aspose file tools*
The moose likes Meaningless Drivel and the fly likes Reasons for and Against War with Iraq Big Moose Saloon
  Search | Java FAQ | Recent Topics | Flagged Topics | Hot Topics | Zero Replies
Register / Login
JavaRanch » Java Forums » Other » Meaningless Drivel
Bookmark "Reasons for and Against War with Iraq" Watch "Reasons for and Against War with Iraq" New topic
Author

Reasons for and Against War with Iraq

vi kam
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 14, 2002
Posts: 117
An interesting thing happened in the other thread hereweb page
So I wanted to start another thread as Map wants only Anti-Americanism definitions over there
But this is what started this one
Ok, what about the person with no irrational bias who opposes US action in Iraq. Hopefully they can make a rational argument factually countering the reasons the US gives for why actions should be taken in Iraq. Think about it, if somebody is going to rationally oppose something, shouldn't there be rational arguments behind this opposition? Emotional opposition is not rational, nor is opposition based on unrelated events or unsupported conclusions.
----------------------------------------------------

Sounds good OK lets try to do it this way ..
Although this has been discussed in various previous threads, it followed some different patterns and ended up in various other conclusions.
Out here lets gather all the reasons for and against the war with iraq and lets compare them..and see how it goes this time
Reasons FOR War
1) Saddam defied the UN resolutions for a long time now and its high time he is taught a lesson
2) Nexus between Saddam and known terrorist outfits
3) Saddam can not be trusted with WMD ..specially since he is getting close to becoming Nucleur
4) Saddam used WMD on his own people and he can use them on US forces in the Gulf
5) Saddam is a threat to every one .. his own people, neighbours, US, rest of the world
6) Remaining at peace with Iraq (Status-quo) is Unacceptably dangerous

Reasons AGAINST War
1) Saddam can be deterred and there is no need to fight
2) If US fights Iraq it is because it chose to do so and not because it has to do so
3) Its all Oil baby !!
4) Bush and his administration are war mongers and the current president has a personal score to settle with Saddam
5) US is to be blamed for Saddam as it was the US foreign policy of 80's that created this beast
6) This war if waged would bring about more Muslim wrath and hatred on US and Saddam might be viewed as an Islamic Hero

I am sure there are more reasons for and against war .. so Ladies and Gentlemen .. :roll: .. Lets start like Ladies and Gentlemen and see how we end this one ....


Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings -- They did it by killing all those who opposed them
frank davis
Ranch Hand

Joined: Feb 12, 2001
Posts: 1479
Reason For War : Much, if not most of the financial backing for terrorism seems to come from Saudi Arabia which also has been spreading the Wahhabism sect of Islam which seems to encourage terrorism. By attacking Iraq, the Muslim extremists in Saudi Arabia would revolt and try to overthrow the rulers who they see has having been corrupted by their close association with the US. The US then can step in to protect our "ally" and do a real house cleaning and set up a democratic govt as well as recovering the oil interests of US companies that were illegitmately seized by the Saudi's many years ago. The whole region may go up in flames but then the US can have a good reason to straighten out the whole mess with a Marshall plan like we did with Japan and Germany after WWII.
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 05, 2000
Posts: 13974
Originally posted by vi kam:
Reasons AGAINST War
1) Saddam can be deterred and there is no need to fight
2) If US fights Iraq it is because it chose to do so and not because it has to do so
3) Its all Oil baby !!
4) Bush and his administration are war mongers and the current president has a personal score to settle with Saddam
5) US is to be blamed for Saddam as it was the US foreign policy of 80's that created this beast
6) This war if waged would bring about more Muslim wrath and hatred on US and Saddam might be viewed as an Islamic Hero

Responses:
[1] In the last 10 years he hasn't been deterred so I don't know that he will be deterred in the next 10.
[2] This is probably true. The US could play nice with Sadaam, become his ally, help him conquer the Middle East.
[3] I think I've given enough info to deflate this argument the other times it was brought up.
[4] I don't think that there is really any evidence that this is a family vendetta.
[5] You make a mess, you clean it up.
[6] That is a real possiblity.
My reason for not going to war: Continuing the pressure on Iraq may eventually convince the military that Sadaam simply isn't worth fighting for. But that means we have to look like we are ready, willing, and able to go to war.


Associate Instructor - Hofstra University
Amazon Top 750 reviewer - Blog - Unresolved References - Book Review Blog
Axel Janssen
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jan 08, 2001
Posts: 2164
Originally posted by herb slocomb:
[...] then the US can have a good reason to straighten out the whole mess with a Marshall plan like we did with Japan and Germany after WWII.

Come on, you guys in stars and stripes.
You live in a great country, but you are not the only actors on this planet.
Germany and I am sure Japan, too, had at the end of the war:
- a lot of skilled engineers
- a lot of intelligent entrepeneurs
- a lot of skilled economists
- a lot of incorruptible politicians and judges who have seen the hell and wanted to recreate a new country
- a lot of talented artists, intelectuals and journalists
- a society that knew that something went terrible wrong in the last years. Lots of them wanted no other but to work, reconstruct forget.

Does all that exist in Iraq now in the same extent as in Germany, Japan 1945?
Do you realy believe that with some subventions like Marshall-Plan is enough to start a long period of democratization of society and economical growth?
Melvin Menezes
Ranch Hand

Joined: Aug 03, 2002
Posts: 156
Originally posted by herb slocomb:
By attacking Iraq, the Muslim extremists in Saudi Arabia would revolt and try to overthrow the rulers who they see has having been corrupted by their close association with the US. The US then can step in to protect our "ally" and do a real house cleaning and set up a democratic govt as well as recovering the oil interests of US companies that were illegitmately seized by the Saudi's many years ago.

Would you be kind enough to elaborate on that?
1) Does the US (ofcourse according to your POV) wish well of the current rulers of Saudi Arabia to get their continued support in that region? OR,
2) does the US want a revolt to occur in Saudi for establishing democracy? (Promoting democarcy in the Mid-east sounds a bit over-ambitious of an adventure for now, though).
Isn't it that the Saudi Royals were safe all these while bacause of the help from US. So, if US wants to bring about a revolt, all they need is to withdraw the help? And how will attacking Iraq, help one way or the other in recovering the oil interests of US companies that were illegitmately seized by the Saudi's many years ago.?
Jason Menard
Sheriff

Joined: Nov 09, 2000
Posts: 6450
Originally posted by Axel Janssen:
Does all that exist in Iraq now in the same extent as in Germany, Japan 1945?
Do you realy believe that with some subventions like Marshall-Plan is enough to start a long period of democratization of society and economical growth?

No it doesn't exist in Iraq now to the same extent as Germany and Japan, which is a very valid point. However, the population of Iraq is very well educated, particularly in comparison to some of its neighbors. I don't know all that much about the Shia population in the south, but I do know that the Kurdish population up north is also fairly well educated. So if a Marshall like plan would work anywhere in the Middle East, Iraq may very well be that place.
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Sheriff

Joined: Aug 26, 2000
Posts: 10065
Originally posted by vi kam:
so Ladies and Gentlemen .. :roll: .. Lets start like Ladies and Gentlemen and see how we end this one ....

I like it!
--------------
"The real art of conversation is not only to say the right thing at the right time, but also to leave unsaid the wrong thing at the tempting moment."
"Bits Of Wisdom" posted by Elaine Micheals


Uncontrolled vocabularies
"I try my best to make *all* my posts nice, even when I feel upset" -- Philippe Maquet
Anonymous
Ranch Hand

Joined: Nov 22, 2008
Posts: 18944
Originally posted by Axel Janssen:

Come on, you guys in stars and stripes.
You live in a great country, but you are not the only actors on this planet.
Germany and I am sure Japan, too, had at the end of the war:
- a lot of skilled engineers
- a lot of intelligent entrepeneurs
- a lot of skilled economists
- a lot of incorruptible politicians and judges who have seen the hell and wanted to recreate a new country
- a lot of talented artists, intelectuals and journalists
- a society that knew that something went terrible wrong in the last years. Lots of them wanted no other but to work, reconstruct forget.

Does all that exist in Iraq now in the same extent as in Germany, Japan 1945?
Do you realy believe that with some subventions like Marshall-Plan is enough to start a long period of democratization of society and economical growth?

All the factors you mention do exist in Iraq; probably to a lesser extent which makes reconstruction much more difficult(or impossible). The new Marshall Plan will have to be bigger and last longer. Also I would never expect an economic superpower like Germany or Japan to emerge. So why do it you ask?
If we can get just one democracy established in the Middle East I suspect it will do better than all of its surrounding neighbors in time. The superiority of the new country will become evident to all. Others will move towards a constitutional monarchy or some other progressive form of government. A chain reaction of progress will start, and the region will begin, in fits and starts, to improve.
Its all a roll of the dice and it depends on how you evaluate the odds. Reasonable minds can certainly differ on this point. However, the current trend now in the region is the growth in the number fanatics which will not be good for anybody's future.
Anonymous
Ranch Hand

Joined: Nov 22, 2008
Posts: 18944
Originally posted by Melvin Menezes:

Would you be kind enough to elaborate on that?
1) Does the US (ofcourse according to your POV) wish well of the current rulers of Saudi Arabia to get their continued support in that region? OR,
2) does the US want a revolt to occur in Saudi for establishing democracy? (Promoting democarcy in the Mid-east sounds a bit over-ambitious of an adventure for now, though).
Isn't it that the Saudi Royals were safe all these while bacause of the help from US. So, if US wants to bring about a revolt, all they need is to withdraw the help? And how will attacking Iraq, help one way or the other in recovering the oil interests of US companies that were illegitmately seized by the Saudi's many years ago.?

1) For the time being, US wants Saudi support and they want ours.
2) I think the more democratic countries in the Middle East region the better for everybody.
3) Withdrawing support from the Saudis without any reason would not gain us the credibility needed in reconstruction.
4)Attacking Iraq will throw the entire region into chaos. The US can step in and straighten the mess out. (The part about recovering US oil interests was partly a joke).
Paul Stevens
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 17, 2001
Posts: 2823
There is a democracy in the middle east. The rest of the middle east doesn't seem to like them though.
Anonymous
Ranch Hand

Joined: Nov 22, 2008
Posts: 18944
Originally posted by Paul Stevens:
There is a democracy in the middle east. The rest of the middle east doesn't seem to like them though.

OK, I think it would help if there were a Muslim democracy.
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 05, 2000
Posts: 13974
Originally posted by <herb slocomb>:
OK, I think it would help if there were a Muslim democracy.
Pakistan was once a democracy. I think Indonesia once was also. I think Muslim democracies have a problem in that the Muslim faith doesn't respect the freedom required to have a real democracy. You can't have a Muslim democracy or a Catholic democracy or even a Jewish democracy. A democracy based on faith will always be non-democratic.
Anonymous
Ranch Hand

Joined: Nov 22, 2008
Posts: 18944
Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
Pakistan was once a democracy. I think Indonesia once was also. I think Muslim democracies have a problem in that the Muslim faith doesn't respect the freedom required to have a real democracy. You can't have a Muslim democracy or a Catholic democracy or even a Jewish democracy. A democracy based on faith will always be non-democratic.

Ok, I think it would help if a democracy were established by Muslims as was done in Turkey.
Anonymous
Ranch Hand

Joined: Nov 22, 2008
Posts: 18944
Originally posted by Paul Stevens:
There is a democracy in the middle east. The rest of the middle east doesn't seem to like them though.

Yeah. Poor me. Nobody loves me.
Jason Menard
Sheriff

Joined: Nov 09, 2000
Posts: 6450
Originally posted by vi kam:
Reasons AGAINST War
1) Saddam can be deterred and there is no need to fight
2) If US fights Iraq it is because it chose to do so and not because it has to do so
3) Its all Oil baby !!
4) Bush and his administration are war mongers and the current president has a personal score to settle with Saddam
5) US is to be blamed for Saddam as it was the US foreign policy of 80's that created this beast
6) This war if waged would bring about more Muslim wrath and hatred on US and Saddam might be viewed as an Islamic Hero

Those are all reasons that have been mentioned for not undertaking action in Iraq. It seems to me the only one that could possibly be defended rationally would be the first one. But for the most part, it seems that there are no rational reasons not to undertake action in Iraq. What this means is that 99% of opposition to any potential conflict with them would seem to be based purely on irrational/emotional (are they the same?) reasons.
Btw, did anybody happen to watch National Geographic Explorer on MSNBC last night? There was a piece with a journalist (formerly Iranian I think) who has been covering Northern Iraq (Free Kurdistan) for the past twenty years or so. It was a really good piece and hopefully helped show some people that it isn't all about Saddam and oil.
Ersin, would Turkey be able to tolerate an independant Kurdistan on its border in what is now Northern Iraq? My understanding is that the Turkish government's main fear would be destabilization within Turkey, as what is claimed as historical Kurdistan lies within Iraq, Turkey, and Iran. It would seem to me that a friendly Kurdish state could be a valuable trading partner for Turkey.
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Sheriff

Joined: Aug 26, 2000
Posts: 10065
I recently came across the Middle East Research and Information Project site, (it was recommended in some other article as the most reliable source of information about Middle East) and decided to check what they have. I downloaded Why Another War? A Backgrounder on the Iraq Crisis by Sarah Graham-Brown and Chris Toensing (PDF) and it was interesting reading -- a lot of facts. Warning: the authors do not quite support the government of the USA's POV, so it may look anti-American.
MERIP - the Middle East Research and Information Project
"MERIP is a non-profit, non-governmental organization based in Washington, DC. A completely independent organization, it has no links to any religious, educational or political organizations in the US or elsewhere. "
Rufus BugleWeed
Ranch Hand

Joined: Feb 22, 2002
Posts: 1551
Reasons For War
With Saddam Hussein and Iraq neutralized...
1) Iraq's neighbors will no longer have to contribute as much GDP to defense spending.
2) US will no longer have to maintain as large a commitment to forces in Pershian Gulf.
3) Loss of wild card in ensuing push to straighten out N. Korea situation.
4) Stability in ME region will give global economy impetus to expand.
5) US will be able to pick President without having to worry about an existing war in the 04 election.
6) Countries about the world will know that violating international law is not without peril.
7) Resources will be freed up which can refocus on Palestine.
8) Resources will be freed up which can focus on fighting terrorism.
9) People in Kuwait, Iran, Saudia Arabia, Jordan, and Turkey might sleep better.
10) People of Iraq might enjoy a better future.
Ritu Kama
Ranch Hand

Joined: Sep 10, 2001
Posts: 72
I think the situation was well summed up on BBC.
US seems to be the only one (besides usual allies like UK and Australia who never have different opinion ) pushing for WAR, AND that is because US has not been able to categorically prove the presence of ENOUGH SERIOUS threat that world/UN has to ACT NOW!!! That responsibility still lies on US.
Rufus BugleWeed
Ranch Hand

Joined: Feb 22, 2002
Posts: 1551
Things are different when you're not looking down a gun barrel.
Axel Janssen
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jan 08, 2001
Posts: 2164
First of all: I think west including russia, Japon, emerging asian nations should stay united on the issue. Middle East is too dangerous.

Current german government has abused highly emotional issue to get voted. I am very against that. And I won't like those white flags lots of my know-it-all-fellow-countrymen will hang out of their windows.
These governments together should pressure Iraq and all those undemocratic, economically anti-free-market, unemployment-striven, corrupt, hopeless countries with very high population growth.
But war makes no sense, I think.
RB: 1) Iraq's neighbors will no longer have to contribute as much GDP to defense spending.
AJ: 1) They will loose 95% of that money in general corruption.
RB: 2) US will no longer have to maintain as large a commitment to forces in Pershian Gulf.
AJ: 2) When war is over, there will be more anti-western and anti-jewish feelings. More tensions, more forces in Persian Gulf.

RB: 3) Loss of wild card in ensuing push to straighten out N. Korea situation.
AJ: 3) Hope your government will consult regional neighbours like China, Japon, Russia and South Corea first.
RB: 4) Stability in ME region will give global economy impetus to expand.
AJ: 4) Stability? Countries like Egypt or Syria have an unemployment rate of 30%, corrupt authoritarian governments, lots of anti-jewism, lack of hope for the future. Stability???
RB: 5) US will be able to pick President without having to worry about an existing war in the 04 election.
AJ: 5) In view of a war with some "colateral damage" and lots of dead people I consider this a cynical argument.
RB: 6) Countries about the world will know that violating international law is not without peril.
AJ: 6) If the only superpower starts a war and lots of people don't know why, confidence in international law will diminish.
RB: 7) Resources will be freed up which can refocus on Palestine.
AJ: 7) Palestinian fanatics will have lots of material to use for their west-will-destroy-poor-palestinian propaganda.
RB: 8) Resources will be freed up which can focus on fighting terrorism.
AJ: 8) Muslim fanatics will have lots of material to use for their west-will-destroy-poor-muslim propaganda.
RB: 9) People in Kuwait, Iran, Saudia Arabia, Jordan, and Turkey might sleep better.
AJ: 9) Lots of them are unemployed. They live in corrupt authoritarian countries. From what I read the mayority in ME does not like Saddam, but they are more against american/european invasion than against sadam. Except for Israel they don't consider Sadam as an imediate thread.
RB: 10) People of Iraq might enjoy a better future.
AJ: 10) This might be true, but some of them will be dead.

---
conclusion: united pressure on iraq is a good idea, war is bad idea.
money should be invested in oil-substituting technologies. Oil generated lots of money, but did not play a very good role for sustained development of countries. Not in the middle east, not in Venezuela. Maybe a little in Mexico.
[ February 07, 2003: Message edited by: Axel Janssen ]
Paul Stevens
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 17, 2001
Posts: 2823
The responsibility lies with Iraq. The resolution says he must disarm. He hasn't accounted for tons of chemical and biological weapons. He has used them on Iran and the Kurds in the north. It isn't anyone elses reponsibility to find what was already discovered. Who cares where he has them hidden now. He has them. He has used them. He will use them again.
By the way there is more than the UK and Australia with us. Many European countries signed on. France who has oil and business interests hasn't. Same for Russia (who is owed billions by Iraq).
Ashok Mash
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 13, 2000
Posts: 1936
Originally posted by Rufus BugleWeed:
Reasons For War
6) Countries about the world will know that violating international law is not without peril.

Others might also learn from experience that when their own security/interests are in question, there is no point looking up to the UN, or no need to convince the UN. The UN approves it or not, a nation reserves its rights to strike pre-emptively at its opponent (set by example US-Iraq war, 2003).
Not a good example, IMHO!


[ flickr ]
Ashok Mash
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 13, 2000
Posts: 1936
Dont get me wrong from the above post. I do believe that Iraq's Saddam Hussain is leading a evil regime, and he should be disarmed. But it would be a lot better if thats done with a UN approval, that is, after convincing all other nations by providing evidence, and by bringing them onboard. No one wants to see any more Muslims Vs West feeling promoted in this planet.
Rufus BugleWeed
Ranch Hand

Joined: Feb 22, 2002
Posts: 1551
AJ: 3) Hope your government will consult regional neighbours like China, Japon, Russia and South Corea first.

I hope the Chinese will consult with US when they solve this problem.
Tony Evans
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jun 29, 2002
Posts: 573
Posted by tonycavanagh to jpl
On News/Activism 02/07/2003 3:12 AM PST #27 of 27
re : I would argue that a state-planned mission to try and assassinate a President of the United States is by itself essentially a Declaration of War.
If this is true, then America declared war on Libya, Cuba and a whole host of other countries where a decision was made to remove those leaders.
There is only one reason to go to war with Iraq, and it has nothing to do with the following.
1) He is a blood thirsty dictator.
The world is full of blood thirst dictators, half of them were put in power and supported by us.
2) He has used chemical Weapons against his own people.
So have other countries, and at the time we did not care after all he was our bulwark against Iran, and those Kurds were seen as leftist sympathisers. I remember the demo at the time it was mainly left wingers protesting and the main reason was because western companies had supported him, so it was an antie west anti Saddam demo.
3) He has carried out acts of aggression against his neighbours twice.
So have a host of other countries, and the invasion of Iran had ours and the Arab states backing. Kuwait was seen as war debts. The Iran/Iraq war left Iraq deeply in debt, as soon as the war ended so did the payment from the Arab countries. Saddam so that money owed to him as payment for taking on Iran for the Arab world
4) For Oil.
There are cheaper ways of getting Iraqi Oil dealing with Saddam straight will be cheaper than the permanent American military presence that will be needed to keep Iraq pacified and stabilized, and to stop Islamic revolutions sweeping across the mid East.
5) Bringing freedom and Democracy to Iraq.
I have spent half my life in operations of this kind we will end up doing what we always do, using a local strong man or men, who will play lip service to democracy and we will turn a blind eye to any excesses carried out in pacifying stabilization ops they carry out.
There is only one reason after September/11 America realised that she is vulnerable and has decided to embark on a course of action to remove all real or perceived threats and this war rests on does Saddam have the bomb or the capability if left alone to develop one, all the rest is hogwash and just muddies up the water.
If the State Department has specific proof then release it and lets go in there.
10 years or more of occupation duty is preferable to seeing the Middle East and all that oil become so much radioactive dust.
Also with that proof we will give the Arab leaders as well as those of France and Germany something to throw there own people.
Tony
Anonymous
Ranch Hand

Joined: Nov 22, 2008
Posts: 18944
I think if bush wants to settle down old score with saddam then it would be better that he plot to assasin him rather then going to war and killing hundreds of thousand innocent civilian. I think US will not attack..they will try to push another resolution forcing Iraq to accept use of spy planes....combine with the intelligence provided by weapons Inspector and real time info from spy planes bush will bomb saddam palace..killing him..and declaring America's win. this way there wont be big opposition from muslim world..i am assuming not many people like him in middle east. Ofcourse unless bush doesnt want to clear the inventory of his weapon stocks
Jason Menard
Sheriff

Joined: Nov 09, 2000
Posts: 6450
This "article" was so full of holes it's not even funny. The source of the article (apparently some activist site) tells you all you need to know.
The world is full of blood thirst dictators, half of them were put in power and supported by us.
Aside from the fact that the statement isn't backed up, the world being full of blood thirsty dictators is not a reason not to get rid of one. Analogy: the streets are full of drugs, so why bother closing down a crack house?
So have other countries, and at the time we did not care after all he was our bulwark against Iran, and those Kurds were seen as leftist sympathisers. I remember the demo at the time it was mainly left wingers protesting and the main reason was because western companies had supported him, so it was an antie west anti Saddam demo.
This is the saddest of all. Unstable governments with a demonstrated willingness to use these weapons is probably the greatest reason to take him out.
So have a host of other countries, and the invasion of Iran had ours and the Arab states backing. Kuwait was seen as war debts. The Iran/Iraq war left Iraq deeply in debt, as soon as the war ended so did the payment from the Arab countries. Saddam so that money owed to him as payment for taking on Iran for the Arab world
This goes to intent. He has time and again shown his intent to dominate a strategically vital region in the world. It sounds like the author is seeking to justify Hussein's actions.
There are cheaper ways of getting Iraqi Oil dealing with Saddam straight will be cheaper than the permanent American military presence that will be needed to keep Iraq pacified and stabilized, and to stop Islamic revolutions sweeping across the mid East.

Then we agree. The war is not for oil.
I have spent half my life in operations of this kind we will end up doing what we always do, using a local strong man or men, who will play lip service to democracy and we will turn a blind eye to any excesses carried out in pacifying stabilization ops they carry out.

So then we should ignore the plight of the people of Iraq and not bother to liberate them?
If the State Department has specific proof then release it and lets go in there.

For one thing, the State Department does not gather intelligence. But more importantly, the US will not release intelligence that will jeopardize methods of collection or sources of information. This is what it meant in the news recently when we heard a great deal about "methods and sources" regarding the intel that Powell revealed. This isn't something that is going in front of Judge Judy, and we do not need to present to the world or the public a legally air tight case for doing what we believe needs to be done. If there is evidence, which there certainly is, we are not going to subvert our intelligence capabilities in order to make some people feel better. That's just plain idiotic. Our elected officials know this and are charged with protecting these capabilities.
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Sheriff

Joined: Aug 26, 2000
Posts: 10065
Originally posted by Jason Menard:
This "article" was so full of holes it's not even funny. The source of the article (apparently some activist site) tells you all you need to know.

Jason, do you mean "MERIP" site? You later response to another post, so I am confused a little. If you mean the article, gave a link to, then what are your sources? Where do you get unbiased information?
[ February 07, 2003: Message edited by: Mapraputa Is ]
Jason Menard
Sheriff

Joined: Nov 09, 2000
Posts: 6450
Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:

Jason, do you mean "MERIP" site? You later response to another post, so I am confused a little. If you mean the article, gave a link to, then what are your sources? Where do you get unbiased information?
[ February 07, 2003: Message edited by: Mapraputa Is ]

I took Tony's post to be a copy of an article off of some activism site, and that's what I was referring to. If I got the wrong idea and those were Tony's own words, my appologies for any perceived harshness.
Kevin Thompson
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 04, 2001
Posts: 237
Reasons FOR war:
01. Bush needs to distract the American public from the economy(just like his daddy did.)
02. Bush is still frustrated 12 years after his daddy lost the first war against Iraq.
03. Bush was born a rich kid and has lived his entire life with a silver spoon in his mouth. He really knows squat about life, suffering, and struggle. He has accomplished very little in life due to his own efforts and he is president because of his daddy.
04. Bush has total contempt for the United States Constitution, and is quite arrogant. Basically, Bush knows best!

Reasons AGAINST War:
List is too long to itemize here.

This whole story is a 2,000 year old story!!! ==>
Think about the Roman Emperor (Bush) sending the Roman Legions (U.S. Armed Forces) to the far flung regions of the empire to get the foreign barbarian (Sadam Hussien) and bring him home (to the civilized and enlightened part of the world - the USA!) in chains for the public to be entertained with at the collesium(the football arena) and therefore will not have spare time to know about the absolute corruption and decedance occuring at the top(everything that goes on in Washinton D.C.).
Kevin Thompson
Jason Menard
Sheriff

Joined: Nov 09, 2000
Posts: 6450
Originally posted by Kevin Thompson:
...

Might I ask if you have any rational argument, or merely baseless rhetoric?
Paul Stevens
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 17, 2001
Posts: 2823
Clues. Get your clues here. Get em while they're hot.
Kevin Thompson
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 04, 2001
Posts: 237
Jason:
Items 1-4 are factual and can be proven in a court of law. We could fill whole libraries with the heaping pile of evidence for Items 1-4. Also, read the US Constitution regarding who in the US government gets to declares war.
But most people in US don't read. Or even care about their freedoms and what the constitution says. Or what the role of the president should be in a free society. Or what the role of the armed forces should be in a free society.
I thought for sure that after the movie "Wag the Dog" came out - that the american public would wise up to the "foreign policy" scams going on. But I guess not.
[ February 09, 2003: Message edited by: Kevin Thompson ]
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 05, 2000
Posts: 13974
Kevin, this topic is supposed to be discussed like adults. Please try to refrain from simply being anti-something. If you have proof then produce it. No one is convinced by simply stating that you hate Bush, which is what 1 through 4 are. By the way, the Congress has approved action against Iraq.
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Sheriff

Joined: Aug 26, 2000
Posts: 10065
Grrr... I only reanimated this thread to post something that looked remotely like facts, and they already started a fight.
Colin Powell speech to the United Nations Security Council. You can even listen what taped Iraqi military said (it would help if I could understand their language ).
http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2003/17300.htm
ACTION ALERT:
Common Myths in Iraq Coverage
http://www.fair.org/activism/iraq-myths.html
"Detailed Analysis of October 7 Speech by Bush on Iraq" (this is an old speech, but Bush's rhetoric did not seem change too much since then). For those who has too much free time to invest.
http://www.accuracy.org/bush/
[ February 09, 2003: Message edited by: Mapraputa Is ]
Jason Menard
Sheriff

Joined: Nov 09, 2000
Posts: 6450
Just my $0.02 Map, but I am very weary of any "activism" site. It's not that their facts are necessarily wrong, it is that you are going to receive a strongly biased slant to the way this information is presented and interpreted, in order to promote the organization's message. Such is the case with those two links above.
Jason Menard
Sheriff

Joined: Nov 09, 2000
Posts: 6450
Originally posted by Kevin Thompson:
Items 1-4 are factual and can be proven in a court of law. We could fill whole libraries with the heaping pile of evidence for Items 1-4. Also, read the US Constitution regarding who in the US government gets to declares war.

How can you prove things like "Bush needs to distract the American public", "Bush is still frustrated", "He really knows squat about life, suffering, and struggl", "He has accomplished very little in life due to his own efforts and he is president because of his daddy", "Bush has total contempt for the United States Constitution", and all that other BS in court, never mind pretend to claim them as "fact".
The President has the authority to commit US troops, the Congress has the authority to declare war. He has received backing from Congress on the moves he has made to this point. Additionally, last time I checked, we are not currently in a war, so there is nothing for Congress to declare.
Like Thomas said though, if you have any facts that you would like to debate, then please by all means proceed. We were consciously trying to avoid exactly the kind of inflammatory rhetoric that you provided so as to not degenerate the thread, as has been known to happen here in the past.
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Sheriff

Joined: Aug 26, 2000
Posts: 10065
JM: Just my $0.02 Map, but I am very weary of any "activism" site. It's not that their facts are necessarily wrong, it is that you are going to receive a strongly biased slant to the way this information is presented and interpreted, in order to promote the organization's message. Such is the case with those two links above.
Well, these two sites are specifically created to watch inaccuracies in media reporting.
The first,
http://www.fair.org/ - "the media watch group FAIR (Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting).
The second,
http://www.accuracy.org/ - IPA: Institute for public accuracy.
Its executive director, Norman Solomon, received the George Orwell Award for Distinguished Contribution to Honesty and Clarity in Public Language, which is awarded by by the National Council of Teachers of English.

"to promote the organization's message" -- but the message is precisely "fair and accurate reporting".
But anyway, the question is if we can find any unbiased source of fair and accurate information at all. These two were the best I could find. If you know better sources, please share them. Perhaps there is no such thing as unbiased media, then I want to see the opposite side (if to divide sides along this thread title "for and Against War with Iraq") with equally strong arguments. ("Saddam is an evil man" doesn't count)
[ February 09, 2003: Message edited by: Mapraputa Is ]
frank davis
Ranch Hand

Joined: Feb 12, 2001
Posts: 1479
Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
[b] If you know better sources, please share them. Perhaps there is no such thing as unbiased media, then I want to see the opposite side (if to divide sides along this thread title "for and Against War with Iraq") with equally strong arguments. ("Saddam is an evil man" doesn't count)
[ February 09, 2003: Message edited by: Mapraputa Is ]

Accuracy in Media, http://www.aim.org/, not endorsed by English teachers or Orwellians, but welcomed by those seeking the truth.
[ February 09, 2003: Message edited by: herb slocomb ]
[ February 09, 2003: Message edited by: herb slocomb ]
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Sheriff

Joined: Aug 26, 2000
Posts: 10065
"A First Response to Sec. Colin Powell's Presentation Concerning Iraq"
by Glen Rangwala, Lecturer in Politics at Cambridge University
http://www.traprockpeace.org/firstresponse.html
 
I agree. Here's the link: http://aspose.com/file-tools
 
subject: Reasons for and Against War with Iraq