Do you support a war with Iraq?

[Joe Sixpack]

With all these anti-war protests happening around the globe this weekend and war seemingly now only days away, it's your chance to voice YOUR opinion.

Do you support a war with Iraq?

Lets get a feel for how GFY stands....

[Gman.357]

If you're an American, there's no sense in protesting this now. It's seemingly inevitable.

SUPPORT OUR TROOPS should they be put on the front line. The last thing a soldier needs to hear when he's shooting pple and getting shot at himself is that they don't need to be there. Fuck that shit.

[Mr.Fiction]

Originally posted by Gman.357

The last thing a soldier needs to hear when he's shooting pple and getting shot at himself is that they don't need to be there. Fuck that shit.

Nice logic.

[rooster]

I see no reason not to support it.


The countries that dont support it are those that stand to lose money from the deals they have with saddam.

The people that dont support it are those that are politicizing it.

These two groups can suck my dick sideways.

[Mr.Fiction]

Originally posted by rooster


The countries that dont support it are those that stand to lose money from the deals they have with saddam.

The people that dont support it are those that are politicizing it.

Can you say "talking points"?

If not, how about "propaganda"?

More GFY humor.

[Gman.357]

Originally posted by Mr.Fiction


Nice logic.

It's true. I have two friends who are vets. They have told me... when you are overseas, fighting a battle for WHATEVER reason, because your country sent you there, and you are a soldier who obeys orders, the main thing that keeps you going and helps you SURVIVE is the notion that your country is behind your efforts. That you're doing this and will be appreciated for risking your life (and possibly losing it) by your fellow countrymen.

If we go to war, this country needs to be unified! Maybe the rest of the world doesn't like what we're doing, but our soldiers shouldn't have to hear negativity from us when they're on the battlefield, and on the frontline.

[kenny]

French Foreign Minister Hubert Védrine speaks of the USA as a "hyperpower," it is not meant as a compliment, at least certainly not an unequivocal one. Changing the term "superpower" to "hyperpower" is reminiscent of the step from "inflation" to "hyperinflation" - and that is doubtless how it is meant to be understood. In the Parisian view, America is too powerful...

[rooster]

mrfiction, you spend all day reading conspiracy theories by far left whackos, and you want to call out others for propaganda. Now that is fucking funny.

Ill state it again.


The countries that do not support the war, mainly france germany and russia, stand to possibly lose big money by saddam being removed.

The people in this country that do not support it are the left who want to do severe damage to bush in hopes of giving themself a chance in the next election. They certainly had no problem with clinton killing civilians when ousting milosovic from power.

[Joe Sixpack]

Originally posted by rooster
The countries that do not support the war, mainly france germany and russia, stand to possibly lose big money by saddam being removed.

Details please? Can you be more specific on how those countries stand to lose "big money"?

[Mr.Fiction]

Originally posted by Gman.357


It's true. I have two friends who are vets. They have told me... when you are overseas, fighting a battle for WHATEVER reason, because your country sent you there, and you are a soldier who obeys orders, the main thing that keeps you going and helps you SURVIVE is the notion that your country is behind your efforts. That you're doing this and will be appreciated for risking your life (and possibly losing it) by your fellow countrymen.

If we go to war, this country needs to be unified! Maybe the rest of the world doesn't like what we're doing, but our soldiers shouldn't have to hear negativity from us when they're on the battlefield, and on the frontline.

Here are just a couple of problems with using the logic "we must support the war no matter what as long as our troops are there":

1. That logic could be applied to us attacking Canada and murdering all the children there for no good reason. If we just accept that you must support any war where our troops are deployed, then you lose any objectivity toward why the troops are being used. The very fact that they are being used could justify any use of them. It makes no sense.

2. There are many vets and active duty military personnel who do not support the war themselves. Have you talked to any soldiers lately? Have you read Stars and Stripes newspaper? There are plenty of active duty soldiers who think that Bush is an idiot who is misusing the military for his own reasons that have nothing to do with the best interests of Americans. It would be a great disservice to those soldiers to blindly support any and all wars just because they have been ordered to serve in those wars. These soldiers are not stupid, they have their own questions about where they are being sent and why. Do you really think that most soldiers want people to blindly support the government while they are out fighting to defend the right of Americans to disagree with their government?

Those are just two quick flaws in that logic, there are many more which I don't have the patience to type out right now.

I want to make it clear that I do agree that U.S. service personnel should be treated with respect and individuals should be supported and recognized for what they are doing in service of their country. However, asking all citizens to support any and all wars just because there are troops from some country involved in the war is unreasonable, unfair to the troops themselves, and very dangerous.

[J B]

Originally posted by rooster
The countries that do not support the war, mainly france germany and russia, stand to possibly lose big money by saddam being removed.

Tell me how Germany will lose big money if Saddam is removed.

BTW I'm German and I don't support the actions of our government at all... just in case you want to call me a left winger

[kenny]

Last year, France ranked No. 1 among European countries doing business with Iraq, with $1.5 billion in trade, followed by Italy, with $1 billion. Among the countries that trade with Iraq under the oil-for-food program, France ranked third, with $3.1 billion in trade since the program's start 1996. French trade under the program was surpassed only by Russia, with $4.3 billion, and Egypt, according to United Nations diplomats.

[galleryseek]

I don't know shit about shit, but I do support a war with Iraq. Thank you.

[Gman.357]

Originally posted by Mr.Fiction


Here are just a couple of problems with using the logic "we must support the war no matter what as long as our troops are there":

1. That logic could be applied to us attacking Canada and murdering all the children there for no good reason. If we just accept that you must support any war where our troops are deployed, then you lose any objectivity toward why the troops are being used. The very fact that they are being used could justify any use of them. It makes no sense.

Mr. Fiction, comparing Iraq and Canada is an incredible stretch of reality.

Sure, if we invaded Canada for no good reason, then of course protests would be justified. But in this case, in the case of a vicious militant dictator, who has already commited many deplorable acts of violence against his own people, and the people of Saudi Arabia, the fact that he should have been taken from power long ago makes it more palletable.

There's been evidence presented that he is involved with harboring terrorists. It's just a matter of accepting that evidence. Given the man's history of violence, and refusal to abide by set rules for many years, I believe the evidence is there.

Also, we're not going in there to kill their children. Watch the movie "Black Hawk Down". Our troops aren't animals, even though war is like a wild animal.

Maybe there wouldn't be so many soldiers against this war if there weren't so many civilians telling them it's wrong. What soldier in his right mind wants to go to war without public support?

[Mr.Fiction]

Originally posted by rooster
mrfiction, you spend all day reading conspiracy theories by far left whackos, and you want to call out others for propaganda. Now that is fucking funny.

Ill state it again.


The countries that do not support the war, mainly france germany and russia, stand to possibly lose big money by saddam being removed.

The people in this country that do not support it are the left who want to do severe damage to bush in hopes of giving themself a chance in the next election. They certainly had no problem with clinton killing civilians when ousting milosovic from power.

Very briefly:

1. Please explain how these countries stand to lose more money than the U.S. (and Bush's pals) plans to make? If they oppose war for financial reasons, wouldn't that be better than supporting war for financial reasons?

2. Several countries in South America as well as, I believe (could be wrong here), Mexico oppose the war. What is their motivation or angle?

3. In some of the countries you list, 80%-90% of the population of the country is against the war. The people, not just the government officials. Do you really think the average Frenchman is against the war because he wants his government to make money on some deal with Iraq?

4. There is a lot of blind repeating of White House talking points by right wingers on GFY. Some of you guys just repeat whatever you are told by the right wing media without doing the research to see if it's true or even slightly believable. Generally it isn't productive to engage in debate with people who believe whatever they hear on talk radio.

[sacX]

The countries that do not support the war, mainly france germany and russia, stand to possibly lose big money by saddam being removed.

That's ridiculous, many countries don't support a war with Iraq. France, Germany, Russia and China just happen to be the big ones with voices on the security council.

My country, New Zealand doesn't support a war with Iraq and we have almost no business with them.

On the other hand the countries that DO support a war with Iraq are those that want to suck up to the United State big time. Australian prime minister John Howard is drooling at the prospect of a free trade treaty with the US. Portugal's leader is the same.

Also in these countries, and in Britain public opinion is strongly against a war in Iraq.

rooster you talk about far left conspiracy, it's you who needs to read up on the facts, and what real world opinion is on this. Where is the conspiracy?

I am not left-wing, nor liberal. I have no love for Iraq, and all my income comes from the United States, but any objective way I look at this there is no case for war in Iraq. Evidence please before you go massacaring innocent people, is that such a difficult concept to grasp?

[Sarah_Jayne]

there is a difference between not wanting to go to war and not supporting the troops if we do go.

[J B]

Originally posted by Mr.Fiction

3. In some of the countries you list, 80%-90% of the population of the country is against the war. The people, not just the government officials. Do you really think the average Frenchman is against the war because he wants his government to make money on some deal with Iraq?

True... the problem is that being against the war doesn't necessarily mean you support the actions of your government.

Here in Germany the majority of people is against the war. Does that mean that they all agree with what our government does right now? Hell no!

[Gman.357]

I am not left-wing, nor liberal. I have no love for Iraq, and all my income comes from the United States, but any objective way I look at this there is no case for war in Iraq. Evidence please before you go massacaring innocent people, is that such a difficult concept to grasp?

There's been evidence presented. You're just choosing to overlook it.

What is so INNOCENT about Iraq? Like I said in the post above... our troops are not animals. We're not going in there to kill women and children. We're going in there to disarm a dangerous, militant dictator.

Knowing what we know now about Hitler, would you be in favor of having removed him from power BEFORE he had a chance to kill millions of Jews?

Come on people!

[sacX]

well in Afghanistan several thousand innocent people were killed. You see there's these things called *bombs*

Saddam is hardly Hitler he's Dictator of an impoverished nation.

[J B]

Originally posted by sarah_webinc
there is a difference between not wanting to go to war and not supporting the troops if we do go.

Exactly!

[Mr.Fiction]

It's interesting how the right wing codewords have changed just in the last two years.

[Gman.357]

Originally posted by sacX
well in Afghanistan several thousand innocent people were killed. You see there's these things called *bombs*

Saddam is hardly Hitler he's Dictator of an impoverished nation.

Yes, his nation is impoverished because he KEEPS them that way.

Let's wake up a little. This guy is bad news.. there's sanctions on him for a REASON.

And Afghanistan? Several thousand innocent people? You call Taliban fighters innocent? I hardly thing that many "civilians and children" were killed.

There were several thousand pple killed in WTC attacks too. So we shouldn't have been over in Afghanastan now, huh?

Un-fucking-believable. Where the fuck is Kman??

[scooby doo as scooby does]

Quote:
There's been evidence presented. You're just choosing to overlook it.

Evidence has been produced for both sides of the argument. It's hard to take *some* evidence seriously when it consist of a few grainy photographs of an unknown vehicle and a 'dossier' mainly consisting on a ten year old students thesis and a couple of paragraphs from Jane's weekly. Compare that to the actual facts that the US has not been able to point to any weapons, and in three months of high tech searching, inspectors have turned up zilch. Evidence can work against as well as for.

Quote:
We're not going in there to kill women and children.

I'm sure that's true. Unfortunately tho, your troops will. It is an interesting question... If you fire a few cruise missiles and it kills a number of innocent civilians. Now you know that fact, surely the firing of more cruise missiles is effectively mass murder. *shrug* that's war. Woman and children will die.

[Gman.357]

Originally posted by Mr.Fiction
It's interesting how the right wing codewords have changed just in the last two years.

Interesting how the X-Files influenced so many new conspiracy theorists in this country.

[sacX]

our troops are not animals. We're not going in there to kill women and children.

apart from those ones that came back from Afghanistan and murdered their wives. </cheapshot>

Google: civilians killed in afghanistan

I'm not saying that you shouldn't have gone to Afghanistan I'm saying that the military action had consequences on innocent people (who you obviously don't give a shit about).

[Gman.357]

Originally posted by sacX


apart from those ones that came back from Afghanistan and murdered their wives.

Google: civilians killed in afghanistan

I'm not saying that you should have gone to Afghanistan I'm saying that the military action had consequences on innocent people (who you obviously don't give a shit about).

Do you give a shit about the thousands killed in WTC? What am I supposed to do about those casualties?

What the fuck were WE supposed to do after the attack on WTC? Sit there and take it? They attacked US. They killed our civilians FIRST.

But that's something you obviously don't give a shit about.

[Gman.357]

Those casualties in Afghanastan were not INTENTIONAL. The difference here is, the ones they caused to us were.

See the difference?

[Joe Sixpack]

Originally posted by Gman.357


Do you give a shit about the thousands killed in WTC? What am I supposed to do about those casualties?

What the fuck were WE supposed to do after the attack on WTC? Sit there and take it? They attacked US. They killed our civilians FIRST.

But that's something you obviously don't give a shit about.

Why are you incapable of distinguishing between Al Qaeda and the people of Afghanistan?

[sacX]

um that's ridiculous, the innocent people who the bombs killed didn't do anything to you. So tell you what someone kills my brother I'll go kill someone elses mum! coz that'll even the score.

Also if I kill you but I didn't mean to that's alright? thanks for clearing it up.

[Gman.357]

Originally posted by Joe Sixpack


Why are you incapable of distinguishing between Al Qaeda and the people of Afghanistan?

Why are you incapable of making sense? Never once did I say the people of Afghanastan should be bombed. But sadly, that's where Al Queda reside, and function... in amonst the Afgani population and countryside.

[Joe Sixpack]

Originally posted by Gman.357


Why are you incapable of making sense? Never once did I say the people of Afghanastan should be bombed. But sadly, that's where Al Queda reside, and function... in amonst the Afgani population and countryside.

I made perfect sense.

You said this:
"What the fuck were WE supposed to do after the attack on WTC? Sit there and take it? They attacked US. They killed our civilians FIRST. "

You were referring to the people of Afghanistan, not Al Qaeda. If you weren't then it is YOU that is incapable of making sense!

[Gman.357]

Originally posted by sacX
um that's ridiculous, the innocent people who the bombs killed didn't do anything to you. So tell you what someone kills my brother I'll go kill someone elses mum! coz that'll even the score.

Also if I kill you but I didn't mean to that's alright? thanks for clearing it up.

Again, I never said the people of Afghanastan should be killed. But what else could have been done there to prevent that?? We dropped food for the people, we did our best to show them they weren't the targets.

It's not our fault that Al Queda live and reside where they do.

So tell me, what would YOU have done if you're such a great peace-keeper? When first blood had been drawn on OUR soil, and war declaired by THEM?

[Gman.357]

Originally posted by Joe Sixpack


I made perfect sense.

You said this:
"What the fuck were WE supposed to do after the attack on WTC? Sit there and take it? They attacked US. They killed our civilians FIRST. "

You were referring to the people of Afghanistan, not Al Qaeda. If you weren't then it is YOU that is incapable of making sense!

Yes, but I followed it up with this post to clarify...

Those casualties in Afghanastan were not INTENTIONAL. The difference here is, the ones they caused to us were.

Please read before making accusations. Isn't that hostile and quick judgement what you are accusing the US of?

[Sarah_Jayne]

interesting thing about recent food drops is that often the food makes the local people physically ill because it is flavours and tastes their bodies aren't used to. Weird how we don't think about that...it is nice to drop food but better to drop food they can eat.

[Joe Sixpack]

Originally posted by Gman.357


Please read before making accusations. Isn't that hostile and quick judgement what you are accusing the US of?

You were still implying that the people of Afghanistan were responsible for the WTC attack. By that point you had NOT mentioned Al Qaeda.

[Gman.357]

Originally posted by sarah_webinc
interesting thing about recent food drops is that often the food makes the local people physically ill because it is flavours and tastes their bodies aren't used to. Weird how we don't think about that...it is nice to drop food but better to drop food they can eat.

I guess when you live in a country that's 99% desert, and eat only grains, and are mostly starving and addicted to heroin, almost any food given to you can potentially make you ill.

[sacX]

G.Man,

Iraq hasn't pulled a WTC and killed thousands of US civilians, yet you are supporting a war that will almost certainly kill thousands of Iraqi civilians. You cannot say, they do not "INTEND" to kill them, because they have foreknowledge that some of these bombs WILL kill civilians.

By your own arguments this action gives Iraq the moral right to un-intentionally kill thousands of US citizens.

[Gman.357]

Originally posted by Joe Sixpack


You were still implying that the people of Afghanistan were responsible for the WTC attack. By that point you had NOT mentioned Al Qaeda.

Well, this thread is moving very quickly, and I'm getting very tired. So I'm doing the best I can to get my point across. My apologies if you were mislead.

However, I think I make it very clear now that I meant Al Qaeda.

[ServerGenius]

I don´t support the war on Iraq. I´m not left or US hater but the
reasons the US is using to go to war is a fucking joke.

The "Proof" that was presented for WMD was hilarious

There is no direct threat from Iraq attacking the US. Yes he´s
an asshole, yes he´s crazy.

Iraq´s army is a total joke....you´ve seen it in the last gulf war
and after that it only went worse.....they use 1941 Russian tanks as shelters......not as weapons because they don´t work

Iraq has nothing todo with the 9/11 attacks.....in fact Saddam
doesn´t like Osama at all and never did.

Pakistan who has much stronger ties with Al Queda and other
terrorist groups and is certainly in possesion of WMD are off the
hook. Most Al Queda officers are hiding in Pakistan....and it
wouldn´t suprise me if Osama was there too.

Pakistan and India almost started a nuclear war less than a
decade ago....

North Korea.....in posession of WMD, a leader that is 100 times
more crazy than Saddam and making all efforts to increase their
threat to the world.......they also go free?

If Iraq would not have Oil the US wouldn´t give a rats ass about
Saddam......or his threats....it´s quite obvious.

If you want to go to war with Iraq.....Bush should be just honest.
I want their oil....and I want to kill Saddam because he pissed of
daddy.....and now he´s making me look like the idiot I am.

You want to go to war.....fine.....but don´t act like you´re about
to save the world from Saddam when all you´re after is Oil.

DynaMite

[Gman.357]

Originally posted by sacX
G.Man,

Iraq hasn't pulled a WTC and killed thousands of civilians, yet you are supporting a war that will almost certainly kill thousands of Iraqi civilians. You cannot say, they do not "INTEND" to kill them, because they have foreknowledge that some of these bombs WILL kill civilians.

By your own arguments this action gives Iraq the moral right to un-intentionally kill thousands of US citizens.

Are you not aware of Saddam's history of massacre and destructive dictatorship? And his undying hatred for America? He keeps his people in poverty, he invades other nations when given the chance, and if not for the sanctions placed on him, would already have weapons of mass destruction in full effect, and probably used them on his neighbors.

He's already used chemical weapons on INNOCENT people, and continues to defy restrictions imposed upon him.

I pose this question again since everyone opposing the removal of Saddam seems to ignore it...

Knowing what we know now about Hitler, would you have removed him from power using force if given the chance?

[Gman.357]

North Korea.....in posession of WMD, a leader that is 100 times

A war with North Korea would also mean the loss of innocent lives, correct?

Because that's the main argument here by the people opposing the removal of Saddam. It would cause civilian casualties. Well then what about North Korea? Should we remove that nutcase before he causes an all-out nuclear holocaust? Or would you be opposed to that as well?

[sacX]

funny though when Iraq used chemical weapons on the Kurds, the US *reinstated* diplomatic relations with Iraq, good ole Rummsfeld. Of course the US supported Iraq all through this period with their war on Iran. It's a bit rich to come back now and say oh hey we've thought it over.

Also I'm not arguing that he's not crazy. I'm arguing that there is no need for war while weapon inspectors seem to be doing a good job at the moment. What is the rush for war?

[sexsami]

The war in Iraq is for the benefit of Iraq, the people there live in misery, the are under cruel dictatorship.

I have nothing against Iraq , I think the people in Iraq have the right to live in freedom, they don't.
they just don't.

[Living For Today]

fuck war.

As someone said at the protest in melbourne yesterday.

This is George Bush' war. This is Tony Blair's war. This is John Howard's war.

But it sure as hell isn't Australia's war.

[ServerGenius]

Originally posted by Gman.357


Are you not aware of Saddam's history of massacre and destructive dictatorship? And his undying hatred for America? He keeps his people in poverty, he invades other nations when given the chance, and if not for the sanctions placed on him, would already have weapons of mass destruction in full effect, and probably used them on his neighbors.

He's already used chemical weapons on INNOCENT people, and continues to defy restrictions imposed upon him.

I pose this question again since everyone opposing the removal of Saddam seems to ignore it...

Knowing what we know now about Hitler, would you have removed him from power using force if given the chance?

Allthough all of this is true......there are people FAR WORSE than
Saddam in this world. But still ALL attention is focussed on Saddam
And not on those others who have far more resources to do any
SERIOUS harm than Saddam.

And don´t act like the US is the saviour of the world......it´s not!
All those WWII stories too.....yes you helped Europe out......but
you forget to tell you started helping out once you realised that
Germany was getting too powerfull......let me remind you the war
started in 1939.......where were you? Once the damage was done
and Germany was gaining too much power and had overthrown
too many countries....you all got interested and decided to start
"saving" us.

There are numerous other examples of this strategy. If there is no
benefit to the US.....the US is not interested. That´s ok....I can
understand that but don´t act like you´re the saviours of the world. You come to help if there is something to gain.....if not.....
nobody gives a fuck!

DynaMite

[Gman.357]

Originally posted by sexsami
The war in Iraq is for the benefit of Iraq, the people there live in misery, the are under cruel dictatorship.

I have nothing against Iraq , I think the people in Iraq have the right to live in freedom, they don't.
they just don't.

And no Iraqi will admit that openly either. For fear of Saddam's wrath. That's how much "fear control" he has over those poor people. He has them believing poverty is a good thing.

[ServerGenius]

Originally posted by Gman.357


A war with North Korea would also mean the loss of innocent lives, correct?

Because that's the main argument here by the people opposing the removal of Saddam. It would cause civilian casualties. Well then what about North Korea? Should we remove that nutcase before he causes an all-out nuclear holocaust? Or would you be opposed to that as well?

No I would agree with this a lot more than war with Iraq simply
because NK is a far bigger threat than Iraq.

I am against a war with Iraq because of the reasons the US is
using to start a war and that´s the whole point!

DynaMite

[Gman.357]

Originally posted by DynaSpain


Allthough all of this is true......there are people FAR WORSE than
Saddam in this world. But still ALL attention is focussed on Saddam
And not on those others who have far more resources to do any
SERIOUS harm than Saddam.

And don´t act like the US is the saviour of the world......it´s not!
All those WWII stories too.....yes you helped Europe out......but
you forget to tell you started helping out once you realised that
Germany was getting too powerfull......let me remind you the war
started in 1939.......where were you? Once the damage was done
and Germany was gaining too much power and had overthrown
too many countries....you all got interested and decided to start
"saving" us.

There are numerous other examples of this strategy. If there is no
benefit to the US.....the US is not interested. That´s ok....I can
understand that but don´t act like you´re the saviours of the world. You come to help if there is something to gain.....if not.....
nobody gives a fuck!

DynaMite

Well said. You have my attention.

But let's not forget the REAL reason we got involved in WW2. Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. That's when we stepped in.

[kenny]

Removing Sadam will be a good thing for both the people of Iraq and the insurance of national security.
He has a very hostile past reguarding bordering countries and his own people. He is playing the international community because he has his back agaisnt the wall.
War is ugly. War should be a last resort. Come on a good decade the dictator had to disarm. Diplomatic efforts are proven a waste of time. Iraq has/had known weapons of mass destruction. What happen to them? If he destroyed them then there should be documents and proof of the disarming. You cant expect a team of inspectors to search a entire country blindly. Iraq is supposed to say "Look we got rid of the damn things here is how and when they where destroyed", not "go ahead and look we aint got shit". And believe me if the Iraq goverment doesnt document the locations and events reguarding the status of weapons of mass destruction then the govermant needs to be removed for that reason alone. You cant just say " the fuckers are just gone".
North Korea, other nations still have a diplomatic angle that can be approached. After the diplomatic approach proves to be a failure then the last resort "military force" has to be taken to adjust the situation.