Edric O Posted February 22, 2003 Share Posted February 22, 2003 It is a common myth these days that Bush somehow has a mandate from the people of Iraq to go in and "liberate" them by killing their children and obliterating their country's infrastructure. And that myth has no foundation in reality. A war would bring only suffering to the people of Iraq:Iraqis face famine and thirst in the aftermath of a warThe people are already suffering under sanctionsWhat an Iraqi living in Baghdad has to say. And not just ANY Iraqi - he's a CHRISTIAN. You'd think he would be the greatest Bush supporter in the world, right?Think again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VigilVirus Posted February 22, 2003 Share Posted February 22, 2003 Everyone knows that everything Bush says about the purpose of the war is bogus. It is done for the benefit of US alone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ordos45 Posted February 22, 2003 Share Posted February 22, 2003 No offense, but it is bovious that civilians suffer in wars. The innocent aalways die when caught between the opposing views and the opposing armies. And one cannot fight a war without damaging the other's infrastructure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inoculator9 Posted February 22, 2003 Share Posted February 22, 2003 Iraqi citizens deserve better, but chances are they won't get any better from the new regime we'd put in place. Bush's dad could have stopped all of this from happening, so you'lll forgive me if I don't have much confidence in the Bush family's choices of new regimes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emprworm Posted February 22, 2003 Share Posted February 22, 2003 No offense, but it is bovious that civilians suffer in wars. The innocent aalways die when caught between the opposing views and the opposing armies. And one cannot fight a war without damaging the other's infrastructure.innocenct civillians died when britain, US, and Russia liberated France and defeated Hitler, freeing Jewish slaves from oppression. We will now free Iraqi slaves and (mostly) white people want to stop it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edric O Posted February 22, 2003 Author Share Posted February 22, 2003 The most worrying question yet:WHAT HAPPENS AFTER SADDAM?A slap in the face of those who think Iraq will get a democratic government:Reports in the US press have said that the US administration is considering a plan to occupy Iraq and install a US-led military government as a way of avoiding the country's chaotic disintegration. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dude_Doc Posted February 22, 2003 Share Posted February 22, 2003 Isn't that a way to stabilize the money, providing food and everything else until things settles down in Iraq? We can see this in History too, first kings, then democracy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caid Ivik Posted February 22, 2003 Share Posted February 22, 2003 How pathetic. Operation Desert Storm was very brutal - 314 dead civilians! But open your eyes finally and see how many died due to Saddam's reign If we always stayed in peace, the world would be full of Saddams. Also USA cares over its...ehm...conquests.http://www.usaid.gov/afghanistan/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edric O Posted February 22, 2003 Author Share Posted February 22, 2003 Excuse me? Which part of "foreign military occupation" didn't you understand?They will only replace the current Iraqi dictator with an American one... an AMERICAN government ruling over the IRAQI people! Not only dictatorship, but foreign occupation too! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caid Ivik Posted February 22, 2003 Share Posted February 22, 2003 What is bad on occupation? If it brings peace and some improvements? It won't be a dictator, altough full democracy is impossible to build in one year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edric O Posted February 22, 2003 Author Share Posted February 22, 2003 "What is bad on occupation?" Could it be the fact that it proves that the whole "liberating Iraq" argument is nothing but a big LIE?They have no intention of liberating anyone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caid Ivik Posted February 22, 2003 Share Posted February 22, 2003 I don't know about "liberating Iraq". It will be an UN operation based on forcing one nation to stay in its directives, following main goal of stability in the area. Thousands of people are discussing about it, and majority found the best way is to bring down Saddam's rule. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edric O Posted February 22, 2003 Author Share Posted February 22, 2003 So you admit that this war will bring no good whatsoever to the Iraqi people. They will not be any more free than they are now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caid Ivik Posted February 22, 2003 Share Posted February 22, 2003 No. Status in Afghanistan cannot be called anarchy with laws of jungle now. As I am informed, they've enjoyed fall of oppresional Taliban. They just installed peaceful Karzai, which is also native. Same will be with Iraq. Their foreign opposition is searching for their own Karzai. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sneezer3 Posted February 22, 2003 Share Posted February 22, 2003 So you admit that this war will bring no good whatsoever to the Iraqi people. They will not be any more free than they are now.No, from what i have heard we will supply them food etc. Most of the people of iraq don't like Saddamm's rule anyway. as he keeps them in poverty just to say "look what the American Goverment did to my people" Also even it we did treat them worse. it would be saveing lives of areas if we gets a weapon in on US France the Jews etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edric O Posted February 22, 2003 Author Share Posted February 22, 2003 That's the good-case scenario. The bad-case scenario is US military occupation, and I think everyone agrees that such a blatant attack against democracy and a nation's right to self-determination would prove once and for all that the US government doesn't really give a damn about the Iraqi people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caid Ivik Posted February 22, 2003 Share Posted February 22, 2003 That's the good-case scenario. The bad-case scenario is US military occupation, and I think everyone agrees that such a blatant attack against democracy and a nation's right to self-determination would prove once and for all that the US government doesn't really give a damn about the Iraqi people.Attack against democracy? And it is a democratic regime in Iraq? Oh, I've forgotten, Saddam had 100% in votes...And a right to self-determination? Weren't you just telling me about you aren't a nationalist? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sneezer3 Posted February 22, 2003 Share Posted February 22, 2003 That's the good-case scenario. The bad-case scenario is US military occupation, and I think everyone agrees that such a blatant attack against democracy and a nation's right to self-determination would prove once and for all that the US government doesn't really give a damn about the Iraqi people.I don't think you know what your talking about. even if we din't care about them it is better then Saddam's rule. He has even tested weapons agenst his own people in the past! We would aid there people with food and water etc. But everone has a right to there own view. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emprworm Posted February 22, 2003 Share Posted February 22, 2003 innocenct civillians died when britain, US, and Russia liberated France and defeated Hitler, freeing Jewish slaves from oppression. We will now free Iraqi slaves and (mostly) white people want to stop it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acriku Posted February 22, 2003 Share Posted February 22, 2003 Didn't you say that before? Deja vu...Stop making racist generalizations please, and grow up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inoculator9 Posted February 22, 2003 Share Posted February 22, 2003 Don't compare the Iraqi people with the Jews. That is a ridiculous comparison, the Jews were pretty pissed and were waiting for help (not burning American flags) and the Iraqi people are pissed and are waiting for us to blow ourselves up (burning American flags all the while). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dude_Doc Posted February 22, 2003 Share Posted February 22, 2003 "What is bad on occupation?" Could it be the fact that it proves that the whole "liberating Iraq" argument is nothing but a big LIE?They have no intention of liberating anyone.So you believe that when the US occupied Germany after WW2 was bad? How come germans wanted to live in West Germany, controlled by the US at the time, from the Soviet occupation of East Germany? If this would be 1940, would you support Hitler and claim that the world would be peacful if we just let him continue to not only murder jews in secret, but also executing his own people, non-aryan. Is this right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edric O Posted February 22, 2003 Author Share Posted February 22, 2003 Caid, a nationalist is someone who holds his own country in high regard and thinks it is better than any other, or who thinks his own nation has some inherent qualities above the rest of the world.I am a radical anti-nationalist and I would support a unified world government. I support a world UNION, not an EMPIRE.You are an imperialist. Your idea of unifying the world is conquest...Now about Iraq: Of course it's already a dictatorship, but if the US (which is a democracy) would invade and KEEP Iraq a dictatorship, that would prove that they are NOT the champions of democracy they pretend to be, and they do NOT wish to liberate the Iraqis.Sneezer (James T Kirk), who are you to decide for the Iraqi people?Dude_Doc, just because the Soviet occupation was worse, that doesn't make the US one good, only less bad.However, comparing the Iraq crisis with WW2 is utterly ridiculous and shows only ignorance. For one thing, Hitler had the support of the German people (which he got mostly by brainwashing, but still), which means that the Germans brought the war upon themselves. They asked for it.But the Iraqis DID NOT bring the war upon themselves. They WERE NOT the ones who put Saddam into power (like the Germans did with Hitler).The main difference is this:In Hitler's case, more innocents died if we did nothing than if we went to war. In Hussein's case, more innocents die if we go to war than if we do nothing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sneezer3 Posted February 23, 2003 Share Posted February 23, 2003 Sneezer (James T Kirk), who are you to decide for the Iraqi people?I am not decideing for there people. i'm not even decideing at all, lol the Presdent is.Some of Iraqi people want out of Saddam's rule. but if they ran for it they either wouldn't make it or would get shot in the back. Disarming Saddam would do nothing but Good. We even have reason to belive he have some pilots are being held captive as no humen remains were found, What about those famlys? do we not care any for them?And i don't think we should leave it a dictatorship. because #1 The same thing could happen all over again.#2 I don't agree with dictatorship, the people under it can be treated cruely to easly, even if they like the dictatorship. its also sort of a spawn of evolution and "the people have no rights".In Hitler's case, more innocents died if we did nothing than if we went to war. In Hussein's case, more innocents die if we go to war than if we do nothing. within what peroid of time? if we don't disarm him we will use his weapons agenst us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edric O Posted February 23, 2003 Author Share Posted February 23, 2003 Some of Iraqi people want out of Saddam's rule. but if they ran for it they either wouldn't make it or would get shot in the back.Yes, and a lot of Iraqis would be extremely happy to be rid of Saddam. But at the cost of their homes and their families? I don't think so.And i don't think we should leave it a dictatorship.Apparently, Bush does. It's just that he wants a DIFFERENT dictator in charge... ::)within what peroid of time? if we don't disarm him we will use his weapons agenst us.No, because he doesn't have any. And even if he did, he isn't stupid, you know. Going up against the US is suicide and he knows it. Hussein has no reason to attack the US, and doing so would only result in immediate retaliation.Attacking you is the LAST thing Hussein would ever want to do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.