StarDestroyer.Net BBS

I made this thread and to get a clear understanding on who support a war with a Iraqi and who against it. Also state your reason.

We've had quite a few of these already. Take a look through the threads and you will see who thinks what and why. We have a fair amount of people on both sides as well as folks on the fence.

Oh, and welcome to the board.

Neutral. If the UN gives war the go ahead, fine. But until then...

I say nay, there has to be another way to oust Saddam

I AM THE PROPHET OF THE SUPREME LORD POKE. POKE COMMANDS ME TO ADMINSISTER HIS HOLINESSES SUPER-POKE OF POKED DOOM! *Tycho calls forth the holy power of POKE to Doom Poke newbie. Newbie is destroyed utterly, then reincarnated*

Welcome to the Temple of the Damned!

Oh,yeah, I'm neutral in this debate.

I am nutural by and large. But I strongly object to the US acting without clear proof of a need, and also acting with what I see as chronic myopia as to effects of this proposed war.

Tanner wrote:I made this thread and to get a clear understanding on who support a war with a Iraqi and who against it. Also state your reason.

To begin, I bite thee. [bite] Welcome to SD.Net, enjoy your stay!

Second, I am anti-war, and it is mainly a pessimistic pacific thing, but I don't think that we *need* to go to war - rather, bring back the troops that are in dozens of other countries, and have been there for many years.

I'm antiwar as long as Shurb is in power, short of Hitler being resurrected from the dead. Just hearing Bush have killed about 1/3 of my brain cells.

Welcome, n00b.

And yes, this war is a neccessary evil. We've played patta-cake with Saddam too long and the world will be better off without him. All that is needed for evil to flourish is for good people to do nothing, and that was what happened when the Versailles Treaty was ignored.

All in favor of forgetting about the massively redundant poll in favor of poking the newbie to death?

Coyote wrote:Welcome, n00b.

And yes, this war is a neccessary evil. We've played patta-cake with Saddam too long and the world will be better off without him. All that is needed for evil to flourish is for good people to do nothing, and that was what happened when the Versailles Treaty was ignored.

We also didn't need to invade Iraq when the first Bush was in power; instead, we could have protected them from Kuwait and had a potentially powerful ally instead of an enemy. Our war-mongering is the thing that gets most people against us, not the "help." Wait a minute. That help is our war-mongering...

The problem has existed long enough. The North Korean Solution is hardly an ideal way to handle any sort of threat, so Saddam's budding dictatorship must be snipped in the bud before it can flower. Containment, while viable, is not the preferable solution.

verilon wrote:...We also didn't need to invade Iraq when the first Bush was in power; instead, we could have protected them from Kuwait and had a potentially powerful ally instead of an enemy.

Sarcasm, Ver?

Our war-mongering is the thing that gets most people against us, not the "help." Wait a minute. That help is our war-mongering...

Well, we left Rwanda alone and everyone vilified us for it saying that as the "remaining superpower" we had a "moral obligation" to help. The same argument was used to get us into Yugoslavia and Somalia...

But look at it this way... if Iraq develops nukes despite everything-- treaties, sanctions, the UN mandates-- and we just shrug it off, what sort of green-light does that give other dictatorial regimes? Does the world really want to see nuclear proliferation on a grand scale, and in the hands of folks like this? Seriously?

In comfortable Western democracies we can see war as a poor alternative among many alternatives. But in hardscrabble Third World countries where war, survival, and eating the neighbors is part of the territory, the people don't always have that luxury of pick & choose morality. If the vicious tribal battlegrounds in Liberia, Ivory Coast, or recently in Zaire/Congo had a few nukes lying around, do you think the fighters would have used them? Of course they would-- and then the hue and cry would be, "why weren't the proliferation restrictions enforced?"

Remember, just because a country is poor, small, and weaker does not automatically mean that they are righteous victims. Saddam brought this down on his own head. He could have been a proper leader and abided by the treaties and rules he signed but instead he has become a tyrant.

Where are our trrops, Coyote?

Somalia
Kuwait
Iraq
Iran
Sauidi Arabia
Taiwan
China
Germany
Bahrain
Ethiopia
Korea
Vitenam
Among other places.

I have only had four hours of sleep, and really don't have the attention span to be able to go through your post right now, so I'm not going to try to. But think - if we have troops so many other places - what point is there in sending more out? Killing our own citizens is patriotism nowadays.

For now, I oppose a military invasion of Iraq, and consider it something such as a last resort. I believe this because after the invasion, a post-Saddam government may be hard to establish, and alternative methods of disarming and removing Saddam from office may be feasible, and with a lower numbenr of civilian casualties.

weemadando wrote:Neutral. If the UN gives war the go ahead, fine. But until then...

The same UN that has Libya as Charmain of the Human Right's Council? France (who has money in Iraq and threatened pro-war Eastern European countries membership into the EU) as a veto holder, and Germany (who's anti-war for the sake of being anti-war) as Security Concil Chair, and IRAQ as the chairman of a Disarmament comittee? And the vast majority of its members poor shit dictatorships?

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi wrote:and alternative methods of disarming and removing Saddam from office may be feasible, and with a lower numbenr of civilian casualties.

Got one in mind? We had a thread specifically on that and no one came up with anything else that hasn't already be tired and failed.

verilon wrote:Where are our trrops, Coyote?

Somalia
Iran
Taiwan
China
Ethiopia
Vietnam

To the best of knowledge, we have no troops in these areas, if we do I'm surprised. Taiwan maybe as advisors at most but I don't believe we have any bases there.

Most of the other places you mentioned-- Germany, for example, you forgot England, Italy-- are not exactly war zones and were there for good historical reasons as well as mutual treaties. Japan and Korea are in the same boat, although with NKorea in the area they are not as stable and pacific as the European nations.

Among other places.

But it is important to look at where and why. Many people in Bosnia and Kosovo are grateful to have US troops in the area; they'd feel unsafe without them. What are we to make of that? Same with some of the Central Asian republics like Khazakhstan.

Yes, the argument can be made that they are supporting corrupt regimes but sometimes a corrupt regime is better than any of the alternatives. For example, there is corruption in Khazakhstan but it is preferable to the situation in Cote d'Ivorie or Somalia. And there is no such thing as a perfet, untainted rulership anywhere in the world; even in the US. It is a different kind of corruption than seen in Third World countries, true.

Now, as to the looming charge that Saddam was our own monsterous creation by our arming him in the early years, there is a partial truth to that. He came to power on his own but we did arm him in his war with Iran. At the time, the regime of the Ayatollahs looks to be much worse of the two evils. Could anybody that lived at that time have argued otherwise?

Now, with hindsight, we can see the pitfalls but no one has ever been able to see into the future. In 1980, if someone had said that we'd be readying to attack Itaq with Iran as our cheering section, the notion would have been laughable. But if Saddam became dangerous because of our intervention, does that not mean that we have an obligation to clean up the mess?

Given that Saddam will kill many thousands of his own people; he has before and it is likely he will continue to do so. We have legal and moral reasons to stop him from doing this as well as stopping WMD proliferation. He won't back down in the face of pleas, threats, sanctions or laws-- it seems that only force will stop him. So then force must be used. His decision led us to this path.

Get some sleep, man, or at least try... straight Kahluah is good, and easy on the stomach.

Egh.. insomnia night, unfortunately, first off.

Second - why do we intervene in everything? Are there not enough problems at home?

It wont matter what we say though does it? In the end it's the government dictating for what they BELIEVE is best for the people....

verilon wrote:Egh.. insomnia night, unfortunately, first off.

Second - why do we intervene in everything? Are there not enough problems at home?

Well, that's the great balacing act. If we ignore the outside and work on things at home, we get criticism for ignoring global responsibility or not taking a stand for whatever seems right at the time. Famine in Africa, AIDS spending etc. A lot of coutries would collapse were it not for foreign aid (not just US aid but Western aid in general) and things would be much worse off.

Truth is, we can't be isolationist anymore. That dissappeared with easy intercontinental transportation and especially intercontinental missiles. Now, a crazy guy with a bug in his butt in Afghanistan really does matter to Joe and Jane in the West. The biggest breakdowns come when we do things that do not take into account the needs or desires of others.

One of the reasons many Europeans are so upset about this war is because they are closer to the Arabic world and they will be the first ones to feel the backlash should they be seen as going along with the war. Or, Europe is where most of the refugees will go to first, while the US will feel few effects by comparison. Huge Arab populations in Europe already are seen as a ticking bomb waiting to go off in the event of a war.

On the other hand, European countries do the same thing to us-- France ignores embargoes with the Arab world, as does Germany, and go against us in other ways but in truth the impact we feel is minimal. But when the elephant in the bed rolls over-- the US-- all the other animals feel it even though the elephant does not. And no one noticed the rolling over of the field mouse at all...

But if we try to ignore the world, guaranteed the world will come to us, and in ways that may well be catastrophic. Let's face it-- we were ignoring the Taliban completely, despite calls by human-rights groups to "do something" (like what?) about them. Fat lotta good it did us to leave them alone. In fact, many have theorized that leaving them alone-- what we thought they wanted-- was the reason they got so sore at us.

I'm not saying ignore the world - I'm saying stop we should stop getting so involved. I have no problem trying to get China to see Taiwan and Tibet as independent states - but does that mean we need to send troops over? I have no qualm with having Iraq disarm - but does that mean we need to send troops over?

*Note I don't count the Tradtional Five to Thirty Marines at the Embassay as they are in every Country Inculding Russia

Somalia

Yep we have them there on Request of the Goverment just over a hundred

Kuwait

At the Request of the Goverment agian and they help build the base the American troops use, Remeber in Kuwait America has a 92% Aproval Rating

Iraq

We have no troops in Iraq

Iran

We have no troops in Iran

Sauidi Arabia

At the request of the Goverment, The Facilites the Troops use are funded by the Goverment as was building the base they use and they pay us to train their military

Taiwan

We have no Troops there aside from Saliors on Leave from the US Navy ships(The goverments smart way of preventing Chineese Invasion, Keeping the Pacific Fleet between us and them if they do somthing Stuipded like attempt a Nuke Attack on Taiwan with American Ships tied up alongside)

China

We have no Troops in China

Germany

We have Troops in Germany, a tenith as much as we used to but we still have many troops in Germany

Bahrain

The Navy Mantains a Base in Bahrain but we don't keep Ground troops there

Ethiopia

We are part of a UN Peacekeeping force in Ethiopia not as the US Military

Korea

You mean South Korea, We are there at the Request of the South Korean Goverment who helps fund the base

Vitenam

We have no Troops in Vietnam, We lost there remeber and they kicked us out? Or did you forget that thing called the "Vietnam War"

Among other places.

So far the only place you named where we are not there at the specific Request of the Goverment or not part of a UN Coalition has been Germany

verilon wrote:I'm not saying ignore the world - I'm saying stop we should stop getting so involved. I have no problem trying to get China to see Taiwan and Tibet as independent states - but does that mean we need to send troops over? I have no qualm with having Iraq disarm - but does that mean we need to send troops over?

Bush needs too...remember, this is like a take over from his father for him...unfinished business and all

Mr Bean obviously didn't see that I only got four hours of sleep last night - don't expect a half intelligible reply until the day after tomorrow. However, Bean, we have had troops there before, have we not? There is no denying that fact. And we don't have troops there again yet but you know it is inevitable that we will. And soon.