Is Iraqi war justified?

Is Iraqi war justified?

  • Yes

  • No

  • Don't know / other (please post why)

Results are only viewable after voting.
MDLarson

MDLarson

Registered
I watched President Bush's speech a couple of nights ago and tend to agree with his main points:

1) Saddam and his regime are a threat to the West (primarily terrorism.)
2) The UN has issued a demand for the disarmament of Iraq, which it has failed to do.
3) Diplomacy has not worked thus far and action is needed to back up the UN resolution.

Consider this quote from here.
None of the Iraqis who agreed to be interviewed for this article had any sympathy for Saddam Hussein. Armand, a filmmaker from Chicago, says he hopes if there is a war, Saddam will be ousted.

"It makes me sick when people campaign against war," says Armand, who says he fled Iraq after taking part in the unsuccessful rebellion against Saddam that followed the Gulf War. "I don?t want to live in this constant fear all the time. If there is a war and my family survives the war, I will at least be able to go and see them."
Click to expand...
I realize that most of you folks are democrats and do not support Bush, but I'd like to get past that and just debate the necessity of this war.

p.s. I voted "Yes" ;)
 
Peace.

"Indeed, peace is preferred, but when terrorists fly planes into buildings (causing massive loss of life) we cannot simply let the enemy plot for more of the same. Action is required. "

Well. In Milan (Italy) there was a Swiss pilot piloting a Cessna to one of the famous skyscrapers (Pirelli, a skyscraper in the European scale) in last April or May. As far as I know, Italy hasn't started a war to Switzerland for that. About 10 persons died on that 'attack'. Does it qualify as a terrorist attack? A Swiss pilot flied intentionally into that building.
 
I am not a pacifist.
I voted no because, for the last two weeks, I have read hundreds of posts in this macosx.com café, and I didn't find one sole valuable argument supporting war, whereas I've read dozens of thoughtful opinions against it.

Pax,
Toast
 
Indeed, peace is preferred, but when terrorists fly planes into buildings (causing massive loss of life) we cannot simply let the enemy plot for more of the same. Action is required. Does no one see this simple equation? Or is my equation wrong? How can one justify idleness in these circumstances?
 
Originally posted by MDLarson
Indeed, peace is preferred, but when terrorists fly planes into buildings (causing massive loss of life) we cannot simply let the enemy plot for more of the same. Action is required.
Click to expand...

Yes, absolutely! Action is required. We should never have started on this distraction in the first place.

If the Bush doctrine actually holds water, then why Iraq and not North Korea? Iraq isn't really a threat to anyone (but their own people) at this point. North Korea is going out of their way to be seen as a threat (though it is most likely a weird cry for help) and actually has the ability to do what Iraq can't (actually hurt us).

I only see three threats to US interests at this point (not in any order of magnitude):
  • Terrorism from al Qaeda cells
  • North Korea
  • George W. Bush
 
I voted NO.
And what is confusing me a lot is, what the hell is the real reason and legitimation for a war? I really have no clue!
All I see is that the USA is jumping from one issue to the other. Doesn't make this all look professional but more (excuse me!) childish. How can anyone expect us (European) to understand their point?
And that's why I JUST see few cowboys trying to get their so much wanted war...
Sorry for being so frank!
 
Originally posted by MDLarson
Indeed, peace is preferred, but when terrorists fly planes into buildings (causing massive loss of life) we cannot simply let the enemy plot for more of the same. Action is required. Does no one see this simple equation? Or is my equation wrong? How can one justify idleness in these circumstances?
Click to expand...
So an eye for an eye? I'm guessing you're also for the death penalty?
 
The weird thing is that, the Iraqis have not exactly directly provoked the U.S. in any way. or at least, it doesn't seem like it. They just kind of sit there, and quietly build up a little arsenal.

It seems the Bush Dynasty (somebody end it!) simply wants to get rid of Saddam and just can't let things lie.

I don't think a war was justified. No. But now that Bush has gotten the whole world riled up, he sure as hell can't back down now. And it shows.

Bah. Voted "don't know."
 
Originally posted by Ricky
So an eye for an eye? I'm guessing you're also for the death penalty?
Click to expand...
Already this thread has incited irrational debate (not just your post, Ricky.)

I look at it this way; "The West" (for lack of a better term) has a certain lifestyle. Bush calls it Freedom. Al Qaeda has made it clear with the Sept 11 attacks that they don't like something in the U.S.A. They have and will attack again.

What are we to do? They have attacked first. Either they attack more innocent "infidels" or we put a stop to it. For those who say "NO WAR!" so vehemently, please answer this hypothetical question:

How will your opinion change if you or your country are being attacked for no reason by a bloodthirsty dictator / leader? What if they showed no signs of letting up or no willingness to participate in diplomacy? What if they wanted to dominate the world? Would you support war then?

Racer, if Iraq was not a threat to the outside world, why is it still producing weapons of mass destruction? If Saddam is willing to use them on his own people, is that not enough of a reason to liberate the Iraqi people?

North Korea? I have similar thoughts on that as well, but I'm not going to get into that here (for the sake of keeping the thread on-topic.) Likewise, I have no intention of talking about the death penalty in this thread.

I have made an argument for the necessity of war, and so far nobody has disproved those three main points in my original post.

Please, for the sake of intelligent debate, refrain from personal attacks (including those on me!)
 
Originally posted by chabig for Ricky
Did your Mama tell you to post that?
Click to expand...

if she did, he's got a very smart mother.


mdlarson - the tactic of interviewing a few people who have fled the country that is our enemy is a propaganda tecnique that never seems to get old. i can remember it being used to sell war and support the idea of 'liberation' back with Vietnam.

But think about it, if i moved to Canada or Mexico and starting making statements about how the wolrd should liberate the US fromGeorge Bush, how much would that really mean?
 
Originally posted by MDLarson
Already this thread has incited irrational debate (not just your post, Ricky.)
Click to expand...
Okay, let me rephrase my question a bit.
Do you think Timothy McVeigh deserved the death penalty he received from his bombing in Oklahoma City? This relates to the discussion because of the way terrorists bombed the WTC with jets. It is apparent that the U.S. thinks the leaders of the Al Queda deserve the death penalty for their actions.
Sorry if I seemed a little off topic. :\
 
Originally posted by edX
mdlarson - the tactic of interviewing a few people who have fled the country that is our enemy is a propaganda tecnique that never seems to get old. i can remember it being used to sell war and support the idea of 'liberation' back with Vietnam.

But think about it, if i moved to Canada or Mexico and starting making statements about how the wolrd should liberate the US fromGeorge Bush, how much would that really mean?
Click to expand...
It would mean more if you joined Al Qaeda, a real enemy. And that doesn't mean these testimonies are untrue.

George Bush does not kill his own people. I've even heard the Iraqi regime has a professional rapist who is sent to prey on the families of those who dissent Saddam. I've also heard that Saddam poisons the children of those who oppose him and the resulting disfiguration is meant as a reminder never to cross him again.
 
"I've heard" isn't much of an arguement. but it's the level of reasoning that Bush and those who support him are using to promote war. This scares me. The whole thing scares me.
 
Originally posted by edX
"I've heard" isn't much of an arguement. but it's the level of reasoning that Bush and those who support him are using to promote war. This scares me. The whole thing scares me.
Click to expand...
Yeah, sorry about that. It's the best I can do right now. But you didn't read my original post... those three points I outlined earlier are pretty hard to deny.

And yes, the "whole thing" scares me too. :(
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top