All us Anti-War people

[KayJay]

So many varied reasons and sometimes contradictory reasons have been posted by us, as to why the Unilateral Destruction undertaken in Iraq by the US of A was unwarranted.

Could all of you post, individually, your reasons for the opposition to such action in this thread, which would act as a reportoire of reason and rationality, so to speak.

My reasons:

1) Iraq/Saddam did not pose a threat to any human outside Iraq as on November 2002

2) Those inside Iraq did not seek assitance from the world, as Kuwait did 13 years ago

3) WMD would have been found and destroyed or accounted for, anyways by the UNMOVIC

4) Soveriegnity exists and has to be respected

5) Violent solutions can logically result only in violent repercussions.

Regards

KayJay

[Memnoch1207]

So many varied reasons and sometimes contradictory reasons have been posted by us, as to why the Unilateral Destruction undertaken in Iraq by the US of A was unwarranted.

Could all of you post, individually, your reasons for the opposition to such action in this thread, which would act as a reportoire of reason and rationality, so to speak.

My reasons:

1) Iraq/Saddam did not pose a threat to any human outside Iraq as on November 2002

2) Those inside Iraq did not seek assitance from the world, as Kuwait did 13 years ago

3) WMD would have been found and destroyed or accounted for, anyways by the UNMOVIC

4) Soveriegnity exists and has to be respected

5) Violent solutions can logically result only in violent repercussions.

Once again people get confused on the definition of UNI-lateral (UNI means 1), and as has been stated numerous times before The US, Britain and Austrailia make up the coalition. The US is not the only one invovled (so get off your high horse about it's just the US)

as for your reasons...I could easily answer all of these by saying "How do you know?", other than you own opinion and emotions you have no idea as to the truth of any of your reasons.

1) How do you know Iraq didn't pose a threat, how do you know they wouldn't have posed a threat in the future (when they could have possibly by then had a nuclear weapon)?

2) How do you know they didn't seek assistance? If you hadn't heard shortly after the first gulf war, the iraqi people we asking for assistance from the US in helping to defeat Saddam and his regime...and the US didn't help, which is what led to Saddam murdering entire villages, that voiced their disapproval of him.

3) When? after another 12 years? or maybe after Saddam ha aquired a nuke, he would have just kicked out the UN inspectors for good...and then we would have a crisis on our hands.

4) I agree...however, if the individuals of a sovereign nation are being oppressed by its dictatorial government, and are seeking freedom and have no means by which to achieve it, then they must receive assistance. We have not an anyway denegrated the sovereign integrity of iraq, nor will we. Once iraq gets settled into a democratic goverment, they will wield far more power and strength on a global level than they ever have.

5) Not necessarily, sometimes the violence used can be so strong as to prevent or deter any type of repercussion. After bombing Japan, the US has not once had any violent repercussions as a result of the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Germany 1945, violent solution, no violent repercussions...etc...

The main problem I see with the anti-war crowd is they base their arguments on emotion and opinion (usually their someone elses), rather than on fact and knowledge.

[Q_Me]

Peace-keeper says:

Support thy troops, support the war if thus wants to, but support those troops who are nothing more than following orders of their commanding officers. And those officers are following orders from their higher-ranks, and so on and so forth. If you do not support the troops who defend this country, then you do not support the freedom in which you have in this country. You do not have to support the war, just the troops who fight in it.

My 2 cents.

[Xanith]

Very nice post Memnoch. I think that pretty much sums up my thoughts as well.

X

[Arc]

Q, what the hell does that sig say? Best i can make out with my limited "l33t speak" knowledge is

"Secretcy Is The Elexor Of Knowledge. It is Also The Elexor Of Independecy From The World."

If that is what it says then you spelled several words wrong. "Secretcy","elixor","Independency".;) And it also makes no sense hehe.

[Shaggy Hiker]

Memnoch, you speak of emotion over fact, but your arguments as you sum them up are "How do you know?"

Ok, I'll ask you: How do you know? Why are your answers any less emotion based than the original ones. You speak of facts, but in 1,2, and 3, you base your arguments on speculation alone. (I realize that part of what you said in 2 was fact).

Number 4 is a pretty emotional argument on your part, and ignores a nice big fat fact. There are plenty of dictators in this world, and there is really no chance that we are going to go after them no matter how many people they murder. If we put our heads together, we could probably list half a dozen as bad or worse than Saddam on the continent of Africa. We have always turned a blind eye there. There are also several on the Asian continent. While that argument is nice and pretty, it is pure emotion, and we don't even follow that emotion as a country.

I agree with all your points in argument against #5. Violence is not pretty, and not desirable, but sometimes it must be. I would point out that we didn't attack either Germany or Japan first, as we did in Iraq. In fact, they attacked us. This was not the first time in our history that we went to war over a trumped up charge (Spanish-American war, remember the Maine?), and we have benefitted from doing so in the past.

However, this thread was about reasons those of us who oppose (or opposed, as it is now) the war have for opposing it. Just to yank some chains, I'd add

6) Bush has the brains of a turnip.

[Sastraxi]

I'm quite anti-war, I'll just say that I've been brought up with the ways of peacekeeping and that's how I stand on this issue.

[Memnoch1207]

I agree that 1) is speculation on both mine and kayjays post.
2) is merely an opinion on both sides as well, but which is safer for humanity? take action to prevent a possible attack on some nation which kills thousands? or wait and see if there is an attack? There is a saying "It is always better to error on the side of safety". I for one would rather take out a POTENTIAL threat, then wait around for them to become a legitimate threat. Saddams past actions show clearly that he is a threat...to the iraqi people, to kuwait, to israel, and possibly to the stability of the middle east.

as far as 4 goes, I agree there are many dictators in the world, but lets be realistic. have these other dictators invaded another country? have these dictators used chemical weapons on their own people? have these dictators used WMD's in a war against another country? Has the UN passed resolutions against them demanding the destruction of their WMD's? and have these other dictators refused to do so?

Any country has the right to protect it's allies, and it's interests.

And being what many would consider the only superpower left...the US has the obligation and responsiblity to protect and provide for less fortunate countries. Realistically we provide some type of aid to just about every country that hates us.

[Sastraxi]

I don't like the idea of the US being the "only real superpower" left. It feels like a global monopoly.

[hellswraith]

The people in the US like it... :)

I can understand what you are saying. My friends and I were talking about that the other day. We were all saying that we are glad to be part of the US, no one can come kick our ass right now. Things change over time though. We will see what happens in the future, it may be another country that is the obvious super power...who knows.

[KayJay]

Originally posted by Memnoch1207
I agree that 1) is speculation on both mine and kayjays post.
OK

2) is merely an opinion on both sides as well, but which is safer for humanity? take action to prevent a possible attack on some nation which kills thousands? or wait and see if there is an attack? There is a saying "It is always better to error on the side of safety". I for one would rather take out a POTENTIAL threat, then wait around for them to become a legitimate threat. Saddams past actions show clearly that he is a threat...to the iraqi people, to kuwait, to israel, and possibly to the stability of the middle east.
Threat to whom? Iraq being a threat to the Iraqi people is as absurd as the US of A being a threat to Californians. Saddams past miltiary actions are "evil" (?) and violent. The US of A's past military actions (from 1945 onwards) are "good" (?), violent. You want to save your ass, you have every right to do so, as do I to save mine. I don't have a right to save "your" ass and vice versa. I may want to, but no right, for that matter, no duty.

as far as 4 goes, I agree there are many dictators in the world, but lets be realistic. have these other dictators invaded another country? have these dictators used chemical weapons on their own people? have these dictators used WMD's in a war against another country? Has the UN passed resolutions against them demanding the destruction of their WMD's? and have these other dictators refused to do so?
No Objections

Any country has the right to protect it's allies, and it's interests.
Including Iraq and Afghanistan and of course Syria whose ally is, was?, Iraq

And being what many would consider the only superpower left...the US has the obligation and responsiblity to protect and provide for less fortunate countries. Realistically we provide some type of aid to just about every country that hates us.
Climb Mt Rushmore! You chose to give aid, choose not to. You chose to be part of the UN. choose not to. Having chosen, do not relege. No one forced you into doing anything. Do not force anyone. Incidentally, fortune as you see it, may not be the same as others see it. I may be unfortunate by your standards, but I will truly be unfortunate by my standards should I bow down to your bullying

[Shaggy Hiker]

Does anybody really think we can't get our asses kicked? By being a superpower, spending more on defense than the rest of the world combined, we ensure that we are unlikely to be the target of a conventional military attack. However, does that make us secure as citizens?

A great deal of our actions, as a country, during the last two years, have been driven by fear resulting from 9/11. We have attacked two foreign countries during that time, increased the powers of law enforcement at the expense of privacy, altered our airline system, and spent billions of dollars on actions that may have improved security. Furthermore, our current leaders repeatedly play the fear card when talking about foreign countries. Afganistan was just as bad for the last decade as it was two years ago, but there would have been a huge outcry against us attacking the Taliban unilaterally, despite the fact that they were probably the most repressive regime in the world. Bush the senior, refused to go for Saddam, because he felt that the world would turn against him.

Now our leaders wave the threat of terrorism at us to try to get support for whatever militant action they choose. But does this make us safer? No!

It would be wise to keep in mind that we have not been attacked by a conventional military force since WWII. However, in the last decade, we have been subject to repeated terrorist attacks. With the exception of WTC 1 & 2, all of these terrorist attacks have been perpetrated by American citizens from within. Most have either never been explained very well, or have an explanation for which we have no answer. Before 9/11, the worst attack was Oklahoma City, a gulf war veteran bombing a building for reasons that can't be helped. We have seen Anthrax attacks (WMD), but have no idea where they came from, except some suggestion that the Anthrax came from a domestic lab. We have seen our schools attacked repeatedly, with many children killed, but that was by other children for reasons that we can't fully understand. We have seen the Atlanta Olympics bombing, but that was just a random terror attack by some white supremecist (I think, though I can't recall if he was ever caught).

Our military might only ensures that we can strike back, and that no other will openly attack us in a conventional style. However, we will still be attacked, it will just be random pin*****s here and there. That's ok, as long as you aren't the one being stuck.

[Memnoch1207]

Threat to whom? Iraq being a threat to the Iraqi people is as absurd as the US of A being a threat to Californians. Saddams past miltiary actions are "evil" (?) and violent. The US of A's past military actions (from 1945 onwards) are "good" (?), violent. You want to save your ass, you have every right to do so, as do I to save mine. I don't have a right to save "your" ass and vice versa. I may want to, but no right, for that matter, no duty.


If you'll reread my post I didn't say Iraq was a threat to the iraqi people...I said Saddam was a threat. Saddam is NOT iraq, don't get the two confused. Whether or not you personally want our assistance is really irrelevant...It is your government that will make that decision. Governments SHOULD protect their citizens. And if that means calling on another country to provide assistance or aid then that is what a government should do.

Including Iraq and Afghanistan and of course Syria whose ally is, was?, Iraq

Absolutely, but at what cost are these countries willing to protect their allies and their interests? If the US went into palestine, to back the israelis, there would be an uproar. That is why we haven't done so. There is a cost that must be determined prior to taking a stance. The pros and cons must be weighed and possible consequences should be taken into consideration.


Climb Mt Rushmore! You chose to give aid, choose not to. You chose to be part of the UN. choose not to. Having chosen, do not relege. No one forced you into doing anything. Do not force anyone. Incidentally, fortune as you see it, may not be the same as others see it. I may be unfortunate by your standards, but I will truly be unfortunate by my standards should I bow down to your bullying


We chose to give aid because it is the right thing to do. How would the world feel about the US if we just sat back and watched whole countries die from starvation, oppression, etc...without doing anything...we would be even more hated then we already are. We are a fortunate country and it is only right that we assist other countries who are not...it's called being compassion.

Compassion - sympathetic consciousness of others' distress together with a desire to alleviate it

Just for the record the US hasn't bullied india...that was the UK.


We are not immune to being on the recieving end of a terrorist attack. There are individuals in the country as we speak that are members of al-queida, hezbollah, etc...plus the anti-government american militia. We will never be safe from terrorism, whether foreign or domestic. However, by taking a stance against it and attacking those who attack us, we can/will have an impact on these organizations that choose to attack with unconventional means. Unfortunately, hatred is learned on an individual level. Through personal experience and others opinions. And I don't see any time in the near future where there will be a time of tolerance and peace. As long as there are people on this planet there will continue to be hate...and terrorism.