Alternatives to war?

[SSG Paul]

Ok, here's an alternative to war (ie Iraq war).

UN inspectors inspect for the next 10 years, while Saddam's WMD sit nice and safe like in Syria. Meanwhile, thousands more of Iraqi citizens have gone missing, are tortured or killed. Finally, Iraq build's/buys the big one (nuke). Inspectors are kicked out, Saddam retake's Kuwait (with no talk of liberation), cause who wants to go to war with a nuclear power? While Saddam's at it, he decides to take Saudi, and he now controls a huge portion of the world's oil fields. Meanwhile, certain countries keep making the big bucks selling arms to Iraq.
Now that Saddam feels safe from invasions, he decides it's time to start supplying certain terrorist groups with chem/bio agents. Most people of the western world are killed in mass terror plots (except those who supported the Iraqi regime with arms etc.) Bam! the only religion aloud is Muslim. All women are put back into there place, all liquor stores are replaced with torture chambers. Saddam dies of old age. One of his sons take over, and the world really gets nasty then. END OF STORY!

I still can't believe some of the stuff I read here after yesterdays events in bagdad. The Iraqi people (for the most part) are out on the streets celebrating, yet some people here who have a very posh life compared to those Iraqi's have the audacity to still say that peace was a better alternative. I don't understand. As long as the coalition doesn't rape the country of their resources, and doesn't screw up with a new dictator, and doesn't stay in country too long, then I'd say the past couple of weeks were a huge success.

This was too long for me to check for spelling/grammar mistakes.

 

[MrPresident]

Fish-slapping.

 

[knowltok2]

1. The absense of war is not always peace.

2. Some people need to get over this absolutist thinking that if the US says it wants to help oppressed Iraqis that that has to be the only reason, and or that that has to translate to every other tin-pot dictator and oppressed people on the planet. News flash, the world doesn't work that way.

Why is it so inconcievable that the US can have more than one motive for going into Iraq? Eliminate threat. Secure WMD. Back up UN resolutions. Foster Democracy. End oppression. Bring stability. Help the people. These things are not mutually exclusive.

3. Many people in many countries are opposed to the war for many different reasons. Many people support the war for many different reasons. Rallies for and against the war are a pathetic way to gauge public opinion when the are contrasted against each other. People generally don't march for a war.

4. As for polls, they offer a better impression of public feeling, but do not automatically validate the position that has 51%. For those nations that are representative democracies, it is the representatives that make the choices based upon the information they have, not the changing winds of political polls. For nations that are not representative democracies, who can say what their people think? At one point Saddam got 99% of the vote in Iraq. What if anything does that mean?

5. It is unfair and unjust to say that the US does not care about civilians. The US military has bent over backwards to prevent and lessen civilian casualties. In war there will be casualties, and there will be accidents, but to say that the US doesn't care about them is ridiculous.

6. As for WMD, there have been several finds which are in the process of being verified. Not all of them will turn out to be WMD, some of them likely will. The jury is still out on that, and given that the world is calling for independent verification by UN inspectors, who haven't gone back to Iraq yet, it really is too soon to say that nothing has been found.

7. There isn't always a better way than war, despite naive claims to the contrary. There are actually times when force is a better option. A lesson the French should have learned from hindsight in the summer of 1940.

8. As for praying that the US minds its own business, you are joined by some of history's most colorful characters: Stalin, Tojo, Kim Il Jung, Assad, Kaiser Wilhelm, Castro, Milosovic, Pol Pot, Bin Laden, etc.

 

[Stile]

Millions marching? I'm sure you could find a million Iraqis to protest the war. That would still only be 4% of their population, and it would include the people oppressing the other 20 million. Reading the numbers of protesters marching is always funny to me. They even come out with the numbers ahead of time. It reminds me of highschool football programs where every kid is listed as 2-3 inches and 30 pounds more than he actually is.

I love how the thread orignator said the US needs to keep our nose out of what doesn't concern us. Yet, the majority of the populations of the 2 countries (most) involved (US + Iraq) are for the war. Granted Iraq is just in favor of liberation, but that's the same in this instance.

Face it. The anti-war crowd failed to avert war. Yep, even with their noble methods of lying down in crosswalks and walking out of class and such. Maybe instead of concentrating on the US, they should have concentrated on Iraq. Things would have turned out differently if the world united against Iraq. He wouldn't have been so bold then. But France and the anti-war crowd had to give Saddam hope that he could get away with his brutality and terrorism. It's one of life's great ironies that he who would try to save his life, will lose it (and he who would try to stop a war would cause it).

 

[Greadius]

Originally posted by The Godfather
I'm wondering, in the international society today, is war really necessary? Maybe it sounds a bit too idealistic, but please stay with me.

A bit?

I suppose if your countries security is made up by borders defined with the blood of WW2 (you know, one of those awful wars) and ensured over 50 years by NATO (underwritten by an immoral warmongering society), you would be in a comfortable place to draw that conclusion.

You may not think war is necessary, but if your potential enemy doensn't need your agreement to make you wrong.

Originally posted by The Godfather
For instance, a friend of mine said that Nofx is right! On their new album (will be out in a month) they have a song called, "go un-american" They fill me cause they are against the war.. just like everybody else (with a clear mind)

Punk musicians are your political idols?

And whats with the 'clear mind' thing... so everyone that disagrees with your political persuasion has an 'unclear mind' (assuming that is some sort of insult).

Originally posted by The Godfather
Some people think that Bush is dumber, and that he has some good people working under him but still.. Clinton wouldnt do stuff like that!

He tried in 1998 and was thuroughly rebuked by our 'allies' and the American public who weren't interested in being pro-active at the time.

I was one of them.

Originally posted by The Godfather
There is allways a better way than to start a war.. When are you guys gonna learn.. You allways try to do stuff... but we can all see that Bin laden still is around and as far as i know Saddam is still kicking it!!

Yeah! They're living the high life!

Originally posted by The Godfather
The Americans act surprised when they find weapons over there..

We do?

Originally posted by The Godfather
Trust me if they invated you guys they would find a lot more(i mean alot more) dirt there!!

You will?

My trust in your is seriously in doubt... I'm beginning to think this is one of those "all I know about America I learned from that politically interested kid from school" posts.

Originally posted by The Godfather
I hate Saddam, and I hate Bin Laden.. and if i saw them i would probably kill them.. but the point is that the way Bush and his "brainwashed" slaves are handeling this situasion = all wrong!!

Not everyone that disagrees with you is brainwashed.

If you were an American voter, your opinion might matter.

Emphasis on might.

Originally posted by The Godfather
I pray for peace, but I also pray that Usa will keep their nose out of stuff that doesnt concern you!

Pray tell precisely how American-Iraqi policy effects YOU??? You're sitting there telling me Bush is all wrong, then in the next sentance telling the USA to mind its own business.

Little hypocracy?

 

[SGI Butch]

The Godfather said that Clinton wouldn't have done this. Well let's look at Kosovo. Clinton:

-Dropped bombs without asking congress
-Dropped bombs without UN support
-Killed just as many if not more Serb civilians then Bush

Well maybe Clinton wouldn't have done this for the following reasons:

-He was to busy f*****g around to do anything about national security.
-He wouldn't sign an order to kill Osama bin Laden because he was too "distraught" over the Monica Lewinski affair
-Too busy watching a game to sign orders to bomb key targets in Iraq
-Was trying to run the miliatary into the ground
-Too afraid to get into any miliatry action that even used US troops after Mogodishu. (Which was a victory dispite the huge loses on our side we inflicted !!severe!! casulties on them and captured key personal.)

The protesters out in the street just believe a bomb with a "D" on it is good and well meant but a bomb with a "R" on it is bad and for oil.

 

[Immortal]

heres something to do in place of war:

DANCE DANCE DANCE!

 

[SGI Butch]

How else do you end Saddam's regime or make it humane?
Would you keep flaunting UN resolutions until he gets a nuke. Would keep whining about civil rights violations until he killed all the Shi'ites and Kurds. Diplomacy only works if you back it up.

 

[Kentonio]

You just need to look at polls from various countries. About 30-35% of American are against this war. About 60% of Canadians, 95% of Turks, 70-95% of Germans, French, Russians. About 80% of British. Spain was also about 80-90%

If you are going to post polling results please at least find out what they actually are and dont just make them up yourself, it doesnt do your cause any good at all. In my own country Britain the figures from a poll held last night show that support for the war has gone from around 45% before the war to 56% currently. This is hardly 80% of the people against the war now is it.

 

[EzInKy]

The most important people to convince to be against a war are the ones who favor it, unless of course you are willing to go to war yourself to stop them.

 

[MrPresident]

The most important people to convince to be against a war are the ones who favor it

I would have thought the most important people to convince are those with the means to commit war.

 

[EzInKy]

Originally posted by MrPresident

I would have thought the most important people to convince are those with the means to commit war.

That's what I tried to say, but you're right. I should've have added "and have the ability to wage it".

 

[HighlandWarrior]

Originally posted by The Godfather
I'm wondering, in the international society today, is war really necessary? Maybe it sounds a bit too idealistic, but please stay with me.


yes you're way too idealistic


For instance, a friend of mine said that Nofx is right! On their new album (will be out in a month) they have a song called, "go un-american" They fill me cause they are against the war.. just like everybody else (with a clear mind) .


So everyone who supports the overthrow of a dictator that kills his own people, puts children in prison because they will not join the saddam version of hitler youth, has chemical and biological weapons, has terrorist camps in his country Does not have a clear mind?


Some people think that Bush is dumber, and that he has some good people working under him but still.. Clinton wouldnt do stuff like that!

Clinton bombed the hell out of serbia, how many Innocents did he kill? i'd bet he killed 10times more.



There is allways a better way than to start a war.. When are you guys gonna learn.. You allways try to do stuff... but we can all see that Bin laden still is around and as far as i know Saddam is still kicking it!!

The Americans act surprised when they find weapons over there.. Trust me if they invated you guys they would find a lot more(i mean alot more) dirt there!! I hate Saddam, and I hate Bin Laden.. and if i saw them i would probably kill them.. but the point is that the way Bush and his "brainwashed" slaves are handeling this situasion = all wrong!!


How are they brainwashed? if they were slaves they wouldnt need to be brainwashed, they'd do as they were told or get their foot chopped off.


I pray for peace, but I also pray that Usa will keep their nose out of stuff that doesnt concern you!


Were you praying for peace when your people killed mousollini(excuse the spelling)?

Besides the war I love americans, so dont think im a hater, im on your side, just dont agree on the way you guys are solving this!!

 

[Jeratain]

Originally posted by SGI Butch
Well maybe Clinton wouldn't have done this for the following reasons:

-He was to busy f*****g around to do anything about national security.

Sure

-He wouldn't sign an order to kill Osama bin Laden because he was too "distraught" over the Monica Lewinski affair

This deserves another You can put just as much blame on the CIA for this.

-Too busy watching a game to sign orders to bomb key targets in Iraq

Even though we were actively bombing targets there and Clinton even pushed for action in Iraq. Let me add:

-Was trying to run the miliatary into the ground

The protesters out in the street just believe a bomb with a "D" on it is good and well meant but a bomb with a "R" on it is bad and for oil.

Your comparisons are horrible. It's not a simple black and white deal here. There is so much more behind Kosovo and Iraq. However it serves no purpose to even touch on these since you will just think that "Clinton was too busy getting a Lewinsky."

 

[Greadius]

No need to get upset Jeratain... some people will always put partisanship first... even in the time of conflict. I hear they're not very patriotic.

 

[Jeratain]

Originally posted by Greadius
No need to get upset Jeratain... some people will always put partisanship first... even in the time of conflict. I hear they're not very patriotic.

So true, so true. I must admit, even I fall into that category at times.

 

[RedWolf]

Originally posted by SunTzu
In your opinion and opinions vary, why dont u ask the people who really matter, the Free Iraqi's, ask them what they think, maybe you should've talked to the free iraqi's living outside of Iraq before the war, those are the opinions that matter, not the opinions of people who don't even live with what they live or lived with

This is coming from a person who probably truly believes that CNN doesn't have a pro-war bias and that they actually show BOTH sides of the story.

I read an article today about a battle sit in baghdad in which 20 civilian corpes littered the streets including women and children.
Charred corpes laying under cars and children's bodies covered in sheets on the sides of the streets. One family incinerated in a truck blast - an entire family actually. One Iraqi man at the scene said "If the price of freedom is this, we don't want it".

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20030410/wl_mideast_afp/iraq_war_baghdad_bodies_030410145215

Check out the photo of the man who lost his children to coalition bombing.

I saw the other day a young boy who was severely burned and had lost both arms. A 6 month old baby yesterday with shrapnel wounds.

Do THESE people think think that the price was worth it? I doubt it. I would be willing to bet that the people dancing in the streets for the Americans probably aren't the same people who lost loved ones or had children horribly maimed by the bombing. Of course in CNN's world everybody in Iraq thinks this is the happiest time of their lives.

Do I have any idea what war is REALLY like? No of course not. I've never been there and hope i never will. But do YOU? No - you have even less concept of it than I do. You think war is a game - a party that should be celebrated and cheered like a baseball game.

Even your tag line is juvenile and disgusting:

GOD BLESS OUR SOLDIERS! BOYCOTT THE FRENCH! BOMB BAGHDAD!

You're actually encouraging and glorifying the bombing of a civilian population. Quite frankly your opinions aren't even worth reading let alone listening too.

 

[RedWolf]

Originally posted by knowltok2
1. The absense of war is not always peace.

2. Some people need to get over this absolutist thinking that if the US says it wants to help oppressed Iraqis that that has to be the only reason, and or that that has to translate to every other tin-pot dictator and oppressed people on the planet. News flash, the world doesn't work that way.

Why is it so inconcievable that the US can have more than one motive for going into Iraq? Eliminate threat. Secure WMD. Back up UN resolutions. Foster Democracy. End oppression. Bring stability. Help the people.

Control of a large percentage of the world's strategic energy reserves.

 

[Kentonio]

So lets sod the opinions of all the people over there whose loved ones have been tortured, raped, murdered and so on by this vivious regime for the last few decades so you dont have to see pictures of injured children on your tv Redwolf. It seems every post you make is about how wrong it is for the coalition to be at war, and ranting about the human loss, well i'd have a hell of a lot more respect for you if you had spend your time here before the war complaining about the human loss of the people there under the Hussain regime.

But no, of course its only bad when we are doing it. You are exactly the kind of person ive heard many Iraqi people criticizing as stupid idealists who havnt got a clue what they are talking about. I'll refer your posts to a few of them, might give them a laugh at least.

 

[RedWolf]

Originally posted by Kentonio
So lets sod the opinions of all the people over there whose loved ones have been tortured, raped, murdered and so on by this vivious regime for the last few decades so you dont have to see pictures of injured children on your tv Redwolf. It seems every post you make is about how wrong it is for the coalition to be at war, and ranting about the human loss, well i'd have a hell of a lot more respect for you if you had spend your time here before the war complaining about the human loss of the people there under the Hussain regime.

But no, of course its only bad when we are doing it. You are exactly the kind of person ive heard many Iraqi people criticizing as stupid idealists who havnt got a clue what they are talking about. I'll refer your posts to a few of them, might give them a laugh at least.

Yes - I'm a "stupid" idealist all right. Yet a large percentage of American's have been brainwashed into believing that somehow Saddam Hussien was responsible for September 11th. Never mind that there isn't a shred of evidence for this - other than Powell shamelessly holding up Bin Ladin's last tape (in which he tells Iraqi Muslims to fight Americans) as proof that Al Queda and Saddam are somehow in cahoots.

Maybe not you - maybe not others on this forum - but don't fool yourself - A large percentage of American support for this conflict comes from this. THOSE people are stupid and simple minded if you ask me.

Have i ever said that war is bad ONLY when WE do it? NO. Of course Saddam's an animal... I don't come on here talking about THAT because I figure everybody already knows it.

The thing you fail to understand is that there can be TWO wrong sides to a story - not just a hollywood "good vs evil" or "black against white". I can see two wrongs in a situation - Saddam's regime AND the Americans that drop bombs on a civilian center to "liberate" them. Just because one side is wrong doesn't mean that the other side by default has to be good.

As for calling Saddam Hussien an animal - animals come in many forms. Saddam is obviously a brutal dictator - this much is clear. However cruelty can also exist in much subtler forms. A president which wages war for control of oil is also an animal in my opinion - a person with no human emotions - no soul. A sociopath even.

Coalition air crew that sit in a breifing room and hoot, cheer and hollar with joy as they watch "shock and awe" on a video screen being unleashed on a civilian center - oblivious to the human death and suffering could also fit the description.

We'll see how long the Iraqi's are "free". We'll see how long it is before the American puppet regime takes over. They didn't spend BILLIONS of dollars and 130 allied lives to just hand the country back over to the Iraqi people. What would be the point? So you can BUY oil? No. You could BUY oil from the Saudis or the Kuwaitis... It's about CONTROL of oil which only happens of course when the leader is somebody YOU choose - somebody with close ties to YOUR government. Anti-war people ask "why this dictatorship and not others?" Pro-war people answer "Just because we don't attack other dictators doesn't mean that this isn't justified". This may be true.. but the point is - "Why was THIS dictator chosen over others?". You don't go to all this effort and expense for nothing. There are no free lunches in this world and "liberation" is no exception. You don't fight wars to free people out of the goodness of your heart.

I hear that Rumsfield and Powell are feuding now - Powell believes that Iraq should be run by Iraqi's. Rumsfield believes that an "interim" government should be created - and that an Iraqi exile would be MORE qualified to run the place because he's lived in the west. What does THAT mean? He's lived in the west and therefore more familiar with western capitalism and globalization? He's lived in the west and therefore has close political connections with the Whitehouse and oil companies? We all know that the Iraqi people won't be qualified to run their own show because they may just not allow the American's to loot and plunder their most valuable resource.