• 🇳🇿 🇲🇲 🇯🇵 🇨🇳 🇦🇺 🇦🇶 🇮🇳
    Australian & Asian
    Drug Discussion

    Welcome Guest!
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
  • AADD Moderators: swilow | Vagabond696

Should we go to war with Iraq?

jakoz

jakoz

Bluelighter
Joined
Feb 18, 2001
Messages
3,140
It's been six months since this thread, and things have changed quite a bit in the last half year.
So what do you think?
1) Should there be a war in Iraq, led by the US, even without UN approval?
2) Should there be a war at all?
This is an honest question and a serious topic, so please direct all nonsensical rants to this thread in the lounge.
[ 21 January 2003: Message edited by: Jakoz ]
 
I haven't been following the news on television lately but from what i have heard on radio and word of mouth i have to give a big fat NO to a war on Iraq
He (Bush) sent the UN to Iraq to have a look around and make sure there was no weapons of mass destruction there and they didn't find any so it should be end of story, But we/they/us are goin in anyhoo
Correct me if i'm wrong but I think it's gotta have something to do with oil and the American economy
Lets just hope Bush doesn't go completly nuts
 
sorry to break this to you, but george dubya is already nuts. if this war goes ahead, which looks highly likely, it'll be the clash of the pawns in a game of chess played by madmen on both sides.
hussain is nuts, but bush is nutser. i have a great fear that the world is slowly heading into fascism, and that govts around the world are using the current tension to introduce laws that intrude into the lives of individuals in ways that we would not have dreamed possible even 5 years ago.
we shouldn't go to war with iraq, but i'm afraid that even if we do, the effects of these tensions will last long after the last shot is fired. war right now is the least that we should worry about, and the infringement on our rights perpetrated during this time will take a long time to erase/wind back.
not happy jan :\
btw. what is even more scary is the fact that electorates and constituencies around the world are lapping all the govt propaganda up like starved babies. i predict that this will win bush a second term in the white house, and johnny rotten at least another term. this is ten times better electorally than the tampa ever was.
i for one have never marched for anything in my life, but i will tell you one thing for sure, when the protest marches start this time around, i will be right there to lend my support, as little as it is.
:(
 
^ Sometimes the end justifies the means, the case against Iraq does not even register a blip however.
[ 21 January 2003: Message edited by: Raving Loony ]
 
I'm so in two minds about this that I couldn't make any coherent points trying to post a response.
Iraq can't be trusted, but then again, nor can America.
 
Since that fateful day on September 11 I have watched countless documentaries putting foward arguments for both sides, slanted and hyped up media reports and propaganda from both sides of the fence - after all this information, I'm still confused as ever.
No we shouldn't go to war, in a perfect world this goes without saying. But we don't live in one and sometimes war in inevitable - cause not every contry subcribes to the theory of no war.
In the end I think the issue's are complex and involve alot of hidden agenda's - some we might hazard a guess about but alot we have no idea about. I think it's quite ironic that what ever the US seems fit to tackle and resolve always comes back to bite it - lets not forget that both Sadam and Osama are both products of the US, they are both in power because of them - now the US has to clean up the mess its created.
 
I finfd it interesting to note that when opinion polls have been taken about this "war" bush is so desperate for, the biggest sector of people against the unilateral invasions were those who had lived through the Vietnam war, and that those least concerned were the 18-24yr olds...
Does this bring any one to any sort of conclusion? The Vietname generation lived though a pointless american "war" against communism, and now they don't want to see another war dedicaed to fostering american super-egos in the pursuit of "our way of life". This war is not about Weapons of Mass Destruction per say, it's about oil! The WMD thing is just a front for a much bigger thing, and most people know this.
If the UN finds good reason for an attack, then maybe i'll think twice about it, maybe i'll do a little more research. But until then, i think that the war should be boycotted by every man woman and child with even just half a brain in their head! What we do NOT need right now is more hatred and destruction. Surely s11 and Bali have shown us that much by now...
(As an interesting aside, i find it interesting that when someone attacks the US on their territory, it is terrorism, however when the US attacks someone on their home soil, it is patriotism and "self-defence"...)
 
^ Opinion polls mean jack shit, because most of the general populace are grossly un-informed. I wonder how may people actually bothered to read the dossier that Tony Blair put presented on Iraq?
 
OK. The year is 1939, the US amongst many other countries are supplying Nazi Germany with arms and their soldiers were already battle trained after helping Spain's Franco with their civil war. What does one do then? One should say that they should have never got that far ahead. One should say that weapons shouldn't exist. One should say that hate-filled villians like Hitler shouldn't exist, let alone get into power. But to say that war is not an option then is wishful thinking. Hilter being the war-tatic nunce, stopped much of the military research during the war. The fact remains, if 1939 had of advanced into 1940 and into 1941 etc... It would have been a very dire situation.
WWII was a once off need. War should always be avoided, not sought after (points finger at Bush).
 
I don't trust George Bush.
I don't believe that he deals rationally with most of the situations he is confronted with.
He doesn't think before he opens his mouth, which in his position as the president of the worlds supposed greatest power could be lethal. This scares me.
But then again I don't trust what Iraq is doing either, so where does that leave me and the rest of the world who struggles to find an opinion because fo the the complexity and stupidity of the situation?
Who is to say that Iraq will use their weapons of mass destruction without good reason?? But then again are they trustworthy enough to decide what good reason to use weapons of mass destruction would be?
I don't admire Bush for the situation that he is in at all. It has all gone too far, yet they seem to be going around in circles. I would like to have an opinion, but I don't know what. The situation is way to complex, with risks that are way to high.
Sucky sucky sucky.
[ 22 January 2003: Message edited by: star_beats ]
 
Blow them off the fuck off the map and make the whole country into a shopping centre.
Nuff said.
 
If the UN didnt find anything and the US cant point the UN towards anything I have a simple question -
"What are the US going to target in this war??"
If there were no weapons found and they are still going to war - there must be another adgenda.
[ 22 January 2003: Message edited by: banana_man ]
 
I think the more pertinent questions is whether a nation's government has the right to go to war despite the majority of it's population opposing it. If the majority of people wanted us to go to war - then I could accept that fighting of that war could at least be justified. In the current case our government is justifying it in spite of popular consensus, not exactly how democracy is meant to work. And if our democracy doesn't work on such a fundamental question - how can we expect it to work at all.
 
I don't think a war on Iraq is in any way justified. And to be quite honest, I think we're further from war now than we were 6 months ago.
Late last year, Bush announced his plan to wage inevitable war on Iraq. Howard jumped in and pledged Australian support almost immediately. Since then, Bush has toned down his rhetoric to the point where war can be avoided if Saddam exiles himself from Iraq. The US are providing alternatives now -- something that was absent from the debate last year.
Howard has faced a less-than-enthusiastic domestic response to his pro-war stance, and he too has made gradual steps back from the inexorable path to war.
It appears that the UN is still sitting on the fence. While the US and Britain are keen to bomb Baghdad, the governments of Russia & especially France (both with the power of veto over the Security Council) are not convinced of the merits of war.
Of course, the recent discovery of WMD paraphernalia (akin to a bong, some scissors, a few conepieces and a pipe or two -- but no weed) has tilted the balance in the favour of Bush and his trigger-happy team.
The greatest threat to world security is if the US and Britain go to war without UN sanctioning. Such an act would fly in the face of all accepted conventions of international relations, and it would sorely test some long-established alliances (i.e. Australia-US).
For mine, I don't think we'll go to war with Iraq without UN sanctioning. Some of Howard's policies have been quite controversial, but he's not a stupid man. In fact, I think he's one of the most politically astute leaders Australia's had in years. 94% opposition (in the last Agepoll) to Aussie involvement in a non-UN-approved war on Iraq tells him that he'll have millions walking the streets if he allows it to occur. The pro-gun-control rallies after Port Arthur would have nothing on these protests.
As keen as Howard is to cement relations with the Bush administration, his first priority is to enact the wishes of the majority of the Australian electorate. It is doubtful whether he's always done that, but on this issue, I think he'll do the right thing.
And mr_fluffy, this cannot be compared with the Tampa issue; don't let your prejudices cloud your objectivity. War in Australia has never been popular as it is in the US. Put crudely, and in Howard's framework, the Tampa issue involved hardship for 'illegal immigrants' and a breach of our sovereignty. The war on Iraq involves hardship for Australians, and a similar breach of Iraq's sovereignty. It's a completely different story. Equally as unpalatable, but inherently different.
Given widespread public support for the hard-line stance on refugees, Howard had little to lose domestically on the Tampa issue. As has been stated, war on Iraq is not similarly supported. And Australian lives are at risk -- Howard's got everything to lose on this issue.
[ 22 January 2003: Message edited by: Pseudo ]
 
war . . . no . . . bad . . .
peace and blessed be . . .
crow011 . . .
ps: lets synthesise ecstasy that doesnt have a comedown . . . then lets give one to every person on earth . . . and sit back and see what happens . . .
 
Originally posted by crow011:
ps: lets synthesise ecstasy that doesnt have a comedown . . . then lets give one to every person on earth . . . and sit back and see what happens . . .[/QB]
No thanks...
If the US does go to war, despite the fact it has not been sanctioned by the UN, then it leaves all that the UN stands for a mockery. And further to this, it proves that we live in nothing but a global dictatorship, where little rebel groups need to be extinguished. It's quite ironic that for many years the US has fought against Communism in order to protect human liberties, when all the while they rape the global community in the same fashion - a sorry state of afairs.
Click to expand...
 
OK. The year is 1939, the US amongst many other countries are supplying Nazi Germany with arms and their soldiers were already battle trained after helping Spain's Franco with their civil war. What does one do then? One should say that they should have never got that far ahead. One should say that weapons shouldn't exist. One should say that hate-filled villians like Hitler shouldn't exist, let alone get into power. But to say that war is not an option then is wishful thinking. Hilter being the war-tatic nunce, stopped much of the military research during the war. The fact remains, if 1939 had of advanced into 1940 and into 1941 etc... It would have been a very dire situation
War is never an answer. Hitler was a product of the first world war, had Germany not been driven into the ground by the reparations insisted upon by the allied victors then they may have fared a little better in the depression that followed the war, they may never been forced into the situation of hyper-inflation that devestated the country and the fertile breeding ground for fascism may have been avoided.
An attack on Iraq may bring about the desired end for the US, Saddam may be toppled and a "democratic" regime installed, and then again it may not. The one thing that you can be sure of is that the reverberations of this will carry on into the future and are likely to affect in ways unforseen, it takes only a cursory glance at some historical realities to see this. Take for example the Al Qaeda attack on the US, the hi-jackers were all of either Saudi Arabian or Egyptian nationality and had been recruited to Al Qaeda's extremism in the decade following the Persian Gulf war of '91. Both of those countries were among the US' closest allies in the Gulf region and both allowed the US to launch its assault from their territory, in the aftermath of the war the US continued its military presence and set up permanent bases in Saudi Arabia. There was a popular backlash throughout the Arab world against the moderate governments which supported the war on Iraq. Muslim extremist's capitalised on the new anti-american mood and recruitment swelled their ranks, this, coupled with the simmering resentment towards the US' permanent military presence eventually boiled over with a series of terrorist attacks that culminated with the attack on the Pentagon and the World Trade Centre.
Had the UN handled the Iraq/Kuwait dispute prior to 1990 a little better then a military conflict would, in all likleyhood, have been avoided. If the US opts for a military solution to the current crisis then the consequences are likley to have a negative impact in the not to distant future.
[ 22 January 2003: Message edited by: killarava2day ]
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by haste:

If the US does go to war, despite the fact it has not been sanctioned by the UN, then it leaves all that the UN stands for a mockery. And further to this, it proves that we live in nothing but a global dictatorship, where little rebel groups need to be extinguished. It's quite ironic that for many years the US has fought against Communism in order to protect human liberties, when all the while they rape the global community in the same fashion - a sorry state of afairs.
^^^^^^^^^
i really like where you're coming from here haste. i was watching the drug wars special on the abc monday night and it had a quote from one of the columbian drug lords saying something about how us laws were getting in the way of their business. i found this comment really interesting as it totally ignored the fact that the drug lords were engaging in criminal behaviour. the same as if i were to bemoan the laws forbidding bank note forgery and how they were getting in the way of me being rich. ANYWAY, my point is (and i do have a point here) - just because you believe something is standing in the way of what you want doesn't mean you are allowed or have the right to remove it. the same night i caught a snippet of something on tv and bush was arguing that hussain was standing in the way of, in essence, how bush thought the world should be. just because the us doesn't like what hussain or iraq is doing it doesn't give them the right to step in and stop it, ESPECIALLY when such action has NOT been sanctioned by the UN. i understand why global intervention might be necessary when a nation (nation's leader/government) is behaving in ways that contravine UN policy, such as abusing human rights, but i do not believe this is the case here. i believe such actions are tantamount to, as haste put it, global dictatorship, and to answer the initial question - no, i do not think either we or the usa should go to war with iraq.
bk
ps i was under the impression that the us is exempt from or does not have weapons inspections by the UN... can anyone confirm this?
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by killarava2day:

War is never an answer. Hitler was a product of the first world war, had Germany not been driven into the ground by the reparations insisted upon by the allied victors then they may have fared a little better in the depression that followed the war, they may never been forced into the situation of hyper-inflation that devestated the country and the fertile breeding ground for fascism may have been avoided.

Obviously if there wasn't WWI, there wouldn't have been the problem. You just can't press the undo button or restore history from a backup tape. It's done, there's a problem, deal with it. The decision of war in 1939 was invaribly the right one. If you were Richard Chemberlain in 1939, what would you have done after he rolled Poland after repeatedly giving his word he wouldn't?
Click to expand...
 
On the notion of double standards (the comment about the US not having weapon inspectors go through their facilities) let's take a trip back through memory lane:
Back in the 1980s the US was at war with iran, how did they fight them? They poured *billions* into training and equiping people like Osama bin laden and the now "bad guy" Sadam Hussein.
The part that's missing out of the whole US yelling "you've got biological weapons!!" is the "you've got those biological weapons WE GAVE TO YOU".
I think the Iraqis should send a bill to the US government to cover the costs of disposing of the anthrax and other nasties that the US supplied them back when it suited them. :)
The whole thing is such a scary situation because it really deep down exposes the fact that the US (in its supposed "global policeman" role) really doesn't give a shit about what's right and wrong, and is just in it to serve the american way of life.. consequences be damned.
I often think that the whole situation is very much like pre-war nazi germany with the US playing the part of Germany.
scary scary scary.. :(
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top