Thoughts on the War against Iraq...

Trippy discussions of moral issues, conspiracy theories, the paranormal and other otherworldly phenomenon.

Moderator: Dracofrost

Thoughts on the War against Iraq...

Postby Gigafrost » Thu Mar 27, 2003 7:36 pm

Mostly, I'm looking to build an incredibly strong case supporting the current war (because all those anti-american anti-war people are starting to really annoy me) so I've gone looking for some links and stuff to make comments and such.

First off, looking at the original timeline of the first gulf war...
http://www.usatoday.com/news/index/iraq/nirq050.htm
http://www.timelines.info/history/conflict_and_war/20th_century_conflicts/conflicts_since_world_war_two/gulf_war/
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001293.html

You can see that Iraq has, till at least 2002, continued to violate UN resolutions imposed on it. CNN has a timeline (see lower-left corner) of the Gulf War that says many of the activities after the war too.
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/gulf.war/

Here's a site with a list of (maybe all?) Iraq-related resolutions...
http://www.casi.org.uk/info/scriraq.html

Iraq has demonstrated continuously its untrustworthyness, continuing to not properly address chemical plants and apparently continues to acquire needed materials for said facilities.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/south/02/05/sprj.irq.chemicals/

In an attempt to "add teeth" to the past made resolutions, making it more difficult for Iraq to acquire illegal weapons and their programs (apparently), Iraq refused to accept them. It is understandable to not want more however to continue to be uncooperative regardless of the resolution throws Iraq into further doubt.
http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/09/21/iraq.un/

Furthermore, the UN acknowledged as of 2002 that Iraq's [i]continued failure to comply with UN resolutions was considered a threat to international peace and security.
http://www.ciaonet.org/special_section/iraq/un_resolutions/un_resolution_1441.html
http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/11/08/resolution.text/

The above-mentioned resolution points out the previous UN resolution #687 which required Iraq to present all chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons specifications (and was never done) and established the cease-fire (which Iraq may be violating by continuing to fire upon US and British craft in the no-fly zone...note, *might*). Resolution 1441 retracts previous resolutions made but affirms that resolution 687 is still intact.
http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0687.htm

My conclusion:
Regardless of whether or not Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, because it continues to violate UN resolutions which would prove its lack of said weapons it was labeled as a threat to international peace and security and Bush's claim that this is a pre-emptive strike holds merit under the decision made in UN resolution 1441. I have searched to see if the UN has retracted resolution 1441 or it's declaration of Iraq as a threat, however I haven't found anything yet.

My comments: I think that the resolution arguement for the war might make a good comment about the overall war. If I recall, this isn't a war to "disarm Saddam" or to "liberate Iraq" but it's a "pre-emptive attack"...the UN decision would appear to support this decision...
User avatar
Gigafrost
Frost Weapon
Frost Weapon
 
Posts: 4900
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 5:09 pm
Location: Here

Postby Gigafrost » Thu Mar 27, 2003 10:21 pm

Additional thoughts:

People keep arguing that they're right because there are more people protesting against the war than people for it. At least, that's what I keep getting the feeling of. It's funny they should mention that...concerning the desegregation of Little Rock highschool I couldn't find mentioning of protests for the desegregation...instead we had a thousand people complaining (and a later one had 250 officially declared protestors)...so, there were infinitely more people protesting for the segregation than for desegregation, no? This would make segregation more right than desegregation, no? Well, I feel that y'all will agree with me when I say "the protestors were wrong" right?

So, on a similar note, I'm going to apply something mentioned in Huckleberry Finn which basically talked about people being cowards and such. Basically, these protestors are massing together...makes sense, right? But would they protest if alone? I think it'd be suprising to find out how many would. I would guess that many would be unwilling to protest if alone. Well, I'm having trouble completing my thoughts, but I'm wondering what the implications of this quote are on the protestors...
(pardon in advanced for the guy's sexist language...it's not my own view...i'm just copying word-for-word what's in my book)

"The idea of you lynching anybody! It's amusing. The idea of you thinking you had pluck enough to lynch a man! Because you're brave enough to tar and feather poor friendless cast-out women that come along here, did that make you think you had grit enough to lay your hands on a man? Why, a man's safe in the hands of ten thousand of your kind - as long as it's day-time and you're not behind him.

"Do I know you? I know you clear through. I was born and raise in the South, and I've lived in the North; so I know the average all around. The average man's a coward. In the North he lets anybody walk over him that wants to, and goes home and prays for a humble spirit to bear it. In the South one man, all by himself, has stopped a stage full of men, in the day-time, and robbed the lot. Your newspapers call you a brave people so much that you think you are braver than any other people - whereas you're just as brave and no braver. Why don't your juries hang murderers? Because they're afraid the man's friends will shoot them in the back, in the dark - and it's just what they would do.

"So they always acquit; and then a man goes in the night, with a hundred masked cowards at his back, and lynches the rascal. Your mistake is, that you didn't bring a man with you; that's one mistake. You brought part of a man - Buck Harkness, there - and if you hadn't had him to start you, you'd a taken it out in blowing.

"You didn't want to come. The average man don't like trouble and danger. You don't like trouble and danger. But if only half a man - like Buck Harkness, there - shouts 'Lynch him, lynch him!' you're afraid to back down - afraid you'll be found out to be what you are - cowards - and so you raise a yell, and hang yourselves onto that half-a-man's coat tail, and come raging up here, swearing what big things you're going to do. The pitifulest thing out is a mod; that's what an army is - a mob; they don't fight with courage that's born in them, but with courage that's borrowed from their mass, and from their officers. But a mod without any man at the head of it, is beneath pitifulness. Now the thing for you to do, is to dropp your tails and go home and crawl in a hole. If any real lynching's going to be done, it will be done in the dark, Southern fashion; and when they come they'll bring their masks, and fetch a man along. Now leave - and take your half-a-man with you" - tossing his gun up across his left arm and cocking it, when he says this.


Yeah, I know. If you can kinda see past the language\situation you can kind of see an important underlying point...but seeing as I just killed my brain re-typing it, I don't think I'll be able to summarize that...hehehe...

EDIT: Oh yeah...Little Rock link...
http://www.centralhigh57.org/1957-58.htm
User avatar
Gigafrost
Frost Weapon
Frost Weapon
 
Posts: 4900
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 5:09 pm
Location: Here

Postby Evlfrost » Thu Mar 27, 2003 10:40 pm

Well imo the UN has passed so many resolutions that they have failed to act on that they are appearing weak. All the US is doing is showing the world that hey were not to be messed with. If you dont comply with what the UN says then we will take you out ourselves.
Evljsh: You're young and thus illegal!
xXOkashiiSuruXx: -falls over-

Image
User avatar
Evlfrost
Frost Druid
Frost Druid
 
Posts: 6692
Joined: Thu Dec 05, 2002 2:41 pm
Location: Suburbia

Postby Gigafrost » Thu Mar 27, 2003 10:46 pm

Well, that *should* be the message, anyways, but people just see it either as...

1) US going for oil...
2) US going to kill Iraqi people
3) US shoving weight around
4) US being paranoid

Which is why I'm looking to support part of it. In any case, I think that the real problem isn't the US but the countries in the UN that refuse to support the very resolutions that they passed.
User avatar
Gigafrost
Frost Weapon
Frost Weapon
 
Posts: 4900
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 5:09 pm
Location: Here

Postby Nyufrost » Fri Mar 28, 2003 1:58 am

More people protesting against the war than are for it? O.o

That's a rather lame argument but you're right, a lot of people think that way. But, if they bothered to think about it, they would know that it's always the minority that's more vociferous about any issue.

For example, you don't see white people marching carrying signs saying "we're white ... give us special privileges" yet we certainly see black mobs lobbing bricks through store windows proclaiming they are looting because the "man" keeps them down.

Same mentality for the war ... you don't see the pro-war people marching around naked screaming "kill Hussein" or burning Iraqi flags in the streets but you DO see a bunch of nuts running around screaming "Bush is Satan" and setting fire to the American flag right here in their own country.

Polls show that MOST of America supports our presence in Iraq. Good thing all those people don't take to the streets, eh? To narrow it down some ... San Francisco has a populaltion of roughly 775,000 in the City itself and becomes several million when counting the neighboring suburbs and other closeby cities such as San Jose and Oakland. Out of that, there are roughly 1000 people protesting against the war. They are costing the City over a million dollars a day and diverting police services from other areas in which they are needed.

Have you ever wondered just who is behind these anti-American protests right here in America? It turns out that the demonstrations in SF are being funded and organized by the Communist Party ... imagine that!

That's an impressive lot of research you have done there, Giga. But, I have found that there is a certain mindset of people that you can beat over the head with the facts and they will continue to NOT see them, make excuses, derail the topic, personally attack you or do whatever they have to do to "win" the argument so don't let it stress you too much.

As for the current situation, IMO if Bill Clinton had done anything useful when in office then much of this would have been avoided but, instead, Iraq was allowed 8 years to build up their WMD capabilities while the US Military budget was slashed repeatedly by Clinton. Given all that, I am surprised we are doing as well as we are.

One thing that is really annoying is all the people who say "but Iraq wasn't doing anything to us......" ACK it's like they have no capabilities to see what could --and probably would-- happen if they were simply allowed to continue as they were and they seem to lack the ability to look back into the past at Hussein's track record. :|
<BR><center> "Snowflakes are one of nature's most fragile things, but just look <br> what they can do when they stick together.." ... Vesta M. Kelly</center>
User avatar
Nyufrost
Frost Advisor
Frost Advisor
 
Posts: 5534
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 7:03 am
Location: Out There

Postby TerraFrost » Fri Mar 28, 2003 3:11 am

here are my random meandering thoughts :):

some people want to bring peace to iraq, yet bring violence to america. that contradiction hurts their cause, imho.

also... my room mate has helped organize a number of protests against the war. he asked the other people at the a meeting that was planning a protest why they were there. the answer? well.. some of them were there because they felt they weren't being heard. that's a good and noble reason, imho. others were there, however, because they felt the government had wronged them. these people hurt the war protest. they are probably gonna be more extreme than the people who just want to be heard, and... the sad fact is, they would probably be protesting *for* war, if the US wasn't going to war.

in addition.. i heard a good analogy a while ago... pretend there's someone with a gun. they point it at your wife, and... are you going to wait for them to shoot? no. they may not have any intention of shooting, but... you can't take that risk. likewise, if the US were to take action *after* it was revealed Hussein had WMD's, it might be too late.

further... this is just an example of how, if you have a problem, it isn't the UN you want on your side - it's the US. the UN would try to negotiate it until it's too late. the US would act then and now..

now the flip side...

some people want to bring democracy to iraq, yet take it away from us... that somewhat hurts the 'cause for war...

also... it isn't really democratic to force democracy on a people.

those are just a few meandering thoughts of mine :)

now here are some random links...

another link with the history of the previous war:

http://www.history.navy.mil/wars/dstorm/dsjan2.htm

some info on al-jazerra (the tv station that the US apparently doesn't like):

http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,2360693a12,00.html
http://www.msnbc.com/news/643471.asp?cp1=1

the evidence that Iraq has WMD's may or may not be trustworthy:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0, ... 16,00.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dy ... ge=printer
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/ ... 7096.shtml

the CIA has screwed things up for us:

http://www.korpios.org/resurgent/CIAtimeline.html

Afghanistan — The Soviets invade Afghanistan. The CIA immediately begins supplying arms to any faction willing to fight the occupying Soviets. Such indiscriminate arming means that when the Soviets leave Afghanistan, civil war will erupt. Also, fanatical Muslim extremists now possess state-of-the-art weaponry. One of these is Sheik Abdel Rahman, who will become involved in the World Trade Center bombing in New York.


and...

With U.S. encouragement, Hussein invaded Iran in 1980. During this costly eight-year war, the CIA built up Hussein’s forces with sophisticated arms, intelligence, training and financial backing. This cemented Hussein’s power at home, allowing him to crush the many internal rebellions that erupted from time to time, sometimes with poison gas. It also gave him all the military might he needed to conduct further adventurism — in Kuwait, for example.


also see this site for more info on above:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar ... Dec29.html

also... it's better that we invade Iraq then Korea... Korea has one of the largest standing armies in the world, and... China, which is communistic, like North Korea, also does, and... they probably wouldn't stand for a US-led invasion of North Korea. so we'd have to deal with the two largest armies in the world... to demonstrate how bad an invasion of North Korea would be... we sent close to 300,000 troops to Iraq. North Korea has 1,000,000. that's already a big advantage for North Korea... throw in China, and... well... the US army may not be big enough to deal with both of them. North Korea could easily destroy Seul, the capital of South Korea, they have missles which can hit the US, and bleh...

further... israel, a country which has the undying support of the US, has the most UN resolutions... even more than iraq:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/b ... 384905.stm

Clinton disproves of this war, yet he approved of military action against iraq when they didn't comply with weapons inspecters earlier:

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/ ... inton.html

and ever wonder why Russia likes Iraq?:

http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/08/17/russia.iraq/

what about Germany?:

http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/08/17/russia.iraq/

casualties durring the last war:

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnf ... _db052.htm
http://www.futurenet.org/iraq/morecostofwar.htm

In 1988 President Saddam Hussein ordered the destruction of the Iraqi city of the Halabja. Chemical weapons were used to contaminate the city. It was over in 2 hours. 5000 civilians were killed in that attack:

http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/2000/09/iraq-000918.htm

the majority of americans believe iraq is responsible for 911 - this is probably clouting some judgement:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s ... n_majority
Last edited by TerraFrost on Fri Mar 28, 2003 3:37 am, edited 5 times in total.
TerraFrost
Legendary Guard
 
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 6:37 am

Postby Gigafrost » Fri Mar 28, 2003 3:21 am

the evidence that Iraq has WMD's may or may not be trustworthy:

The funny thing is, I don't think there has to be WMD for the war to be right. Saddam was supposed to document and such that his weapons, disarm them, etc...but by refusing to do this the UN declared last november in resolution 1441 that Iraq was a threat, not because it did or didn't have WMD, but because it was ignoring resolutions that would ensure the destruction of illegal weapons.

That, and I think it's about time we officially fought back, since they keep firing upon planes that fly over the no-fly zone established over Iraq to protect the people from their leader.
User avatar
Gigafrost
Frost Weapon
Frost Weapon
 
Posts: 4900
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 5:09 pm
Location: Here

Postby TerraFrost » Fri Mar 28, 2003 3:40 am

just so you know... the stuff posted in the "random links" section aren't really my own opinions... i have conflicting thoughts on the war, and my opinions are those that are labled as "thoughts" :)

personally, i'm hesistant to take a stance, 'cause... well... i really don't know everything that there is to know, don't have the time to know all that there is too know, and bah. i'm just a poor lil' uninformed kid, hehe, and... if my opinion were to influence what actually happened in any way... bah. they would probably make some bad decissions, heh.

and i added some stuff since your reply :)
TerraFrost
Legendary Guard
 
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 6:37 am

Postby TerraFrost » Fri Mar 28, 2003 4:43 am

A few days ago, the US government contracted out Halliburton industries to put out oil fires in Iraq, and rebuild their infastructure, or sometihng like that... no other companies were allowed to bid, and... what's interesting is that Halliburton's former CEO is Dick Cheney, our vice-president:

http://www.forbes.com/markets/newswire/ ... 21383.html
TerraFrost
Legendary Guard
 
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 6:37 am

Postby TerraFrost » Mon Mar 31, 2003 8:52 am

here's an interesting history of the last war against iraq :):

http://www.onwar.com/aced/data/papa/persiangulf1990.htm

it doesn't really seem to (from what i have read, which was bottom up, 'cause i wanted to see how it ended, hehe) take a position for or against the war, which is probably a good thing.

here's a sorta... interesting line:

The Iraqi military suffered more than 100,000 casualties at a cost to the Allies of some 340 killed; it was the most one-sided major engagement in the history of modern warfare.


i guess that war will be the second most one-sided major engagement now, hehe. that's sorta a good thing, too... less US casualties = good :)

also, here's another interesting quote:

Hundreds of U.S. bombers, augmented by French, British, Saudi, and Kuwaiti planes and U.S. Navy cruise missiles, dropped precision-guided bombs on military targets in Iraq and Kuwait.


the french were with us then! and saudi arabia, too!

also, on an unrelated note... here's a link talking about the history of the israeli palistinian conflict:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static ... /timeline/
TerraFrost
Legendary Guard
 
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 6:37 am


Return to Twilight Zone

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest