Printable View
How come everybody has such strong, polarised opinions on the war with Iraq?
Personally, I can't make up my mind. Both sides of the argument have made good points and I can't see how people can only see this issue from such a one-sided perspective. :confused:
Not all of it is one-sided.
A lot of the people aruging see valid points on both sides.
But there are a few with very extreme positions that time and time again resort to name calling and insinuation and what not and then things turn into a mess.
I'm the same - I'm kinda for some of the aims of the war but against using war to achieve them :confused: - sometimes I even argue with myself
People get commited for that you know ;)Quote:
Originally posted by MerrionComputin
I'm the same - I'm kinda for some of the aims of the war but against using war to achieve them :confused: - sometimes I even argue with myself
in practice those with strong opinions are those who post the most around here.
I've already been committed
I think that this is one of them issues that will be judged retrospectively. It will be deemed either a worthy success or a miserable failure depending on a variety of factors including:
- How long it actually takes to complete the campaign
- What the magnitude of both military and civillian casualties are
- Whether or not the eventual changes will be broadly welcomed by the Iraqi people
- Whether or not they do actually find concrete evidence of WMDs.
I think it's impossible to judge it at this early stage.
Kedaman
Good point...Those with the strongest opinions shout the loudest.Quote:
in practice those with strong opinions are those who post the most around here.
what about terrorism? if the operation was successful would terrorism decrease?
reminds me of the failure of democracy.Quote:
Originally posted by simonm
Kedaman
Good point...Those with the strongest opinions shout the loudest.
Kedaman
As I said in another thread, I think that it's impossible to measure with any degree of precision.Quote:
what about terrorism? if the operation was successful would terrorism decrease?
I mean, how much terrorism are we experiencing at the moment? Much of it is thwarted by security measures but we have no way of knowing how much.
The situation of Iraq is extremely complex so it is only to be expected to see various opinions.Quote:
Originally posted by simonm
How come everybody has such strong, polarised opinions on the war with Iraq?
Personally, I can't make up my mind. Both sides of the argument have made good points and I can't see how people can only see this issue from such a one-sided perspective. :confused:
There will always be a problem of terrorism in every country of the world, nothing can change that. However the one thing that we can hope to accomplish is keeping certain kinds of support out of the hands of terrorist. The biggest current nightmare we have with Saddam is him giving terroist orgianizations chemcial and biological weapons.Quote:
Originally posted by kedaman
what about terrorism? if the operation was successful would terrorism decrease?
There are far far more places that terrorists can get weapons.Quote:
Originally posted by Maven
There will always be a problem of terrorism in every country of the world, nothing can change that. However the one thing that we can hope to accomplish is keeping certain kinds of support out of the hands of terrorist. The biggest current nightmare we have with Saddam is him giving terroist orgianizations chemcial and biological weapons.
They could even produce the weapons themselves - look at how drug dealers are able to prepare ecsctacy and heroin etc.
Irrespective of those weapons, there are lots of other ways to kill lots of people...
can you give me the motives behind the operation? If this actually was an attempt to decrease terrorism, are you ready to evaluate the success?Quote:
Originally posted by Maven
There will always be a problem of terrorism in every country of the world, nothing can change that. However the one thing that we can hope to accomplish is keeping certain kinds of support out of the hands of terrorist. The biggest current nightmare we have with Saddam is him giving terroist orgianizations chemcial and biological weapons.
I'm more worried about a suicide bomber with Type VX straped around his balls then I am C4. lolQuote:
Originally posted by plenderj
There are far far more places that terrorists can get weapons.
They could even produce the weapons themselves - look at how drug dealers are able to prepare ecsctacy and heroin etc.
Irrespective of those weapons, there are lots of other ways to kill lots of people...
There is several good reasons for going to this war. Are you asking what ties Saddam has to terrorist organizations? Why chemical weapons are dangerous? Be a little more specific. I could probably sit down and type a thick book on the goods and bads of going to war.Quote:
Originally posted by kedaman
can you give me the motives behind the operation? If this actually was an attempt to decrease terrorism, are you ready to evaluate the success?
I believe this war will have an impact on terrorism in both short term and long term. I believe that in the short term it will probably raise the recuritment level of terrorism because of world opinion. Most of the raise in recuritment will be during the war and probably a short time afterwards. The real test of long term will be how we handle the rebuilding of Iraq. If we do the right thing then helping those people out will stablize the entire region and the level of terroism will decrease significantly.
Not going to war would also have an inpact on short term and long term levels of terrorism. We would not have that short term jump on terrorism recuritments. However in long term the recruitment level would continue and more then likely increase. We would have to contain Saddam and that kills people when we do that, they die slowly.
So the cost of inaction compared to action is: short term vs long term benifits.
I'm not expecting you to justify war, just to give the motives behind the decision. Why? Because if the war is succesful then these motives are satisfied. If I remember correctly the president of US said that he wont accept any other outcome but success. What are the exact motives? Without specific motives he could twist out of failure.
The main reason for us going to war with Iraq is to get rid of the chemical and biological weapons in Saddams arsenal and to remove Saddams party from power.Quote:
Originally posted by kedaman
I'm not expecting you to justify war, just to give the motives behind the decision. Why? Because if the war is succesful then these motives are satisfied. If I remember correctly the president of US said that he wont accept any other outcome but success. What are the exact motives? Without specific motives he could twist out of failure.
and why is that? what's the fundamental reason?
There is many reasons for each one. The largest worry for me is: Saddam supplying terrorist organizations with checmial and biological weapons whom he has ties with. He could also use those weapons against other countries like Israel, kuwait, etc.Quote:
Originally posted by kedaman
and why is that? what's the fundamental reason?
I've yet to see a decent argument agains t the war, so I have no reason to change me stance. :)
Three points that need to be taken into consideration to reconcile or understand the opposing views (sometime violent and passionaite views) of the current Iraq situation
1) Geographic affinity of the respondents in these debates.
2) Age of the respondents
3) Level of interset in History (as opposed to the interest in the US of A and Iraq, just in this context)
1) Most people not living in the many (I stress, not all) occidental countries have experienced gruesome and prolonged bloodshed (many of their own doing :( ) in recent years (around 20 - 40 years). They tend to see the military might of a heretofore unassailable nation trying to "Walk Tall" after a horrendous barabarity struck right into its heart.
2) Rush of Blood, Patriotism, the will and the perveived need to be on the right side of the Right and Good and Correct
3) Unfortunately, its only when such "action" takes place, interest increases, otherwise, it all hunky-dory. It reminds of the NASA Co-ordinator's comments just immediately after the Columbia tragedy. He said its a pity and a shame that we remember and cry and praise the astraunauts only when such tragedies happen, not otherwise.
I leave it my colleagues here to judge me. :)
Regards
KayJay
If you think it's impossible to judge the effects of the war at this stage, I must say this war is also reckless, apart from whatever other things it is.Quote:
Originally posted by simonm
I think that this is one of them issues that will be judged retrospectively. It will be deemed either a worthy success or a miserable failure depending on a variety of factors including:
- How long it actually takes to complete the campaign
- What the magnitude of both military and civillian casualties are
- Whether or not the eventual changes will be broadly welcomed by the Iraqi people
- Whether or not they do actually find concrete evidence of WMDs.
I think it's impossible to judge it at this early stage.
Any acts which result into deaths, whether military or civilians, human or non-human, must be thoroughly analysed beforehand to fathom the effects they will have, and should be resorted to only after establishing beyond doubt that despite the loss of life, they will achieve something significantly better. This war is based on fictitious claims and evidence. At the end of it, if you find that Iraq indeed didn't have any WMDs, can you get those dead men (on both sides) back? America is crying about the victims of 9/11 and their families. Does it not understand that the war on Iraq is another 9/11 on Iraq in the absence of any evidence? Just as 9/11 effects cannot be reversed, the effects of war cannot be reversed.
Then we go beyond this motive of the US put forth to the world and look at other issues. The US and the UK will have to foot the bill for this war. With their own economies having considerable problems without the war, they will find ways to meet the shortfalls. An easy solution is to use the oil in Iraq. The US and the UK will take over the oil production in Iraq, take out a major share of it for reimbursing their own expenses for war, and whatever is left may be utilised actually for Iraq. There's no guarantee that the oil revenues, to which Iraq was entitled, will be 100% spent on Iraq's rebuilding.
Tenders for rebuilding operations in Iraq were floated privately even before war had begun officially. The five major construction companies in the US which were asked to submit quotations have a strong political backing and influence. Thus the rehabilitation of the Iraqi people will not be entrusted to the UN, but to the US companies. Who, do you think, will profit from it?
It's not difficult to foresee what effects it will have on the world. The Kurds are trying to get a share of the land for themselves, the Turks have already invaded Iraq under the name of preventing the Kurds, and there may be a trifurcation of Iraq just to prevent further complications, which in turn will give rise to new complications.
Not to mention the effects of this war on the environment and the economies of several other countries in the world.
When you weigh all these repurcussions against the evidence provided by the US for justifying the war, you will realize how flimsy this evidence is. The US, considering all these implications, should at least have had the sense to provide substantial evidence.
.
All said and done, its war and the strongest will win. Winners make the rules. Rules that will be made are by default against the losers. Losers wallow and stew in their hate and shame. Hate and Shame passes thro' generations. Generations later, someone says "All said and done....."
ok
No they haventQuote:
Turks have already invaded Iraq under the name of preventing the Kurd's
UN didnt want anything to do with it at one stage, oh and contracts arent restricted to USA or allies but anyone in the world can get themQuote:
Tenders for rebuilding operations in Iraq were floated privately even before war had begun officially. The five major construction companies in the US which were asked to submit quotations have a strong political backing and influence. Thus the rehabilitation of the Iraqi people will not be entrusted to the UN, but to the US companies. Who, do you think, will profit from it?
[Quote[The US and the UK will take over the oil production in Iraq, take out a major share of it for reimbursing their own expenses for war, and whatever is left may be utilised actually for Iraq. There's no guarantee that the oil revenues, to which Iraq was entitled, will be 100% spent on Iraq's rebuilding.[/Quote]
More speculation
You have less evidence for your claims than the coalition has of WMD's. And you talk about those claims having no evidence:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Oh and the deal to stop the attack on Iraq was to provide details of ALL its weapons, did it do it??? NO :) :) :)
.Quote:
Originally posted by BodwadUK
UN didnt want anything to do with it at one stage, oh and contracts arent restricted to USA or allies but anyone in the world can get them
Who told you the UN didn't want anything to do with it? The US didn't want the UN to do anything. The US hurried with plans about the war. And asking privately for tenders even before the deconstruction started is not a fair trade practice, is it? American government has made it clear that Russia will be kept out of the reconstruction. Invitation for tenders was sent only to the five US companies. It's still not out in the world officially. Therefore I don't believe the US wishes to involve the other nations in the rebuilding, apart from maybe sharing the expenses :rolleyes:
Read the details about the Bush Blair visit on BBC. Powell has clearly stated the UN will be kept out of the things.
More speculationQuote:
The US and the UK will take over the oil production in Iraq, take out a major share of it for reimbursing their own expenses for war, and whatever is left may be utilised actually for Iraq. There's no guarantee that the oil revenues, to which Iraq was entitled, will be 100% spent on Iraq's rebuilding.
On the contrary, it's highly likely. The US has never mentioned how the revenues will be utilized, and most likely it will be the US companies which will extract oil, at least till the point a true Iraqi government takes over. That means it will go through a US military rule and then a US civil administration. Anywhere between a couple of years to forever ....
Oh and the deal to stop the attack on Iraq was to provide details of ALL its weapons, did it do it??? NO :) :) :)
That, thanks to the US, we shall never know. :rolleyes:
Quote:
Originally posted by honeybee
More speculation
On the contrary, it's highly likely. The US has never mentioned how the revenues will be utilized, and most likely it will be the US companies which will extract oil, at least till the point a true Iraqi government takes over. That means it will go through a US military rule and then a US civil administration. Anywhere between a couple of years to forever ....
Oh and the deal to stop the attack on Iraq was to provide details of ALL its weapons, did it do it??? NO :) :) :)
That, thanks to the US, we shall never know. :rolleyes:
Again, your speculating Honeybee.
I think you mean, "thanks to Iraq". It wasn't the US's job to list the Iraqi weapons, it was their own job, and they failed to do it.
So you are speculating againQuote:
it's highly likely
Not what i heard :) :) :)Quote:
UN didnt want anything to do with it at one stage, oh and contracts arent restricted to USA or allies but anyone in the world can get them
Who told you the UN didn't want anything to do with it? The US didn't want the UN to do anything. The US hurried with plans about the war. And asking privately for tenders even before the deconstruction started is not a fair trade practice, is it? American government has made it clear that Russia will be kept out of the reconstruction. Invitation for tenders was sent only to the five US companies. It's still not out in the world officially. Therefore I don't believe the US wishes to involve the other nations in the rebuilding, apart from maybe sharing the expenses
Havent seen details on the meeting yet :) :) :)
Iraq did not declare some of the things found by Un weapons inspectors.
Honeybee
As I have said already, I am undecided about this war but I see some problems with your arguments:
This is an unreasonable demand. How can we ever know "beyond all doubt" that war will not worsen the very situation we are trying to improve? If such a precursor were placed before any military action was taken, countries wouldn't even be able to defend themselves when attacked. No doubt, Hitler would have conquered the world by now as well.Quote:
Any acts which result into deaths, whether military or civilians, human or non-human, must be thoroughly analysed beforehand to fathom the effects they will have, and should be resorted to only after establishing beyond doubt that despite the loss of life, they will achieve something significantly better.
They would argue that it is only fair that companies from the countries in the coalition who actually footed the bill for the cost of this war should get the benefit of the contracts in the reconstruction of Iraq.Quote:
Tenders for rebuilding operations in Iraq were floated privately even before war had begun officially. The five major construction companies in the US which were asked to submit quotations have a strong political backing and influence. Thus the rehabilitation of the Iraqi people will not be entrusted to the UN, but to the US companies. Who, do you think, will profit from it?
Err...yes it is. How can you be so brash to claim that you can see what the long term effects of this war will be? Nobody can, let alone you with the limited resources and information at your disposal.Quote:
It's not difficult to foresee what effects it will have on the world.
If you were as wise as you seem to think you are, you would realise that the future is very unclear and it is impossible to say with any degree of certainty what it will hold.
What about the repercussions of not going to war? Have you considered those as well? Don't bother, it's a fruitless exercise.Quote:
When you weigh all these repurcussions against the evidence provided by the US for justifying the war, you will realize how flimsy this evidence is. The US, considering all these implications, should at least have had the sense to provide substantial evidence.
I repeat, nobody can know what the repercussions will be.
It is yet to be determined if the questionable items found in Iraq did indeed threaten the US so much as to warrant a war. To me it only seems the US is using resolution 1441 and others as a means to achieve its own ends. No WMDs cited yet, no significant military strength found yet, thus there's no reason to believe Iraq could have posed an immediate and fatal danger to the US. Going by the circumstances, India has enough reason to nuke Pakistan, Palestine and its supporting Arab nations have enough reason to destroy Israel and more than half the world should be working out a "regime change" in the US.Quote:
Originally posted by BodwadUK
So you are speculating again
Not what i heard :) :) :)
Havent seen details on the meeting yet :) :) :)
Iraq did not declare some of the things found by Un weapons inspectors.
Call it speculation, but the actions by the US government clearly don't seem to be stemming from a clean and honest intention.
.
I know you constantly say the US but you seem to forget its a coalition of over 40 countries!!!!:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:
Israel is constantly attacked by many small countries and yet has not attacked anyone.
I also recall America being critisised for attempting to help form peaceful nations through peaceful negotiations but they were got at for that as well!!!!!
Go on then what is their intentions in your view????
Now go on tell me in WWII Britain was going to nuke India (According to a mate of mine :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: ) :D :D :D :D
.Quote:
Originally posted by BodwadUK
Israel is constantly attacked by many small countries and yet has not attacked anyone.
Don't tell this to anyone else. They will think you are nuts :rolleyes:
I also recall America being critisised for attempting to help form peaceful nations through peaceful negotiations but they were got at for that as well!!!!!
For example?
Go on then what is their intentions in your view????
As if it's secret :rolleyes:
Now go on tell me in WWII Britain was going to nuke India (According to a mate of mine :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: ) :D :D :D :D
Sorry, fabricating stories is not MY area of expertise :)
I am :D :D :DQuote:
Don't tell this to anyone else. They will think you are nuts
i meant unprevoked
Israel and Palistine!!!! (i seem to have Iraq stuck in my head :DQuote:
I also recall America being critisised for attempting to help form peaceful nations through peaceful negotiations but they were got at for that as well!!!!!
Humour me!!!!Quote:
Go on then what is their intentions in your view????
As if it's secret
Phew you are saneQuote:
Sorry, fabricating stories is not MY area of expertise
You have to understand one basic thing: The Israel - Palestine, or the India - Pakistan, these conflicts have arisen out of a few contentious issues at the time of origin, being used for personal and political gains by leaders and now taking the form of violence.Quote:
Originally posted by BodwadUK
I am :D :D :D
i meant unprevoked
Let's say the first stone was thrown by a Palestinian, the first act of violence was committed against Israel, Israel tried to strike back, and that led to a retaliation and counter-retaliation that has resulted into this bloody mess today. At the same time it's also possible that Israel fired the first bullet in the conflict. How can you determine that accurately? The answer is very difficult, if not impossible.
The only way to resolve such conflicts is for both sides to stop committing acts of violence against each other. Only when today, Israel and Palestine stop the violence from their own sides, can we hope for peace. And when you aim at stopping violence from your side, you must be prepared to take a few blows from the other side, not fight back each blow, and only then the other side will stop hitting.
Imagine you get into an argument with another man. After a verbal dual, you come to blows. In the midst of the fight, you realize the dispute cannot be resolved by fighting and you want to stop. What would you do, tell the other man to "stop fighting, else each of your blows will be dealth with a counter-blow", or simply keep defending yourself, only blocking his blows and not delivering any yourself? I believe the second approach will work in practice.
To resolve an argument, any argument, both sides must be ready to take a step back. I am afraid statements made by the Israeli PM do not indicate any willingness for this backstepping. Only when the Palestinians see the Israeli troops only defending their land and not invading the Gaza strip, for e.g., will they agree that Israel wants peace as much as Palestine. Saying that a bullet will be answered by a bullet will only invite them to fire more.
.
Israel could have destroyed palestine by now. They have better technology :D :D :D :D
Seems more is going into Israel than out. They have made reasonable requests for palestinian government to stop terrorists but the government does nothing. The conflict is between Israel and Terrorists that could be supported by the Palestine government and this makes it VERY difficult for Israel to defend itself. :) :) :)
Just like these, the acts of a repeated invasion of the Gaza stip by Israeli armed forces cannot be called "unprovocative". India has suffered a lot at the hands of militants and suicide and other bomb attacks. We didn't invade Pakistan.Quote:
Originally posted by BodwadUK
Israel could have destroyed palestine by now. They have better technology :D :D :D :D
Seems more is going into Israel than out. They have made reasonable requests for palestinian government to stop terrorists but the government does nothing. The conflict is between Israel and Terrorists that could be supported by the Palestine government and this makes it VERY difficult for Israel to defend itself. :) :) :)
That's exactly what I meant by simply blocking the other's blows and not dealing fresh ones of yours. For e.g. why can't the Israeli government declare and observe a one week ceasefire in which it will not attack any Palestinian property or personnel?
Sri Lanka has successfully used it against the LTTE group. And their conflict was much much worse than Israel - Palestine or anything else. When they declared ceasefire, they observed that it really was a ceasefire. It shows you are sincere and honest about your intentions. After all action speaks more than words.
.
This i believe has been tried in Israel but no agreement could be made after this and (like Northern Ireland) it just fell back down again.
America and the UN have tried repeatedly to stop the terrorists restarting that war but the terrorists have one goal. They will not negotiate (Israel Arent much better) and Israel will not stand Idly by while Palestine attacks them. Israel want the terrorists out which is understandable. :) :) :) :)
I don't think the Palestinians don't want peace. True, there will be some hot-headed groups, but that doesn't mean Israel should only be waiting for some provocation to react more violently.
Once you reach a ceasefire agreement, you can start talks with the opposite party and that will at least take some time to materialize. So far I think all the ceasefire agreements have been unilaterally broken because of one or another violent act from the other side. Which, needless to say, must stop.
.
Excellent post Simon. I have some of the same thoughts and I was actually against any conflict in Iraq in the beginning and I still worry about what the outcome of this war is going to be.Quote:
Originally posted by simonm
Honeybee
As I have said already, I am undecided about this war but I see some problems with your arguments:
This is an unreasonable demand. How can we ever know "beyond all doubt" that war will not worsen the very situation we are trying to improve? If such a precursor were placed before any military action was taken, countries wouldn't even be able to defend themselves when attacked. No doubt, Hitler would have conquered the world by now as well.
They would argue that it is only fair that companies from the countries in the coalition who actually footed the bill for the cost of this war should get the benefit of the contracts in the reconstruction of Iraq.
Err...yes it is. How can you be so brash to claim that you can see what the long term effects of this war will be? Nobody can, let alone you with the limited resources and information at your disposal.
If you were as wise as you seem to think you are, you would realise that the future is very unclear and it is impossible to say with any degree of certainty what it will hold.
What about the repercussions of not going to war? Have you considered those as well? Don't bother, it's a fruitless exercise.
I repeat, nobody can know what the repercussions will be.
X