Anti-Iraq War Rational

[sephiroth clock]

“It’s hard work,” said our president, George W. Bush. That’s almost a mild way of putting it, with the U.S. casualties now having passed 1,600. Even after the massive death and chaos our president has caused in Iraq he continues to find solid support from the American public. The problem I see here is that each person fails to recognize the value of each life. It was Joseph Stalin who said, “The death of one man is a tragedy. The death of millions is a statistic.” This statement is very truthful. The public needs to look beyond the numbers and see them for what they really are: Lives of real human beings, who have real loved ones, who have amazing potential. 1,600 is quite a small number compared to the number of Iraqi civilian deaths, estimated at 21,000 to 25,000. That is so many people! If only the public could know the story behind each of those people, the story behind each of our soldiers, maybe then, the support for the war would come to an end. Yet, our president continues make things black and white by saying that the world is better off without Saddam Hussein. This may be true, but is the world better off with more than 1,600 American troops dead? Is the world better off with more than 2,000 Iraqi troops dead and more than 21,000 Iraqi civilians dead? These are men who have died in vain, men who have died for an unworthy cause. If there had been a real, noble and honorable reason to attack Iraq with American military forces, perhaps then their potential as human beings would not have gone to waste, but the motives and the reasoning behind our attack was incredibly faulty. The original reason we chose to invade Iraq was because of the threat of WMDs, or weapons of mass destructions. So the government convinced the public that this was a valid reason to invade Iraq, even when war is only supposed to be used as a last resort, as a final option. Was war really our only option, the only way we could protect America. No! There were so many other peaceful routes to have taken. We could have obtained the worlds support, sent more inspectors, made diplomatic resolutions, but no, war was the one and only option. Even worse after we did invade Iraq we admitted that we were wrong, that our original purpose for going into war was to rid Iraq of its WMDs. Well guess what, there were no WMDs. How could our government send our troops to die on the battlefield on a false assumption? When the government send our troops to make the greatest sacrifice any person can make they must be so completely sure of their logic, of their information, and of their cause, that when our troops make the ultimate sacrifice, their lives to not go in vain. I don’t believe anyone can say that war, was a last option that those men who went to Iraq had to have died, that there was not another way. After the government realized that their original WMD logic was faulty, they took the stance of “The world is better of without Saddam Hussein.” As I explained above, the world isn’t better off with such large numbers of dead men. Men who died for a cause that turned out to be wrong. Each who had their own life stories to create? Surely there were other ways to than death to fulfill our goal. Do you guys agree or disagree why?

[bradybaker]

Disagree. Entirely. Saddam needed to be stopped. Perhaps you hadn't heard that he was a brutal murderer? The US recently uncovered a mass grave containing about 400 women and children, all shot in the back of the head, execution style. This is one of many, many similar mass graves that have been found around Iraq. Also, the 21,000 Iraqi civilian casualties you mention are people who were killed by Iraqi insurgents (ie. the enemy), not the US and friendly Iraqi forces. Did we go into Iraq to get WMDs? Yes. Did the best intelligence available at the time say that WMDs were present and ready to be used in Iraq? Yes. So in the end, we were wrong about WMDs but got Saddam. One outta two ain't bad. The fact is that Iraq is a much better place now than it was 2 years ago. And will continue to get better as the Iraqi insurgents are defeated. The worst thing that the US could possibly do right now would be to pick up and leave. Then the warlords would take over and they'd be right back where they started. THEN, and only then, would the 1,600 US deaths would be pointless.

[Alric]

How can you even compare that? How many would have died if we didn't stop saddam? What about all the people we saved? Do their lives not count? Is not the world a better place by saving them and allowing them to live?

[cooter]

Yeah, like Bush really cared about the people Saddam Killed, or like he really believed there were weapons of mass destruction.

[JustinP]

I beleive saddam hussein should be killed without hesitation, hes killed many people , dead set fuckwit. Not only do i beleive that the cause of going to war to get the WMD and saddam, but also for oil. Every human casualty is tragic and most people deserve a second chance, although i strongly beleive saddam doesnt. My brother who is in the army is soon to be sent to iraq. Many people dont realise how much it can affect so many famillies and friends. i'll soon have some idea. MAY WE PRAY FOR THOSE WHO REMAIN FIGHTING AND THOSE WHO'VE LOST THERE LIVES, bless their souls

[Lucius]

This might have to be moved to extended discussion, I dont like moving things when its vague where it belongs so I'll leave it here for now. If any other mods want to move, feel free to do so of course.

[Merck]

Originally posted by JustinP Not only do i beleive that the cause of going to war to get the WMD and saddam, but also for oil. No it wasn't about oil. It never has been.

[JustinP]

think about it though... makes sense? iraq is a big supplier of it to america and other countries, if they were lost (burning of oil wells on the news!!) than alot of countries would b screwed for a while...but yeh just wat i beleive, i honestly dont think the government tells us what really happens and is going on...but hey thats australia for ya.. but yeh i dont know enough info to b making n e statements

[dream-scape]

Please split that up into more than 1 paragraph. Like it or not, we'll be in Iraq for awhile. Though you'll never hear Bush or anyone from the administration tell you, it will take about 50-70 or so years to stabilize Iraq and "rub out" the bathe party. That is just the reality of the situation. The only question that remains is, is America willing to make that kind of commitment. Apparently American businesses are.

[sephiroth clock]

My thought on that was that yes Saddam is bad, but I there are more ways than one to take over that country, or change their situation. If we had the backing of the U.N. then we might have had to do with less civilian casualties from so much bombing. 21,000 people is quite a lot, I don't know if Saddams regime could do that in a year or two without someone stopping them.

[Yume]

I would have assassinated Saddam. The way Bush approached the war was horrible. We could have done so much better. I do not disagree with war, but I do not like Bush styled reasoning for it.

[Alric]

There seems to be two sides to it. The side who thinks the UN does stuff and the side who thinks the UN is worthless. Now I don't think the UN is worthless, just next to worthless. They have their moments and are good at SOME things, but not in this kind of stuff. In this case I really doubt having their support would done a single thing. Infact chances are saddam would still be in there, doing whatever he wants because the UN could care less. As for the war, they should have been more aggressive. They did great at the start but then kind of lost it after the major fighting when everyone went underground and started using guerrilla tactics. This might sound even worse but instead of trying to convince a bunch of crazy people they where wrong, they should have killed or locked them all up. Shouldn't have let that big army disban, and they should have been busting down doors looking for people.

[Awaken]

The whole thing is set up this way to make people fight over who killed more people, when both sides are controlled by the same force.

[Roller]

Yet another Iraq debate huh? Well lets see... I don't agree with the Iraq war, but I also don't see why people are whinging about it purely on the basis of US troops killed. I might be mistaken, but surely if someone wants to live to a ripe old age and have grandchilderen, then joining the Army is not the most sensible thing to do? I mean you're in the army.... if you don't want to get killed in a foriegn country then don't enlist. Get a job at Maccas. When you enlist you are not only saying that you might be killed, but you most likely will be killing other people. As for the reason for waging war on Iraq? Well it was claimed that Saddam had broken quite a few international treaties and UN treaties through war crimes commited. So why does the Bush administration go ahead and invade Iraq against the wishes of the UN? By doing so he has made the UN redundant, because the aim of the UN is to hold ALL countries accountable for their actions. The UN came out of the Second world war because countries in Europe saw what can happen when countries are not held accountable for their actions (in the lead up to the second world war it was hitler that walked all over theLeague of Nations). Basically the message given by the US when disregarding the UN's wishes for a more diplomatic measure to be taken was that "we don't care for the suffering of the world wars, we're going in with guns blazing" I think that in the whole propaganda frenzy the line between Saddam and Osama got a little blurred... Saddam had nothing to do with Sept 11. As for freeing a suppressed country with millions suffering... why not try Zimbabwe. Talking about 'posing a threat to intrenational peace and wellbeing' why not have a crack at North Korea? Or maybe that would be a bad idea seeing as they actually might have weapons of mass destruction. As for the oil etc... well who knows. I mean it sounds like a great conspiracy theory, but as with most theories like that there is little proof. I just think that there are better ways to topple dictators than going in with guns blazing. That's just asking for trouble and years of insurgency.

[Awaken]

Fighting for peace is the most ridiculous notion ever conceived by a supposedly-enlightened civilization.

[Alric]

The problem with the UN is the UN doesn't do anything. If we left it up to them, they would still be sitting around talking about it. Its funny that you brought up WW2. They let Germany do whatever it wanted back then and they did the same thing to iraq. As you said, iraq broke the treaties but the UN didn't do anything. So the US did what it felt it had too. Atleast a few people read their history. Now if only the rest of the UN did.

[Awaken]

The UN was created as the stepping stone to world government.

[Alric]

And its more about politics than helping people.

[Awaken]

Exactly.

[InTheMoment]

I wondered when the topic of politics would rear it's ugly head on this forum. Let me just say that I strongly opposed the invasion of Iraq. There were a number of reasons that we chose to invade Iraq and I believe some of those main reasons included (in no particular order): - A tactical and stronger US present in the Middle East. - Economic gain (which is ironic considering the billions of dollars that has been approved to fund the war) - Political diversion from our continued failure to locate Osama. [label Saddam as the new and most imminent threat to the US (someone we know that we can easily defeat), associate him with Al Queda and then topple his regime therefore making the administration seem like heros in the war on terrorism.] - Emphasizing our power on the world stage by flexing our muscles in the face of the UN and not allowing there influence to affect our foreign policy. I'll save my rant on this matter though for forums more associated with discussing politics. I've spent countless hours debating online the above reasons, so if anyone is interested in a more involved debate concerning these issues feel free to let me know and I will direct you towards a very credible and resourceful political debate forum.

[Awaken]

First Afghanistan was the threat. Oops now it's Iraq. Oops now it's Iran. Oops now it's Syria. Oops now it's North Korea. Oops now we need cameras in the streets, microchips, biometrics, militarized police, sound weapons, torture...I guess the whole world is the enemy. Oh and remember what Bush said, "You're either with us, or you're with the terrorists." Duality, the energy of opposition which holds us in this self-destructive "reality", perpetrated by one force controlling both sides. It is provable that WW1 and 2 were funded by the same organizations. Why should this be any different? The veil is lifting. People are waking up in vast numbers.

[Alric]

They are all threats. Its all a matter of how big of one. If we wanted we could just avoid it all and let everyone kill each other. Would only be a matter of time before they end up nuking each other. Its nice to say we should try to stop them but maybe we always cant. All the people you just name really just want to kill other people, the US just gets in the middle of it. Its really kind of sad. No matter what we do people are going to end up dead either way.

[Daeraug]

I see these debates all the time, and some of you know that my opinion is, unless you were involved in such things. It is best to keep quiet. Not everything is put out through the media, and it is always biased at that. I was in Iraq during the beginning of the war. I saw the way those people were treated. I saw the stock piles of weapons that Saddam had. Hell, we even took a few AT-4s to help protect our sites. If you want to know what happen there ask someone who has been. Saddam had to go, I don't care if it was over oil, WMD, or just because he stole Mr. T's cheetoes. He was committing genocide on his own people. If you want to know about what happened there. Ask, I am open to questions, and if I can answer. I will.

[Alric]

Most people agree we had to get rid of him. Even the people who are against the war. So why are we even argueing?

[Awaken]

I'm not saying Saddam was a good guy. I'm saying Bush (and anyone else who has ever declared war) is a pot calling the kettle black. edit: Of course it's all just for the movie. At a higher level they are all controlled by the same people who profit from it all in many different ways.