Mar 22, 03
|
|||
|
|||
|
most people in the US are for the war.
a few million IN THE WORLD protested. out of 8 billion or 6 billion, i can't remember. thats a drop of water in the bucket. and yes, the UN failed. it had since early 90 had sanctions on iraq. they did nothing, excpet ruin the lives of the people living there more so then before. 
|
|
Mar 22, 03
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
haha... the sad thing is that he was hardly even elected by any kind of democratic process... remember how that election went? If it wasn't for fucking Ralph Nader, Bush wouldn't be in office right now... WHO KNOWS what would be different in the world if Al Gore had been elected...
|
|
Mar 22, 03
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
that's a poor line of reasoning though, it assumes that anyone who doesn't actively protest is pro-war. Many millions of people around the world would be putting their lives in danger by protesting. Not to mention millions in under developed nations who probably have NO IDEA that there's a war going on in Iraq. Tell me how many Pro War demonstrations there have been, in comparison to Anti War.... that would be much more meaningful
|
|
Mar 22, 03
|
|||
|
|||
|
Oh please! You believe that drivel?
You know why most people in the US are for this war? They are uneducated about it. I was watching CBC Newsworld and they had a call-in period. There were Americans calling in saying they supported the war because it's their revenge for 9-11. This war has nothing to do with 9-11 but Bush has manged to use political savvy and classic media spin-doctoring to fool the American public into believing otherwise. On top of that just because there weren't BILLIONS of protesters is no reason to say the war is supported. I wouldn't say that the protesting numbers are necessarily indicative of the global attitude. Case in point: I don't support the war but I don't believe that these protests are really going to force the US to withdraw unfortuantely. Please elaborate on how the UN failed the Iraqi people too. How is it that they ruined their lives even more? Saddam would still be an evil dictator regardless of whether or not he listened to UN disarmament sanctions. I'd also like to point out that there is still no concrete proof that he DIDN'T comply with sanctions. The UN weapons inspectors did not find proper evidence of the Iraqi govt harboring any weapons of mass destruction. The US is basing their stand point on nothing more than a cowboy's (Bush) assumption.
|
|
Mar 22, 03
|
|||
|
|||
|
i toured around the middle east for 6 months.
i've talked to people all over there, who have told me, cause of the sanctions, they can't get anything to help them out. ex. if you happen to drive an import car <1990 in iraq, you can not get parts to repair it. no matter what. you have to use makeshift parts work with the broken ones. a civilization can not move forward and prosper with these types of sanctions. let alone if you own a repair shop, your fucked. you and your family are now cut of from making a living that way. i went there with a friend, while i was back in lebanon a few days before he came back, he was walking down the street in basra, saw a women yelling at some soldiers, saying you're the ones who killed my son cause he would not hold up a sign praising saddam, the soldiers took out pistols, and killed her right there on the spot, infront of tons of people. the UN had 12 years to get that sick fuck out of power, and they didn't do it. now the US has to, and thats fine with me.
|
|
Mar 22, 03
|
|||
|
|||
|
^I agree with you whole heartedly that Saddam should be taken out of power. I also feel, however, that given time there wold have been a better way of doing it. I don't support the way it's being handled. What you just described was an innocent being killed because of Saddam and his regime.
How is it any different that Bush and his regime or 'war council' as they call it are sacrificing/putting at risk millions of lives? Are you going to tell me that the ends justify the means? It's already been stated in this thread I believe, but I'll say it again.... you won't see the US helping out every single opressed country one after the other. This is driven by the fact that there is money to be made by the US and nothing more.
|
|
Mar 22, 03
|
|||
|
|||
|
^i'm running out of hot air over here....
but i don't believe that those types of human rights violations are the motivation for this war. not at all. Read my first few posts in this thread again. The one about East Timor, in particular. Or better yet, watch Noam Chomsky's 'Manufacturing Consent'.
|
|
Mar 22, 03
|
|||
|
|||
|
would you not kill a few thousand people to save a few million??
for the greater good, sometimes you have to. but ya i know what you mean, they chose iraq cause of the oil and all that, but in due time, then will go after other countries also. depends on the economy i think as for when.
|
|
Mar 22, 03
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
don't fool yourself. The situation in East Timor has been going on for around 30 years, i believe - maybe longer. There has been NO US intervention, and not only because it won't benefit them financially - they also risk DAMAGING CORPORATE INTERESTS (ie sweatshops) by invading that state, or attempting to change their regime. again, watch 'manufacturing consent' if you haven't already. it will shed some light. I'm not up to date on the current situation in east Timor, but the fact that there's still never been any network news coverage definitely says something. Last edited by Wood; Mar 22, 03 at 04:54 PM.
|
|
Mar 22, 03
|
|||
|
|||
|
I think you would have a lot of people disagree with that statement. Sometimes there ARE sacrifices that need to be made for a better end, I'll give you that. The problem with this particular situation though is this.... can you say for 100% positive that there was NO WAY to solve this problem without proceeding in the way the US did?
I'll admit that I'm a staunch supporter of diplomacy before action. What about the global distrust that will be garnered towards the American govt now? By disrespecting the UN they disrespected the world as a whole. We most definitely won't know the long term effects of this war for some time yet, but I'm willing to bet that there will be more bad than there is good.
|
|
Mar 22, 03
|
|||
|
|||
|
^Make sure you don't break your neck when you try and get off your high horse!
All he was saying was that he respected the debate that was had over the thread. Why do you have to turn it around and make it look as if he's bragging? On top of that, are you saying that a 17 y/o can't have an educated opinion? That's kind of insulting don't you think?
|
|
Mar 22, 03
|
|||
|
|||
|
So anyways, I admit that I was a little ignorant about the politics behind this war so I did some digging and looked on both the pro and con sides for the war and found some interesting tidbits which strengthen my resolve that this war is wrong. Removing Saddam is a very good thing but I find the hypocrisy of the United States disgusting in this matter...Here are some facts I dug up...
7. Q What percent of US military spending would ensure the essentials of life to everyone in the world, according the UN? > > A 10% (that's about$40 billion, the amount of funding initially requested to fund our retaliatory attack on Afghanistan). 12. Q How many people did Saddam Hussein kill using gas in the Kurdish town of Halabja in 1988? > > A 5,000 16. Q What is the estimated number of civilian casualties in the Gulf War? > > A 35,000 24. Q How many civilian deaths has the Pentagon predicted in the event of an attack on Iraq in 2002/3? > > A 10,000 > > 25. Q What percentage of these will be children? > > A Over 50% 32. Q How many Iraqis are estimated to have died by October 1999 as a result of UN sanctions? > > A 1.5 million > > 33. Q How many Iraqi children are estimated to have died due to sanctions since 1997? > > A 750,000 "Iraq had in fact, been disarmed to a level unprecedented in modern history." > A Scott Ritter, UNSCOM chief > 44. Q Which is the only country to use nuclear weapons on another country? > > A The US
|
|
Mar 22, 03
|
|||
|
|||
|
WAR = REALITY TV AT IT'S PRIME
78% Americans Approve of the War because there IS NO killing/death/destruction from Survivor, Joe Millionaire, American Idol, The Amazing Race, The Mole, Meet My Folks! IT'S ALL ABOUT TELEVISION RATINGS Last edited by dj Saddam; Mar 22, 03 at 07:49 PM.
|
|
Mar 22, 03
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
Mar 22, 03
|
|||
|
|||
|
yea for sure.....but i fuckin hate war....even tho most americans are for it and all the ppl in iraq stand by suddam husein....its just sad that a lot of innocent ppl (especially children) are in danger and could be killed...ahhh...too many thoughts in my head im just gonna and i keep losing my train of thought....
|
|
Mar 22, 03
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
you'll have to excuse the short reply as i have fallen off a horse and my ass hurts byE
|
