StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Quick poll, do you support a proposed invasion of Iraq?

No, there's no clear reason to. All of it's based on possibilties and speculation. I think the situation is based more grudges by Dubya and his advisors than the real world. That's not enough to send our armed forces to fight and die for.

We should press for a return of arms inspectors, meaningful embago enforcement, and support genuine opposition to Saddam. All those would be meaningful steps short of war that we could tale. And actually support the opposition all the way not some half assed operation.

Yes I alawyas suppory the invasion and domination of a forigen people and thier rich cultural heritage.

If we invade we will kick out a corrupt regime and establish a better one. It benefits the people of Iraq. Forget all this political bullshit. It's the right thing to do, and more importantly, we are able to do it. This won't be another Vietnam.

This won't be another Vietnam.

For those of you who haven't heard, Vietnam has declared its nuetrality in this conflict, so there is absolutely no chance of another vietnam occuring.

God, I MISS Clinton
At least he declared wars because of his Manhood, not because of the "I'm better than my daddy complex".
And he had a good team, not a bunch of "Kill them all, God will know the innocents" fundies in the top places.

But I DO believe Saddam deserves a war. The U.S should
1) Call out his bluff about the wapons inspection
2)Divulge through the Media and to the allies the evidence of misbehaviour by Iraque.
3)Then, with at least the U.K (I mean, they LOVE the U.S and are against the current situation, that should tell people something!) and NATO's support do the damned war

I think that they just want Iraque's oil and don't think that it's safe in Saddam's hands. He might stop exporting it for some reason unknown.
Anyway, if the US does start a war, they should not think that it's going to be easy, if they do, they are underestimating Saddam and the Iraque army and everyone will probably die. Iraque could have some spare nukes around and Washington would be a good target for them if the war starts. Bush (if he survived) will want to retaliate and sends ten nukes on Iraque. Then Iraque sends twenty nukes in return and after some weeks: No Iraque, no US and most important of all: NO EARTH left... too bad.

My opinion: Go ahead, start the damn war, but you will have to face the consequences.

Dooey Jo wrote:Iraque. Then Iraque sends twenty nukes in return and after some weeks: No Iraque, no US and most important of all: NO EARTH left... too bad.
consequences.

Hei.. Calm down.. It's not easy to send a nuke from Iraque to the States. It's impossible without.. Big Rockets.. And that's also very hard to get. And if Saddam had a nuclear arsenal he would tell everybody with an Evil Laughter.
And a single nuke detected heading from Iraque would mean imediate pulverization of the country..
And Earth is Bigger than Iraque and the States
Europe would Run The World

I'd support any war if it wasn't just a big war of convenience so Bush and his puppetmasters can look good.

You people can't come up with real reasons why not to invade Iraq. You are just voting no because you don't like Bush. That would be like Congress not letting FDR enter World War II because they don't like him, therefore don't support the war.

IRG CommandoJoe wrote:You people can't come up with real reasons why not to invade Iraq. You are just voting no because you don't like Bush. That would be like Congress not letting FDR enter World War II because they don't like him, therefore don't support the war.

Iraq should've been taken care of 10 years ago, not now when Bush wants to look good.
Fighting a war for the wrong reasons is worse than not fighting a war at all, Bush and his puppetmasters think they own the world and can invade anybody at will, because they will be protected by that stupid missile defense that isn't even up yet.

Fighting a war for the wrong reasons is worse than not fighting a war at all, Bush and his puppetmasters think they own the world and can invade anybody at will, because they will be protected by that stupid missile defense that isn't even up yet.

Thats because the missile Defense only needs to protect us aginst... umm no one yet seing as how short of people with alot of nukes(China/Russia/UK) have the range to hit us and enough bombs to smoke us

The people we are fighting however Don't

Most of them can however crater Isreal and then agian prehaps thats for the best.

Fighting a war for the wrong reasons is worse than not fighting a war at all

Why is it worse? The U.S. goes to war against a nation that has a sadistic nutjob as its ruler. What is the difference if Bush said, "We are going to invade Iraq and establish a better government, because it is the right thing to do," as opposed to, "We are going to invade Iraq and establish a better form of government, because I like to blow things up"? Seriously, what is the difference?! Lets assume that we have already invaded Iraq, maximized military targets, minimized civilian targets, killed/captured Saddam Hussein, and then we let the people have a democratic government. The real reason behind all of this was because Bush wanted to get good ratings. Ok, so how do the wrong reasons actually affect what has been done? Why is this worse than leaving it alone and letting the Iraqi people suffer?

Based on what I know, and what has been proved (not told) to the American public, there is no reason to attack Iraq now. Thus, I don't think we should do it.

Howedar wrote:Based on what I know, and what has been proved (not told) to the American public, there is no reason to attack Iraq now. Thus, I don't think we should do it.

The problem is that the US 'knows' (or at least 'strongly' suspects) that Saddam was connected to the 9/11 atrosity, but cannot legally prove it. Not attacking Iraq simply gives Saddam time to have another go, which he will do unless; the US backs off, lets Iraq off the hook, stops the sanctions and dissolves the no-fly zones. What if there is insufficient evidence for the next terrorist attack as well?

What the US and the UN should have done is begun preparations for war the moment Saddam kicked out the weapons inspectors all those years ago. From a legal point of view attacking now is much more difficult.

For those who think invading Iraq is a good idea.

How long do you think the US will stay and keep the peace in Iraq. And how will the US initiate a "regime change", who will come to power. We want to put a democracy in Iraq, but you have to consider who is in the majority there.

If saddam is ousted, what is to keep the Islamic fundamentaists out of the govt. How do you stop nations like Saudi Arabia or Syria from pumping tons of money into the Fundie elements in Iraq.
Iraq is a very impoverished nation, it could become like Palestine and become a major source of terrorists. Would it become the West Bank and the Gaza Strip of the US with suicide bombings routine.

Saddam has been holding back the fundie elements for years. That is his only good use. Keeping the fundie Islamics at bay. He is not a threat to the US but a threat for fundamentalist nations like Saudi Arabia.

On a side note, the nations of the War on Terror ie Afg., Possibly Iraq have something to do with oil. Several US corps wanted to build a oil pipeline through Afg connecting the Caspian Sea reserves with Pakistan and the Indian Ocean. The Taliban refused the pipeline and a few months later they are wasted by US forces. Pipeline can be built now. And now Iraq, a oil rich nation in unfriendly hands. And Invasion is the only word on Bushs lips. Coincidence?

Imperial federation is right, this should have been taken care of years ago.It actually would have been the right thing to do years ago. The only reason Saddam was attacked the last time around was oil. Saddam stood to control far too much of it. He'd been killing his own people for years up until that point and no one gave a shit. During the conflict with iran he nerve gassed an entire Iraqi Kurdish village and he got away with that.

Iraq should've been taken care of 10 years ago, not now when Bush wants to look good.
Fighting a war for the wrong reasons is worse than not fighting a war at all, Bush and his puppetmasters think they own the world and can invade anybody at will, because they will be protected by that stupid missile defense that isn't even up yet.

So just because Saddam got off the hook with his crimes 10 years ago he should be free from punishment? So what if you think Bush is only doing this to look good? Every president does things to make himself look good. Even if there is no reason now to fear Saddam, and there is, he should still be removed from power. 10 years of containment and embargoes has done nothing but harm the people of Iraq, and stupid Muslim fundamentalists actually hold the US responsible for all the dead Iraqis just because Saddam likes to squander his money on weapons.

Dirty Harry wrote:The only reason Saddam was attacked the last time around was oil.

Not true. Saddam had just invaded an INDEPENDENT country.
He said it was the first of many conquests;
The whole world wanted to take action.
The reason for the quick response was the oil, but there was a legitim claim to start a war.

Now:
The american leadership is WEAK. God damned rightwing fundies.
Iraque is claiming innocence and calling for negotiations. It's a bluff, but is SHOULD be called for.
Evidence of deadly weapons? They may have it, but why isn't it avaible?
Due to the three reasons above, nobody's backing the U.S

Sum this to the problems of the region (it resembles a gunpowder barrel)

This is not the Balcans. It's much more complicated and the price of failure is much more poverty and fundamentalism

Mr. B wrote: How long do you think the US will stay and keep the peace in Iraq.

They have stated that they're willing to stay there for years to do the job properly.

Mr. B wrote: And how will the US initiate a "regime change", who will come to power.

'How' is easy to answer, and involves a lot of violence and destruction. 'Who' can be answered afterwards, but initially the existing Iraqi opposition can get the ball rolling.

Mr. B wrote: We want to put a democracy in Iraq, but you have to consider who is in the majority there.
If saddam is ousted, what is to keep the Islamic fundamentaists out of the govt.

How do you know the majority of the Iraqi population are Muslim fundies? Is this an assumption on your part? Even if they are, why should we keep them out of government?

Mr. B wrote: How do you stop nations like Saudi Arabia or Syria from pumping tons of money into the Fundie elements in Iraq.

This is a problem that can be dealt with afterwards, it's not a worse problem than the one the US is faced with now.

Mr. B wrote:
Iraq is a very impoverished nation, it could become like Palestine and become a major source of terrorists. Would it become the West Bank and the Gaza Strip of the US with suicide bombings routine.

It could, but as Saddam is probably already supporting terrorist attacks against the US, what does the US have to loose here? But the comparison with the west bank is not good, in this case (if the US is successful) they will be giving the country BACK to the Iraqi people, not kicking them out like the Israelis did.

Mr. B wrote: Saddam has been holding back the fundie elements for years. That is his only good use. Keeping the fundie Islamics at bay. He is not a threat to the US but a threat for fundamentalist nations like Saudi Arabia.

Nice theory, except that Saddams 'big plan' has always been the formation of a united Arab state, with Iraq at the center. He's not been an enemy of the Fundies since the 2nd Gulf War, when he realised he needed them. Since them he's been supporting them and using them for his own ends, the fact that they share a common enemy in the west must help no end.

Mr. B wrote: On a side note, the nations of the War on Terror ie Afg., Possibly Iraq have something to do with oil. Several US corps wanted to build a oil pipeline through Afg connecting the Caspian Sea reserves with Pakistan and the Indian Ocean. The Taliban refused the pipeline and a few months later they are wasted by US forces. Pipeline can be built now. And now Iraq, a oil rich nation in unfriendly hands. And Invasion is the only word on Bushs lips. Coincidence?

[sarcasm]With evidence like that who can argue; cause and effect so well established[/sarcasm]

On a side note, the 'solution' to Muslim fundementalism is probably not to fight it by banning it or ignoring democratic elections that put them in power. The solution is to let them take the power, when stand well back. Any sort of Fundie is going to be a pain in the arse when the get into power, and after a few years the electorate will be so sick of them, they'll vote for the moderates instead. Iran seems to be a reasonably good example.

Akm72 wrote:Iran seems to be a reasonably good example.

We had fascist regimes in Portugal and Spain for 50 years. In the end, they fell rotten. No outside intervention and revolutions without blood (well, one guy died but he was secret police, so )

Iran is following the same path. And China is anything but communist.
Russia is a democracy (well, almost)

What's the point in invading country's for no other reason than the regime?
There must be solid proof.
If Saddam is killing his people, that's a reason to invade.
If he's mass producing illegal weapons, that's a reason to invade.

But that proof must be given to the allies/media. It's no good to keep saying "we have it".

My point exactly.

They have stated that they're willing to stay there for years to do the job properly.

Keeping our forces in Iraq for however many years is going to be expensive. How will we pay for it, with the budget currently in defecit.

'How' is easy to answer, and involves a lot of violence and destruction. 'Who' can be answered afterwards, but initially the existing Iraqi opposition can get the ball rolling.

How do you know that the current opposition will be up to it. How do you know that they won't just turn into a bunch of fueding warlords. Or that they will sharepower with another, or that the Kurds will get their ind. state.

How do you know the majority of the Iraqi population are Muslim fundies? Is this an assumption on your part? Even if they are, why should we keep them out of government?

Maybe not all of them, but there are a number of them. And why shouldn't we, they are the ones spewing the anti-america rhetoric. And their message of hate will grow in the more impoverished regions even if they are not in the gov't.

This is a problem that can be dealt with afterwards, it's not a worse problem than the one the US is faced with now.

How do you deal with it later, this money will help the radical fundies get on their feet.

It could, but as Saddam is probably already supporting terrorist attacks against the US, what does the US have to loose here? But the comparison with the west bank is not good, in this case (if the US is successful) they will be giving the country BACK to the Iraqi people, not kicking them out like the Israelis did.

How do you know he is supporting terrorists? There is no proof of Iraqi involvement in terrorism against the US.
But the US troops will be an occupying force. And the more radical elements will not like this, they will see it as more US imperialism.

Nice theory, except that Saddams 'big plan' has always been the formation of a united Arab state, with Iraq at the center. He's not been an enemy of the Fundies since the 2nd Gulf War, when he realised he needed them. Since them he's been supporting them and using them for his own ends, the fact that they share a common enemy in the west must help no end.

A United Secular Arab state. With HIM on top. Just becasue it is Arab doesn't make it a fundie state. Again how do you know he is a friend of people like Osama bin Laden. He is just as much a threat to Saddams power as he is to the US.


And as to my theory:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/afghan.html

On a side note, the 'solution' to Muslim fundementalism is probably not to fight it by banning it or ignoring democratic elections that put them in power. The solution is to let them take the power, when stand well back. Any sort of Fundie is going to be a pain in the arse when the get into power, and after a few years the electorate will be so sick of them, they'll vote for the moderates instead. Iran seems to be a reasonably good example.

The real way is to get rid of poverty in nations. That is why the fundies are going in Iran, it is becoming more prosperous. And if you let those people in power the only way to get them out is to shoot them or to let them die out.

Perhaps all you Euros forgot, so let me state it in terms you can understand.

WE ANSWER TO NOONE!!!!

Yes you got it. We really don;t cvare what europe thinks...no wait scratch that, it only makes us want to invade even more that you nagging us about it.

After we finish off Iraq, just to rub it into your face, we will turn it into a theme park complete with rides, popcorn, cotton candy, a dunk the funide in water booth, and a monument to our greatness.