Should the US Attack Iraq? Share Your Opinion!

[STAii]

Okz, here is the deal.
In the politics and world affairs forum we are saying all topics about Iraq.
The topics are turning into meaningless discussions.
Please, in this topic send your opinion on whether you are with or against war.
Also state the reasons behind your beleives, that is either why US should attack Iraq, or why US should not attack Iraq.
Please do not pay any attention of what the others said, just say what you have.
This not a discussion as much as it is a way to show each one's opinion and points (to be clear enough for other discussions).
(i would also appreciate if each member puts a single reply, to make everything clear)

Thank you.

 

[N_Quire]

I think war is always a last resort and that the United Nations should be used as much and as far as possible. However, I think that the UN has shown itself to be incompetent and redundant by, among other things, allowing the massacre to take place in Rwanda and allowing Saddam Hussein to take 12 years to disarm.

It does not bother me that there is no clear link between Al Qaeda and Iraq. I do not think that brutal, murdering dictators have any legitimacy and I sympathize with the desire to get rid of them. Obviously, we cannot invade every country with a dictator. North Korea and Zimbabwe will be dealt with differently than Iraq.

But in the case of Iraq, yes it was right to invade and yes it is right to keep fighting until Saddam Hussein is removed from power. No leader should have the right to gas, torture and murder his own citizens. This is a just war.

 

[kyleb]

i see this as an aggressive action far more than i can consider it a defensive one; and i do not support aggression so i cannot support this war.

 

[chosenone]

I think as american we can embarressed our selves any more than we already have, by starting a war,we kick his ass in the gulf war,so america was appeased after losing the vietnam war,so america was the baddest country again,then bin laden bombed us so we look stupid again,so now where on a rampage to defend ourselfs so the world doesn't see us as pusssyas to invite it to happen again.so we went out and picked a fight with someone that we could win again to show our force to the world,because where scared that people will hurt us and were acting it out in front of the world instead of just dealing with like normal people ,instead of like little babys who are like children being the bully in the school yard picking on the little guy because he can get away with it and no one can stop him because no one can kick our ass!plus he did'nt do anything to show any signs of aggression again anyone,so its basically the same rules that apply in life,we hit him first for no reason,so he now has the right to defend himself,because he didnt do anything to us but be a dick because were telling him what to do,like we own the world or something and have that right to preach to him morallity when look at what we just did!11

 

[STAii]

Okz, now here is my opinion.

I personally see that war should not happen.
It is right that Saddam Hussein was bad to his citizen, and he may own some mass destruction weapons, but these are not enough reasons to make a war against Iraq.

A person that is a leader of his country, and is misusing his power should be taken to an international court to see what should happen to him, making war against his country is not a substitute.

Iraq is just a country, lot of countries have tried (in the course of history) to take over other countries, and this includes US.
Iraq tried to take over Kuwait, US did not have the right to interfer.
Only the UN forces had the right to interfer then.

Back in 1991, the UN forces should have interfered, and Iraq would only be responsible for what it did to Kuwait, therefore it should have only paid for the destruction it was the cause of.

But instead of this, what actually happened is that Iraq was seiged, and certain conditions were made on the weapons Iraq can have.
This seems illogical, since lot of other countries actually invaded other countries, and the consequences were only that the invading country would go out of the invaded country, and destruction would be undone.
For example, US had a war against Vietnam, but we don't see that UN made any decision that put limit to the US forces.

So from my point of view, the decision that Iraq should only have certain weapons was originally wrong.

Now (After 11/9/2001), US has started what it called "The War Against Terrorism", I personally see that US only used what happened in 11 September to invent this war in which it will end whatever it hates.

Iraq was one of the targets of this war, taken as a terrorism country.

So US tried to find some reasons to attack Iraq.
They are saying that :
1-They want to finish the Iraqian people from Saddam which has been mis treating them for a long time.
2-Iraq may still have mass destruction weapons.
3-Iraq did not work under the rules of the decisions of dis-arming.
4-This is part of the "War against terrorism"

Well, as i have pointed out before, (concerning point 1) an international court is the one that has the right to see wether Saddam should rule Iraq or not, and the solution of that is not War.
(Concerning point 2 and 3) As i have pointed out before, Iraq is supposed to have the right of owning weapons like any other country.
(Concerning point 4) The US is really wrong in this point, since this war will not make terrorism less (Which is supposed to be the whole concept behind "the war against terrorism") it will actually make the terrorism world-wide even more and more, since lot of people round the world are not only against this war, but also angered of it !

Finally, US does not have the right to do anything out of its lands, (and specially not if it is concerning another country) unless UN accepts it, and UN didn't accept this war, so this war is not legal !

(a little point as a side note, it seems that most people that are with the war see that the probability they win the war is 100%, but they should remember that nothing is totally possible (in wars), but i have to admit that there is a big chance US will win this war)

 

[Dissident Dan]

Let me point out and rebut the reasons that have been given for war:

1) Iraq is a danger and a menace to the world and the United States, and its government therefore must be destroyed.

Iraq has nothing on the United States. Iraq's military is a big wimp compared to the US military. If Iraq is such a threat, then why can we tell them exactly where our troops are stationed right outside their borders while waiting for war?

2) We must disarm Iraq to curtail terrorism by preventing terrorists from gaining NBC weapons.

The is not one shred of evidence that Iraq has given terrorists chemical or biological weapons. Iraq does not have nuclear weapons. The administration keeps trying to say that there is a link to Al Queda, but CIA and other intelligence agencies have said that there is no evidence for this claim, which makes me suspicious of the administration's intentions.
This war will not curtail terrorism, but encourage it by enraging people. This will mean that current terrorists will be even more dedicated and that more will be recruited. This is not in the interest of the United States or the world.

In time period where Iraq has no real government, Iraq could become a grab-bag for those wishing to obtain chemical/biological weapons--exactly opposite to the stated goal. I'm not saying that this will definitely happen, but I give it a noteworthy probability.

3) Iraq didn't live up to Resolution 1441. It didn't disarm.

I'm sorry, but this just is not a good enough reason. The USA itself has reniged on treaties and (correct me if I'm wrong) failed to live up to UN mandates. It is the consequences of failing to live up to a mandate that we must consider in contemplating war, not the failure to comply itself.

4) We must free the Iraqi people.

This is the best reason that has been provided, yet it is the last one the administration has declared. I do think that the Iraqi people will be freer afterward, but I do not know to what degree. It is obvious that nation-building has only recently been discussed publicly by the administration, which leads me to question the quality of government that the Iraqi people will have. Afghanistan is a most recent example of our failure at nation building. Afghanistan is not a democracy, and my understanding is that the Afghanis are only marginally freer (don't have to wear burkas and such). Their government is also very impotent.
Overall, I think that the Iraqi people would be better off, although many will lose family members and/or be disfigured.

But this must be balanced with the consequences of the war--namely expanded terrorism, world-wide anti-USA sentiment, undermining the UN, and setting the stage for global war with the whole pre-emptive shinanigan (What's to stop India from attacking Pakistan or vice-versa?).

EDIT:

In absense of a reason to do so, or when the consequences outweight the benefits, I am against war. It is my default position. I must be shown reasons to do so and that those reasons outweight the detriments to be for any particular war.

The only valid reason available is the liberation of the Iraqi people, but I think that the negative consequences outweight that.

 

[russ_watters]

I see this as the liberation of a group of people being held hostage by a criminal.

Do we have something selfish to gain by this? Certainly. Is there anything wrong with that? Certainly not.

 

[LURCH]

I HATE war! War is repulsive, dirty business, and should never be used but as a last resort when all other methods have been tried and exhausted. Before going to war, a nation should try all reasonable means, and even a few unreasonable ones, to resolve a crisis. A truly great nation will not attempt to make itself APPEAR great, but rather will lower itself, abase itself, go to rediculous extremes to resolve a conflict without concern about looking rediculous. Only if and when these "beyond reasonable" measures fail should a country go to war.

And that is exactly what the U.S. has done.

"War is a terrible thing, but there are worse things." If Saddam is not removed by force, all of the alternatives are "worse things". I only hope we can get it over with in the least amount of time and with the greatest amount of surrenders possible. As an American, I chear every time I hear of another Iraqi devision surrendering. Not because of the "great victory" of our troops, but because every Iraqi soldier that surrenders is one more person we don't have to kill; one more life spared from Saddam's madness.

 

[FZ+]

I do not believe this war was the last resort
I do not believe the moral justification was properly discussed
I do not believe what would happen afterwards was well planned out
I do not believe now is the right time for war
I do not believe it was the right decision not to table the vote at all, French veto or not.

But now that the war has started, I believe what is important is ensuring it finishes as quickly and bloodlessly as possible.

I believe we will eventually regret this war.

And I am not going to argue any of these points, as they are based on my opinion, and am getting tired of arguing them.

 

[kat]

I am, with much regret, in support of the war.

Many of us regret not entering Bagdad and ridding Iraq of Saddam the first time.

I regret that we abandoned those Iraqi's that rose up to throw off Saddam's horrid, cruel and repressive regime. Their deaths and pain are upon our heads just as surely as they are upon the rest of the worlds right along with the guilt of Saddam and his dirty dozen.

I fear that if we do not invade, we will regret it, his neighbors will regret it and undoubtably the Iraqi people will regret it.

I fear that when it is all over, the European Union, the image of the United States, the Trans-Atlantic Alliance, most Arab regimes, NATO and the American treasury will be far worse off than before. I have little doubt that the Iraqis will be far better off than before. I have no doubt that the Iraqis will be the winners. The most likely scenario is that the Iraqi people will ironically be the only winners.

It all gives me a very big ache in my heart.

What I really, really wish..is that the Arab world would begin to insist upon their own leaders and country men acting humanely towards all of their people. I have close connections to this part of the middle east and I am tired, just so tired of seeing, hearing, feeling the hurt and the hatred that eminates from this portion of our world.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

I believe I have heard reports in cities that have been liberated that Iraqi people are cheering and tearing down Saddam banners.

 

[damgo]

OK, I'll keep it short:

1) Saddam Hussein is scum. He has been a terror, not just for Iraq, but for the whole region. He rules through brutal and effective repression, has started two wars of conquest (Iran and Kuwait), used chems when he could get away with it, and is responsible for the death of millions. Saddam needs to go.

2) The reasons Bush et al have been giving for the war on Iraq are complete nonsense. Saddam and Ba'ath are a secular government; they are the enemies rather than friends of al Quaida. They oppose rather than support such Islamist groups. While they almost certainly have a few chemical weapons, Saddam is rational enough not to use them when there is a threat of retaliation -- eg against the US. He poses no threat to the United States.

3) The real reasons for the war likely include a desire to move troops out of Saudi Arabia to reduce terrorism & increase US geopolitcal influence, and a desire to increase the credibility of US military action as a threat.

4) While the former is laudable, the latter may lead to dangerous consequences: a greater willingness to engage in deadly wars, and a greater temptation to use US global influence to pursue unjust aims. More importantly, the precedent of preemptive aggressive warfare is a very worrisome one.

5) In light of all this, I'm very ambiguous about this war: on the one hand, it is worth it to get Saddam gone; but on the other, it may lead to worse down the road.

 

[Sting]

As a moderator, I should refrain from stating my opinion but in light of the events...

I'll be the first to agree that Saddam should go. He rules Iraq with an iron fist and is the poster boy of Fascism and anyone who has talked with me on PF 2.0 could tell by my former avatar that the fascist ideology will always have opposition in me...

Iraq is a rich nation in terms of natural resources but a majority of that wealth goes into Hussein's "Baghdad Bank of Iraq" account. In otherwords, the wealth is not where it should go and that is to the men, women and children of Iraq who are innocent in my eyes.

However, I question the motive of going to war with Iraq. Is the US going for the oil and other natural resources? For imperialism? To free the oppressed Iraqis? To flex the US's military muscles to the world community? Maybe all of the above.

"Politics is the game of scoundrals." - Oscar Wilde. My cynical nature questions politicians and leaders of governments (whether Republican or Democrat).

So while I tend to be more anti-war then pro-war, I'm not tending to any extremes because everything has two sides to it.

 

[Hurkyl]

The UN thought it important enough to disarm Iraq, and thought it important enough to commit teams of inspectors to verify that Iraq is actually disarming. The UN agreed that Iraq wasn't cooperating. The only logical continuation is that action be taken against Iraq. Beyond that, given the rather long time frame given to Iraq to comply, it's more reasonable for that action to have swift consequences than prolonged consequences.

"Should" any of this have happened? *shrug* But the UN took steps that would clearly lead to war as a possible outcome, the only logical choice is that when things boil down to the need for war that you actually wage war.

Hurkyl

 

[Galatea]

I'd been kind of torn about whether or not I supported this war for a while - prior to the actual declaration of war and up until today, actually. The "shock & awe" campaign, the thought of killing innocent people.. I tried not to think about it too much because I never could decide whether it was the right decision.

Today I was speaking with one of my co-workers. She never did go to any concentration camps as a child, but she was a part of WWII. She mentioned that back then, everyone she was with in Germany was scared to death of the Americans. Hated them even. Not only the soldiers, but the prisoners. But she also said she was so happy when America came and liberated them and saved them from what was surely an unimaginably horrible death. She obviously now lives in the US and has managed to lead a wonderful life.

That seemed to give me some perspective. Whatever the actual motivation for the war is, if the US is able to save more lives like hers, I think it's worth it, whatever it takes. And like Dan said, that may not be the actual reason, but if it happens I do hope that the Iraqi people lead a better life because of it.

So, consider me reluctantly supportive for the above reason.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

3/23/03

Lets see, you have a 'Quorum' (is it 3? or 4?) of 'Alleged' former Oil Executives running a political structure that is easily motivated to any cause under "Patriotism"

'Patriotism is the virtue of the viscious" Oscar Wilde

One of them ran (or owned) Haliburton, one has a supertanker, the Condoleeza, named after her, (sounds like a promise from a Dr. Evil movie!) and another apparently couldn't 'find oil in Texas'.

So they are invading what Bush called a "Vast country" the size of California, that just happens to be sitting upon more oil then California probably ever had, "To Liberate" a people who are not imprisoned by a hostile force of invasion, (even though they certainly are now!) but have been the subject of twelve years of suppression, and aggression, and abuse, at the hands of one of the last standing superpowers in the world who put it right into the legislation that they intended to remove their rightful leader!

Hummmm, it has been told to me that American are sometimes just a little guilible, but this one takes more then the cake.

If there was ever a country with the technical expertise, scientific competence, technical ability, will, intelligence, savy, good old "American know how", to have made absolutely certain that the Iraqi leader had absolutely no WMD's of any type kind or sort, it would Definitely BE AMERICA!

And It would have cost you less money! Not to even speak of the American LIVES it is now costing you, and is going to cost you in the future.

I read a quote of Bush(y), yesterday, that stated; "It is not a question of Authority, it is a question of will" which, paraphrased to explore the meaning, is like stating that as long as you are willing to murder, then having the Authority to do so is irrelevant.

Apparently the 'willingness' alone is sufficient.

He also stated that he didn't "Want to discuss the nuances of international law" as to whether, or not, this war is illegal in international law, NO NUANCE, IT IS!

That has got to be the most disgusting statement from a (purported)World leader that I have ever heard. He has his job, Office, Position, life, right to Liberty, Life, Freedom, as brought to him, afforded to him, supported for him, Upheld to all, BY (the rule of) LAW!

America could have easily led the way with a vision for the 21^st century, they could have sent in the scientists first, then the lawyers!

But no, Geo-Ogre has decided to fool the poeples of America in telling them he 'has a vision' for the 21^st century, strangely enough it is right along the same lines as an insane idiot from back in the beginning of the 20^th century, mechanized warfare as to attempt to overtake the world(?)

So many more reasons why this is completely wrong, murderous, a viscious and maliscious lie, and a disgusting tradjedy of international proportions.

There will be a price paid for this, as is being paid now, money has nothing to do with that cost, it is your family that dies right now!

(The edit was to fix the colour, ooooops COLOR)