I am against this war. There are so many reasons that I am against it, I could give myself an brain aneurysm trying to think of them all, but this is the thing that bugs me the most. We need one reason to right this war and stick to it. First off, we were trying to fight terror. But if we were really fighting terror then we would be attacking Jordan, Egypt, Lybia, and Saudi Arabia instead of just Iraq, because that is where the 9/11 terrorists came from. And don't even try to give me "The terrorists trained in Iraq" because first of all, prove it, and second of all, if we were attacking the places these people trained, then we should be attacking Florida where they learned to fly (Which we can't do, because Bush has another election to steal in a year, but I digress) Then the administration learned that most of us (i.e. people with a brain) wasn't buying that Osama and Saddam were ol' chums, so the focus switched to "weapons of mass destruction." Ah, the old weapons of mass destruction, doesn't Iraq know that you aren't allowed to have bombs unless you are the US or one of it's close allies? So, we send Inspector Blix and his crew and find out whoops! We can't find any! Well those tricky buggers have got to have them somewhere, and we have just the way to find them...bombs! So we go to the UN and say "Hey, they've got bombs...they don't like us...they might use their bombs on us...now let us kill them, or we won't be your friend anymore and we will start renaming our french fries." The UN said no, so we get to where we are now. The Iraqi people! Oh yeah, they don't like Saddam, so lets do them a favor and liberate them from his reign of terror! But wait...aren't there other countries with far less oil that have leaders committing terrible acts against their people? Listen, now that my rant is coming to a close, I just have this message to give to our leaders. If this war is about oil, say it. If this war is about the fact that Saddam and your dad didn't like each other...say it. Stop lying to us and trying to feed us this war on terror, weapons of mass destruction, free Iraq nonsense and just let us know why we are spending 350 Billion plus to "liberate" people who live in a country I don't care about and will never go to, when we have starving children, homeless ness, drug, stock market, economy, and countless other problems here.

There is no question here to debate. Closed pending a PM.

After a bit of clarification, comicnerd_83 would like us to debate:
Open for debate!

They have given us a straight answer. America spent 12 years pussyfooting around trying to get Saddam to disarm peacefully. 12 years of delay does not match with "focused on fighting this war come heck or high water."

If your post had paragraphs I might read it The enter key is your friend.

Yes, we have been after Saddam for 12 years, but it seems like we only go after him when it's convienent for us. "Say, the economy turned to a big heeping pile of dung...lets bomb Iraq!" Yes, maybe Clinton didn't take a hard stance against him and spend all of his two terms trying to kill him, but give him some slack, he was trying to fix the economy the first Bush ruined.

Looks like a lot of unsupported claims here. Could you provide us with any links or references to support your opinion?

* Edited by Jester w/ the power of the Enter key*



good for you




1. We aren't attacking Iraq because terrorist trained there.

2. Not finding a chemical weapon dosen't mean it doesn't exist.

3. We have plenty of oil in Alaska if enviromentalist would let us dig or, god forbid we switched to some other energy source .

(By the way don't you live in a heated house?, drive a car? of course not, your completely independant from oil)

We have reason to belive that Saddam hussein has FUNDED terrorist's. I don't get it, I mean this is simple, I hand a dollar to a kid he puts a tack on the teachers chair We *both* get in trouble so it doesn't happen again.

We *know* that he has WMD that's why France Germany and Russia didn't want us to attack them, thats where they were making all their money, they are also getting oil out of Iraq. WE sold WMD to them.

Why would you bring up Clinton? He is the guy who sold Nukes to close friends like China, but hey it balanced the budget right?

Because it wouldn't be proper or polite to admit that we're pushing for a Pax Americana. It's much easier, and more media friendly, to prance around boasting how we're going to free the Iraqi people than to sit around and talk about how lucrative and strategically beneficial it is to privatize the Iraqi oil industry. Does the American public really want to know that this administration and many of those before have been angling for more and more American hegemony? Or would they rather believe the American dream that everyone has the right to be free... both as individuals and as sovereign nations?

You might as well get used to this, Comic. Maybe you could speak with somebody who was politically active for the breadth of the Cold War era. The War on Terror, after all, is the new Cold War. That dastardly spectre of Communism almost got the last word by collapsing and surrendering its international power. But terrorism... ah, terrorism... she isn't likely to let us down for some time. After all, wasn't it the CIA who told Congress military action against Iraq would likely breed more terrorism (October 2002)? It's a pretty good deal when you think about it... as we combat the new spectre of terrorism, we breed more to chase after!

I would be a tad more serious and go into more depth if we hadn't already run this topic ragged in other threads. I'm pretty sure older and active members have already seen enough of my posts to know where this is coming from, but I'll provide a few links that have served to influence my thinking...

Project for a New American Century (Check out the publications; then the document "Rebuilding America's Defenses")
American Enterprise Institute (Go to Foreign policy at top, check out "Brave New World: And Enduring Pax Americana")
The 30-year Itch (generally good article)
TomPaine.com (browse at random really...)

So, you have given 3 reason, any one of which is valid, to finally deal with Saddam.

1. He funds terrorists and trains them (not necessarily Al Qaeda).
2. He has WMDs and the will to use them.
3. He is a brutal dictator who enjoys a good round of torture before breakfast.

Put all of those together and what do you have?

A regime that needs to go and has no place in the international community.

What's the alternative? Wait for Saddam to take the first action? Wait for ANOTHER million Iraqis to be victimized? Is that what you want?

Haven't we beaten this subject to death already?

It's not that he hasn't given you an answer. He has many times. What you meant to say, is why isn't he giving you an answer that you like or approve of?

go to http://www.whitehouse.gov and look up his speeches. He outlines his reasons clearly. Whether or not you believe him, is a different issue

--cheers

Well, gee....there's a solid reason to invade an occupy a country.

During the Iran/Iraq war, Saddam used a lot of the WMD we sold him. That can't be disputed. But outside the Iran/Iraq war, lessee....

Gulf War I: No WMDs
Gulf War II: No WMDs

So, we've basically routed their country and dessimated their military....with no WMD attacks. Twice. So, explain to me this whole WMD thingy again and how it relates to our homeland security?

Care to explain this to the thousands of former US troops who suffer from Gulf War Syndrome from exposure to chemical agents?

While we're talking about the White House giving a story and sticking to it...


Gulf War Syndrome and Depleted Uranium
Findings on the Nature and Causes of Gulf War Syndrome
Anthrax Vaccine regarding Gulf War Syndrome
BBC News: Gulf War Syndrome

From what I'm seeing, most the information regarding GWS is pointing towards military destruction of facilities with chemicals (not chemical attacks), the use of pesticides not thought dangerous at the time, the use of unproven, questionable vaccines, the new use of uranium weapons and armour, etc... all pointing to the Allied governments rather than the malicious use of chemical agents by the Iraqi government.

But, as the BBC has reported in the last link, the Dept. of Defense and Ministry of Defense have been rather reluctant about releasing information that might implicate them as leading candidates for blame in Gulf War Syndrome.

http://www.millersgulfwar.org/index1.html

http://www.gulfwarvets.com/arison/gws.htm

To back up and support Abs' point....

To directly answer the question posed here, I need only second Abs' first posting - as reason number one. The White House can't stick to a story because none of their cover stories hold water - and the real reasons would seem unconscienable, greedy, and/or unnecessary to most people - even most Americans.

Amlord has restated some of the reasons variously used by the Executive to justify this most unjustifiable war - all sounding quite noble (though, of course, none of which would be justifiable grounds for declaring a war by international standards, however noble-sounding - and had we, in fact, declared this "war"):
Sure, combatting global terror, defending the known universe, and lynching a bad guy all sound good. The only problem with the above is that they are as tenuous as any of the other stories with which the Bush administration has attempted to whitewash their motives:

1. There's no evidence that Hussein funds terrorists or trains them. The best that anyone's come up with here is that Iraq has made financial contributions to the surviving family members of dead terrorists. As this seems to have been limited to bereaved Palestinians, there are those who would see this as an act of humanitarian charity. In any event, it's much lower level "support for terrorism" than, say, our support of the Contras.
2. Well he had WMD, at least 80-90% of which were destroyed. While evidence of the remaining 10% has been sorely lacking (even as we trample out the vintage in Baghdad), evidence of Hussein's will to use them has been even less abundant for more than a decade. As has been pointed out, this is a dangerous rationale for waging unprompted war. Were we to accept this excuse, we would have to accept pre-emptive war against a host of other nations should the Bush administration - on a similar whim - ecide to declare war on then. This would include Israel, Pakistan, India, North Korea, China, Russia, Great Britain, France, Germany, and - if Bolton and Fleischer have knocked that press release together yet - Syria. Not to mention a particularly aggressive and destructive nation by the name of the United States of America which has been sponsoring terrorism and genocide for generations.
3. Yes, Hussein is brutal and, yes, Iraq is a torture state. There are many brutal men in several torture states in the world (we've even got a few wannabes right here). This is a serious issue which should be addressed by the international community - and will not be solved through precipitate acts of conquest - and certainly not by a country which has recently been considering torture itself.

Of course, rather than this noble triumverate of rationalizations, there are three actual reasons for waging this war, none of which the Bush administration would be able to sell to the American public as easily as the glib justifications which many, even in these threads, seem to swallow whole, without question. They have all been debated elsewhere on these boards (with a few links already provided here by Abs and moif), so not much detail is required. In short, they are:

1. the expansion of American hegemony as outlined by the PNAC
2. war profiteering (also known as payback for campaign donors, power brokers, and personal friends)
3. the fact that this dastardly, wicked man tried to kill Poppy Bush

Unfortunately, "Empire, Greed, and Vendetta" don't play as well as "Truth, Justice, and the American Way" or fighting unspecified terror, defending the abstract noun of the week, and ridding the world of evil-doers or whatever other comic book nonsense the Executive press office might put out. And that's why the White House keeps coming up with new stories to replace the most recently discredited ones. The true story is not very pretty - and it's a tribute to American Ignorance that more people don't see through all the cow-poopie.

Aren't you getting tired of this?

As I JUST said in a post a few posts back, the evidence DOES in fact exist. It's whether or not you BELIEVE it, that is the question

Did you forget about this? Or not see the story when it came out?

http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/newssun...y/w07terror.htm

Sure. It could very well be a legitimate anti-terrorism base like the Iraqi's said. Or it could be a terrorist training camp like the Americans say. Who are you to tell us which one is the right one?

Let me say this again for emphasis:

Proof does exist. Whether or not you believe it is another story

--cheers

I wouldn't call payments to Palestinian bombers' families a small issue. I'd call it a very public display of something normally done very secretly, which leads me to wonder what Hussein does covertly if he's so brash about these payments.

And that 'humanitarian charity to bereaved Palestinians' phrase must have come from the Iraqi Information Minister, right? You don't really expect anyone here to buy that, do you?

As for other support of terror groups, haven't there been any number of training camps found already? To think that this regime did not play a huge role in terrorist activity is to be blinded by something else. I'll let others decide for themselves what that something else might be.

Finally, the WMDs will be found, now that those who know enough about them will feel free to talk.

When they are found I fully expect the next thing we'll hear is how Hussein really wasn't such a bad guy since he didn't use them this time. As a matter of fact, that may have already started, let me go back and review this lengthy post in more detail.

If giving money to a family that grows their own terrorist at home isn't considered sponsoring then what the hell is? Financial contributions my *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. *** you may be a humanitarian but Saddam couldn't give a rats *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. *** over some orphen.

"at least 80-90% of which were destroyed" Do you mean unaccounted for? like someone metioned before in another thread you can't just flush WMD down the toilet and have them disappear forever.

"Sure, combatting global terror, defending the known universe, and lynching a bad guy all sound good"

Sounds great to me! You peoples arguements always sound better when you blow them way out of porportion, so lets get back to reality. We are at war with Iraq to:

1. Protect our civilains (the single most important role of our government)

2. Protect our Allies (Saddam has already tried to bomb Isreal)

3. Show other countries what happens when they fund terrorism.


Alot of you are saying, this is all over oil, well oil is a big part of it for instance France and Germany are now frothing at the mouth over it. They didn't want anything to do with invading Iraq but by god! It looks like it's time for them to do their morale dutie now, we do the dirty work and they get to look like the Saviors of the free world. You know that when all is said and done everyone in the UN is going to get a peace of the pie.


Whats so wrong with trying to stablize our economy after 9/11? If I shop lifted from someone I wouldn't just be punished I would be fined too, Why dosen't this work on a larger scale?

Whom are you addressing?

Your quotes are confusing. Please try and use the quote feature and let us know if you are addressing a member, someone's article/link or people in general. Thanks.

1) I can't disagree with #1.

2) Germany, France, and Russia are our allies. Yet we're dumping on them because we have Cameroon in our back pocket. Israel can take care of itself. Japan can't (i.e the North Korea problem the war hawks dismiss), but Japan has more to do with the world economy then any of our other allies. Hell, probably more than all of them combined, but I'm too lazy to look it up.

3) Name one country in that region that isn't a democracy and doesn't want Israel to exist that has NOT funded Hamas and all those terrorist scumbags. Pick one...any one. Iraq is not alone in that. But name for me the countries that have sponsored international terrorism or is active in proliferating WMD technology. Iraq is NOT one of them.

Saudi Arabia has given Al Qauida a half billion dollars and 15 of the hijackers were Saudis. But hey...let's take out Iraq!

That's the reason an invasion and occupation turned into "liberation" for all those peace loving Muslims (which I think is an oxymoron). The terrorism angle went completely bust, so now we conquer dictators in a region with - count 'em - ONE democracy.

When these Allah-loving, peace loving, Iraqis are done looting the country and living in a state of anarchy because that's the only culture they know and want, the White House will turn it into another reason that people are foolish enough to believe.

As long as they can keep the civil unrest in control, they'll stick with the new liberation story. When the wheels fall off and the whole country is out of control, they'll use another.