TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- The true objective of the war
Pages (2): « 1 [2]

quote:

Originally posted by sifntj0r 'so we don't know if the American troops are butchering the Iraqis en masse like on the Basra Highway Of Death in 1991.' <- well shit, i'm sure the reporters embbeded with the invasion force (3rd infantry division?) would report something like that, dont you? and i seriously fucking doubt the fact that coalition troops would mercilessly slaughter iraqi troops.

Well, I don't know what those reporters are allowed to videotape and report on, and are they being kept out of the loop in certain situations, but I am sure that people in charge of CNN would definitelly censor a material that would show US marines slaughtering iraqi troops and would probably make those tapes dissapear for good.

But hey, what do I know...

Vesa i agree with you 100%...The two main motives that bush keeps on saying on tv are..1-Free iraq: well well u pretty covered this area in ur posts and i would like to add as the war drags on many lives are lost and there wont many be left too save...and the second one is to prevent terrorism..well this war seem to be encouraging terrorism..US hatred is way high..everyone hates the US now and so an attack on the US overseas is highly likely now more than ever.. i dont think an american can travel anywhere right now..so those main reasons for the war fail big time..on the other hand we have bush popularity stock market at a 20 year high..people not thinking of economic difficulty any more..i dont know how people still support this war..Tiesto14 if u reading this the part of this war to prevent future terrorist attcks fails misrabley..u are under more threat now than ever.

Spice controls the empire, whoever controls the empire controls the Spice.

The Spice must flow ..

quote:

Originally posted by sifntj0r 'so we don't know if the American troops are butchering the Iraqis en masse like on the Basra Highway Of Death in 1991.'

Yes renegade posted on the validity of the Highway of death in 1991. Did you even reply to it all? Apparentely not since I never saw your input on the matter. As such I recommend reading the response to that argument and replying to that before you keep bringing up the issue a hundred times, otherwise I'll keep posting my reply a 100 times until I get a proper response, much to the irritation of others I'm sure.

quote:

Originally posted by tranceaholic the second one is to prevent terrorism..well this war seem to be encouraging terrorism..US hatred is way high..everyone hates the US now and so an attack on the US overseas is highly likely now more than ever.. i dont think an american can travel anywhere right now..so those main reasons for the war fail big time..on the other hand we have bush popularity stock market at a 20 year high..people not thinking of economic difficulty any more..i dont know how people still support this war..Tiesto14 if u reading this the part of this war to prevent future terrorist attcks fails misrabley..u are under more threat now than ever.

I kind of agree and kind of disagree with you tranceaholic. I agree with you in the sense that there will likely be a large amount of anti-American sentiment as a result of this conflict. On the same level though, the number of governments that are anti-American will decrease in the long run. This out of fear of american military attack. Thus the number of terrorist strikes, the logistics behind them, and capabilities will be relatively poor. I'm not advocating this war as a means to achieve these results, I'm just commenting on what will probably happen.

quote:

Here are people's answers as to why Iraq is an issue now and never before. We now know that Rumsfeld, Perle, and Wolfowitz always felt strongly about the issue so it should come as no surprise now that the upper levels of US government feel the need to take action now.

Occrider:

If Rumsfeld and co wanted to invade Iraq 5 years ago, why should we believe that they had any intention of solving this issue diplomatically this time around?

It you take an objective look at the diplmatic process preceding the war this time around, you can't honestly tell me that the US were ever going to settle for anything less than war? Look at what is said:

quote:

We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world.

quote:

American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council.

Like Vesa said, there is a "fundamentalism" about this policy (not necessarily just religious - I'm thinking primarily ideological and political here) that dictates that America's position is correct, and it is important that nations such as Iraq are brought in line. Given this self-apparent righteousness in US policy, they also have no responsibility to heed the opinion of the rest of the world, represented by the UN (is it any wonder the UN discussions were derailed when that is the attitude that Bush's key advisers hold?).

Then, secondly, two of the major reasons for this war currently propogated by the Bush administration are:

1) The plight of the Iraqi civilians
2) The threat of terrorism

With regards to the first issue, why should we expect that Rumsfeld and co are concerned enough about the Iraqi citizens now to spend $100 billion or more on liberating them, when their plight is not mentioned in this case for war here? Behind the scenes, I very much doubt that Iraqi citizens have been factored into the equation and have only been raised to garner public opinion. Fact is, I'm not sure if the US know whether their occupation of Iraq is going to be taken well by the Iraqi citizens (as one Arab-American reporter put it "The only person that Iraqis hate more than Saddam Hussein is George Bush" and I doubt that the carpet bombing of Iraqs two most major cities is going to change that) and given the abscense of their mention here, I'm not sure the US care either.

Secondly, this letter clearly shows that even before terrorism was an issue, it was a well held perspective in the Republican Party that Iraq needed to be occupied regardless. In this post September 11 world though - even though there is no real evidence supporting this assertion - the Bush administration were just able to tack the threat that Iraq poses to the US via terrorism to better sell it to the public. This desire for war was - as evidenced here - set in motion long before September 11th, but the events of this day merely gave the administration the impetus it needed to convert this desire into action.

By the way, no, I'm not a conspiracy theorist. What I'm saying here is just speculation by the way (that is, I'm not necessarily suggesting that I believe that all of what I'm saying is irrefutably true) but I think that the fact that this war was first planned at least 5 years ago - before all this other weak, subsidiary justification was sold to the indiscriminate public - brings into question the real motives. For me, I believe that Weapons of Mass Destruction are one of the main reasons, and the "secur[ing of] the interests of the US" (via the forceful removal of a man who is against the US, and the implementation of a man who is pro-US) is a main reason as well.

I'm way too tired (and hungover ) get further into this, but I may pick it up later on.

quote:

Originally posted by dEsidEL Spice controls the empire, whoever controls the empire controls the Spice. The Spice must flow ..

The spice belongs to house Atradies and well fight with the sand worm to keep it so F U!

Vesa, congrats on taking the heat (immaturity on the account of others) and not making a big deal out of it.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider On the same level though, the number of governments that are anti-American will decrease in the long run. This out of fear of american military attack.

This kind of "peace" is, in my opinion, not to be desired - a government that is pro-American - or at least not anti-American - is really a submissive government in that it fears American Military Might. See below.

[Now turning to the general matter]

I think this will (and is) cause tensions worldwide, tensions springing from the conflict between government and populace. For example, the government Spain, whose country is included in the "coalition of the willing," supports the US, even though its people (the Spanish people) were and are staging some of the heaviest anti-war protests and anti-American sentiments in Europe. I think the result of this can potentially be massive civil unrest in Spain, leading to chaos of some sort or other. If you have the body of a country leaning one way (the people), and the head leaning another (the government), something is bound to tear and break.

Similarly, we're seeing the same kind of tensions in Britain, with Blair's very own political future in serious doubt - something that would have been unthinkable a few months ago. Not to mention the resigning (and threat of resigning) of Blair's own people in government over this entire matter.

And now with the reports of friendly fire - namely an American Patriot missile downing a British warplane - this will only add fuel to the fire in Britain. I can imagine the people thinking and saying things along the lines of: "We don't want this war (which they don't) and our American comrades are even shooting us down? How stupid is Blair? Why are we doing this?"

Ergo dissension and civil unrest in Britain. With "coalition forces" meeting appreciable (not sure if I want to call it 'heavy' just yet) resistance in Iraq, we are now hearing Bush saying that the war might last longer than expected (isn't this what everyone else was saying from the outset?), and that the American people should be expecting casualties. (no military campaign is perfect...)

With the war dragging on, the tensions in the countries I've mentioned might potentially come to a critical red zone, and it will be pretty interesting to see what will happen then.

I'm sure that, barring a sudden American/British victory in Iraq, Blair's head will certainly roll. (figuratively, not literally)

quote:

Originally posted by Mental Exodus The spice belongs to house Atradies and well fight with the sand worm to keep it so F U!

lol! If you go beyond the first Dune book, you will see that it doesn't exactly stay that way...

quote:

Originally posted by Alccode lol! If you go beyond the first Dune book, you will see that it doesn't exactly stay that way...

HOW DARE U INSULT HOUSE ATRADIES!!!!
MY GIANT SAND WORM MAKES HOUSE CALLS SO U BETTER WATCH OUT!!!!!

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade Secondly, this letter clearly shows that even before terrorism was an issue, it was a well held perspective in the Republican Party that Iraq needed to be occupied regardless. In this post September 11 world though - even though there is no real evidence supporting this assertion - the Bush administration were just able to tack the threat that Iraq poses to the US via terrorism to better sell it to the public. This desire for war was - as evidenced here - set in motion long before September 11th, but the events of this day merely gave the administration the impetus it needed to convert this desire into action.

Which reminds me of the World War I, where Austria wanted to attack Yugoslavia, but couldn't really come up with a good excuse until my boys took out the Austrian Prince or whatever he was... same issue here, with Iraq.

quote:

Originally posted by dEsidEL Spice controls the empire, whoever controls the empire controls the Spice. The Spice must flow ..

The Spice expands consciousness....

the spice is vital for space travel.

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 the spice is vital for space travel.

Also for interesting blue eyes

quote:

Originally posted by Vesa So, pro-war dudes, you are in the wrong war!!!

You are a very wise man. It all makes sense now. The pro-war and anti-war supporters have been getting into so many heated debates, not because they are different species (which is what it almost started to look like), but because they're on entirely different wavelengths.

quote:

All this has made me an Anti-War supporter. But if I was a pro-war supporter, I would urgently want Bush to fire Perle, Wolfowitz & co. because they make it much harder to get any beneficial results from the war. More specifically, the Americans should now leave the Iraqi cities alone, secure the most important strategical areas inside Iraq, start to search for WMD in the desert, bring the UN inspectors back, make a truce with Saddam to get WMD inspections and humanitarian aid started in the cities, and let Iraqis overthrow Saddam at their own pace. I simply can't see how it would benefit Bush to attack the cities with tens of thousands casualties, and put the American troops vulnerable to the ensuing guerilla warfare from the entire Iraqi population. Giving Baathists a false last chance would make them comply like never before, and the relieved Iraqi civilians might easily skip the guerilla war because a truce is better than bombings. Of course, the US would assassinate Saddam when they have destroyed the WMD, and are ready to leave.

^^^
Haha, good joke, this would only happen in your fantasy dreamland.


--
Vesa, this has been arguably, the wisest and most insightful post I've read yet in this Political Forum. Rarely do I see someone look at both sides of the issue (scenario 1 & 2), distinguish between them, and THEN show his ideas from the OTHER perspective.

Your scenario 2 is very probing and sheds a lot of light. Somehow it lacks the conspiracy theory feel, which is a very good thing.

My proverbial hat goes off to you!

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.