

Huh? where's that come from ?

You're suggesting that because somebody hurt us, to oppose hurting "them" back would be Un-American. I'm not saying that I opposed taking out the Taliban/Al-Qaeda, but to question your government in cases such as these is definately NOT Un-American.

 

[0dd]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: 0dd

Originally posted by: Dari If it means cheaper oil for me, then let's do it.

So you are willing to let hundreds of thousands of Iraqis die so that you have to pay 10 cents less for gas. The real effect from the US siezing Iraqi oil fields would more likely be the stablizing of oil prices rather than a large decline in oil prices. Do you really think that the American oil companies that take over Iraqi oil production would actually want to see oil prices fall to a level that would cut into their profits? How much death and suffering are you willing to inflict on other people just so that your standard of life can marginally increase?

Boo hoo hoo. Cry me a fvckin river. If you want to see things that way, it's your choice.

Why should I be crying for you. You seem to be in a much better position than the average Iraqi. If seeing it my way means that I value human life more than a dollar, I think that I made the right choice.

 

[FrontlineWarrior]

Originally posted by: Evadman
Hey, we have to get rid of our excess bombs somehow.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: 0dd

Originally posted by: 0ddetech

How much death and suffering are you willing to inflict on other people just so that your standard of life can marginally increase?

The question is how much death and suffering are you willing to turn a blind eye to? The plight of the Marsh Arabs How about the Kurds? Read this and then come back and tell me about suffering. Iraq dossier

Read my post carefully. There is a lot of death and suffering in this world. But the United States did not kill the Shias or the Kurds. Saddam did. Dari here is advocating that the United States should go in and kill Iraqis so that he can pay less for gas. I am not turning a blind eye to the conditions in Iraq or elsewhere, but I am not going to justify killing someone else so that I can save a few cents the next time I fill up my car.

That is Dari's argument, it is not mine and I do not agree with it. I believe that the oil is a very minor component of why Saddam should be taken out. That component is based on what he would do with billions of dollars of oil dollars once the sanctions are lifted and lifted soon they must be.

I also must disagee with the way you phrase the statement "the United States should go in and kill Iraqis". That will be the outcome, some Iraqis will die, but the intent is to remove Saddam. There is a difference and it should be noted.

Your words.

I don't have a problem taking out Saddam, I don't have any sympathy for him or his regime.

did you change your mind between posts.

N.Korea is a different situation. Look on a map to understand why.

I never said cheap oil. I meant a more stable oil system. Besides, that was one of many reasons I gave.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: 0dd

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: 0dd

Originally posted by: Dari If it means cheaper oil for me, then let's do it.

So you are willing to let hundreds of thousands of Iraqis die so that you have to pay 10 cents less for gas. The real effect from the US siezing Iraqi oil fields would more likely be the stablizing of oil prices rather than a large decline in oil prices. Do you really think that the American oil companies that take over Iraqi oil production would actually want to see oil prices fall to a level that would cut into their profits? How much death and suffering are you willing to inflict on other people just so that your standard of life can marginally increase?

Boo hoo hoo. Cry me a fvckin river. If you want to see things that way, it's your choice.

Why should I be crying for you. You seem to be in a much better position than the average Iraqi. If seeing it my way means that I value human life more than a dollar, I think that I made the right choice.

You're view of the world is too simplistic, my friend. I value self-interest, humanity, and other american values. I support taking out for all the values I stand for: Not for killing iraqis to save a buck or two at the pump.

 

[MacBaine]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: 0dd

Originally posted by: 0ddetech

How much death and suffering are you willing to inflict on other people just so that your standard of life can marginally increase?

The question is how much death and suffering are you willing to turn a blind eye to? The plight of the Marsh Arabs How about the Kurds? Read this and then come back and tell me about suffering. Iraq dossier

Read my post carefully. There is a lot of death and suffering in this world. But the United States did not kill the Shias or the Kurds. Saddam did. Dari here is advocating that the United States should go in and kill Iraqis so that he can pay less for gas. I am not turning a blind eye to the conditions in Iraq or elsewhere, but I am not going to justify killing someone else so that I can save a few cents the next time I fill up my car.

That is Dari's argument, it is not mine and I do not agree with it. I believe that the oil is a very minor component of why Saddam should be taken out. That component is based on what he would do with billions of dollars of oil dollars once the sanctions are lifted and lifted soon they must be.

I also must disagee with the way you phrase the statement "the United States should go in and kill Iraqis". That will be the outcome, some Iraqis will die, but the intent is to remove Saddam. There is a difference and it should be noted.

Your words.

I don't have a problem taking out Saddam, I don't have any sympathy for him or his regime.

did you change your mind between posts.

N.Korea is a different situation. Look on a map to understand why.

I never said cheap oil. I meant a more stable oil system. Besides, that was one of many reasons I gave.

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

 

[MacBaine]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: 0dd

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: 0dd

Originally posted by: Dari If it means cheaper oil for me, then let's do it.

So you are willing to let hundreds of thousands of Iraqis die so that you have to pay 10 cents less for gas. The real effect from the US siezing Iraqi oil fields would more likely be the stablizing of oil prices rather than a large decline in oil prices. Do you really think that the American oil companies that take over Iraqi oil production would actually want to see oil prices fall to a level that would cut into their profits? How much death and suffering are you willing to inflict on other people just so that your standard of life can marginally increase?

Boo hoo hoo. Cry me a fvckin river. If you want to see things that way, it's your choice.

Why should I be crying for you. You seem to be in a much better position than the average Iraqi. If seeing it my way means that I value human life more than a dollar, I think that I made the right choice.

You're view of the world is too simplistic, my friend. I value self-interest, humanity, and other american values. I support taking out for all the values I stand for: Not for killing iraqis to save a buck or two at the pump.

You're making yourself sound more and more idiotic with every post.

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

That right there says "If I can get cheaper gas by killing Iraqis, then let's do it."

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: MacBaine

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: 0dd

Originally posted by: 0ddetech

How much death and suffering are you willing to inflict on other people just so that your standard of life can marginally increase?

The question is how much death and suffering are you willing to turn a blind eye to? The plight of the Marsh Arabs How about the Kurds? Read this and then come back and tell me about suffering. Iraq dossier

Read my post carefully. There is a lot of death and suffering in this world. But the United States did not kill the Shias or the Kurds. Saddam did. Dari here is advocating that the United States should go in and kill Iraqis so that he can pay less for gas. I am not turning a blind eye to the conditions in Iraq or elsewhere, but I am not going to justify killing someone else so that I can save a few cents the next time I fill up my car.

That is Dari's argument, it is not mine and I do not agree with it. I believe that the oil is a very minor component of why Saddam should be taken out. That component is based on what he would do with billions of dollars of oil dollars once the sanctions are lifted and lifted soon they must be.

I also must disagee with the way you phrase the statement "the United States should go in and kill Iraqis". That will be the outcome, some Iraqis will die, but the intent is to remove Saddam. There is a difference and it should be noted.

Your words.

I don't have a problem taking out Saddam, I don't have any sympathy for him or his regime.

did you change your mind between posts.

N.Korea is a different situation. Look on a map to understand why.

I never said cheap oil. I meant a more stable oil system. Besides, that was one of many reasons I gave.

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

alright, so I said cheap oil. But anyone in their right mind knows that oil price won't go down. The reason is because it would hurt the big oil giants. However, a more stable system system is what I meant. Stability equals predictability, which equals adjustments, and so on.

 

[MacBaine]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: MacBaine

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: 0dd

Originally posted by: 0ddetech

How much death and suffering are you willing to inflict on other people just so that your standard of life can marginally increase?

The question is how much death and suffering are you willing to turn a blind eye to? The plight of the Marsh Arabs How about the Kurds? Read this and then come back and tell me about suffering. Iraq dossier

Read my post carefully. There is a lot of death and suffering in this world. But the United States did not kill the Shias or the Kurds. Saddam did. Dari here is advocating that the United States should go in and kill Iraqis so that he can pay less for gas. I am not turning a blind eye to the conditions in Iraq or elsewhere, but I am not going to justify killing someone else so that I can save a few cents the next time I fill up my car.

That is Dari's argument, it is not mine and I do not agree with it. I believe that the oil is a very minor component of why Saddam should be taken out. That component is based on what he would do with billions of dollars of oil dollars once the sanctions are lifted and lifted soon they must be.

I also must disagee with the way you phrase the statement "the United States should go in and kill Iraqis". That will be the outcome, some Iraqis will die, but the intent is to remove Saddam. There is a difference and it should be noted.

Your words.

I don't have a problem taking out Saddam, I don't have any sympathy for him or his regime.

did you change your mind between posts.

N.Korea is a different situation. Look on a map to understand why.

I never said cheap oil. I meant a more stable oil system. Besides, that was one of many reasons I gave.

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

alright, so I said cheap oil. But anyone in their right mind knows that oil price won't go down. The reason is because it would hurt the big oil giants. However, a more stable system system is what I meant. Stability equals predictability, which equals adjustments, and so on.

Of course it isnt going to hurt big oil giants. Why would Bush do that to the people who helped put him and most of his friends in power?

 

[Insane3D]

Originally posted by: Dari
The UN is already irrelevant.

Wow...you really believe all that crap coming out of the white house eh?

Yeah...a coalition of all the peaceful nations of the world...what the hell good is that? We are the US..we can do whatever we want!

:disgust:

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: Insane3D

Originally posted by: Dari
The UN is already irrelevant.

Wow...you really believe all that crap coming out of the white house eh?

Yeah...a coalition of all the peaceful nations of the world...what the hell good is that? We are the US..we can do whatever we want!

:disgust:

When I said irrelevant, I meant we can use it to fulfill our goals, but it will NEVER stop us from reaching our objective. The UN is one of many tools at our disposal. Other tools would be the IMF, World Bank, Nato, and so on.