TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Iraq
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

Iraq

I thought it was time for another thread about iraq. this time, i would like an answer to the question, why attack iraq? unfortunately, i think that the question has already been answered.

america will go to war with iraq, it is a certainty i am loathe to admit. the troops are in Qatar, the battleships are ready in the gulf, and the american public is stoked for blood they were denied from the failed manhunt for osama. it doesn't matter whether saddamn surrenders his daughters to be white house interns, the war will occur, because G dubya wants it to. or more specifically, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleeza Rice, and other legacies of bush senior want it to, so it will happen.

There are no credible links between al-qaeda and saddam hussein. in fact, saddamn hussein and the ba'ath party have always been very secular, and would be firmly against any sort of muslim sharia. despite all efforts to link saddamn to terrorism, he is not a terrorist, certainly not in the sens that al-qaeda is. Now, you say he is a terrorist in his own country, and i will agree. He has tortued and killed many iraqis, and he is in that sense a "terrorist" in that he strikes terror in peoples hearts. however, arguably so is GB, with his opression of his own fellow americans, and his brutally murderous foreign policies around the globe. as i say on my site, i am les afraid of the man who might have a gun, than the one who i know has all the guns, and is not afraid to use them on innocents who get in his way.

This is a matter for the UN to solve, pure and simple. The US deserves no more special position than canada, france, china, or any other nation in ensuring that iraq does not have WOMD. why does the UN turn a blind eye to other nations having WOMD? because the UN is manipulated strongly by the US, and right now the US has put the focus on iraq, and not, say for example on massive human rights violation in east timor.

I personally do not support going to war with iraq over whatever weapons of mass distruction they may or may not have. I mean really, its not like we have any less weapons, and if you look at history the U.S is the only country to ever use a weapon of mass distruction. The war is all about Bush's ego, and his misguided idea that all muslim people he doesnt like are related to al-quaeda.

imperialism - n. the extension by one country of its authority over other lands by political, military or economic means


It�s necessary to obtain an accurate evaluation of the real relationship of forces in the world today. The United States possesses a power of destruction unique in history. Its vast arsenal is constantly expanding, based on a wide range of different technologies, from nuclear weapons to biochemical and germ warfare capabilities. In the Middle East, its closest ally, Israel, is by far the strongest military power. Furthermore, the military and economic power of the United States is accompanied and promoted by another unprecedented advantage: a global supremacy in means of information and propaganda.


U.S. domination of the world's news media and entertainment industry has shaped public perceptions of the United States as an essentially beneficent power, eager only to share its domestic happiness with less fortunate countries. Its chosen adversaries are portrayed as villains who enjoy doing evil for its own sake. The U.S. propaganda machine is so powerful that it promotes the absurd idea that Iraq threatens the United States. Since September 11, Americans have been given a new identity as victims, which can be used to justify endless retaliation.

the deadline is february 17th to go to war with iraq. this is because they would have enough time before the next ramadan or whatever bullshit reason the pentagon invents.

fuck even if saddam bends over and ask to be butt fucked (he aleady bent over) they will destroy the whole country and anyone living there...

btw the US isn't the only country that used weapons of mass destruction, Irak did so with the kurds, iran and irak used them on each other, the US used orange agent on vietnam, the list goes on... oh yeah who helped saddam building his arsenal ??? i let you do the research

rigth now im kinda too lazy to get into the true technicallities of why war on iraq is justified ill just present my personal views as to why i want a regime change in iraq (and this has nothing to do with the US's or Bush's view)

although admittedtly evidence of Saddam's direct connections to al-qaeda are scarce at best, i still would be surprised if he wasnt in any way at least connented to terrorism outside of his own borders.
one reason why i would like to see saddam ousted (and seems like war is the only way) is his contribution and encourgement of palestinian terrorism agianst israel. need proof? http://www.idf.il/newsite/english/1225-3.stm
personally, this is enough reason, for me, to want the man dead as i would equate him to any other terrorist organization leader, which agian i have no sympath for.
another reason and this agian is on a purely personal agenda, i would like to see the regime ousted in order to set up the first true democracy in an arab country that would be based on the prinicples similar to that of the US constitution (freedom of speech, freedom from discrimination... yadda yadda).
lastly based on past history and the lack of change to this date i feel that Saddam is a threat to the internationl community.

arabs are too proud of themselves and they don't need the USA to remove the dictators from their place , the revolution will come one day and let it come alone

quote:

Originally posted by Izzy although admittedtly evidence of Saddam's direct connections to al-qaeda are scarce at best, i still would be surprised if he wasnt in any way at least connented to terrorism outside of his own borders.

I know there is pretty good evidence that he funds terrorists outside his borders, I think I remember him admiting it at one time or another.

quote:

Originally posted by fastmp3 arabs are too proud of themselves and they don't need the USA to remove the dictators from their place , the revolution will come one day and let it come alone

i dont know most of what i've been seeing is revolutions supporting more fanitical leadership each time... the revolution in iran, the taliban coming to power, the sultans of saudia... i see often on the news riots supporting the religious leaders and threatening the US and Israel, for that matter the entire western way of life. i've yet to hear about a decent uprising in the mid-east that opposes their dictators or the highjacking of islam by the fantical extremists (though i have heard of the students in iran trying to start a democracy, and morroco is a great example of progressing forward). maybe the ones who are the loudest are really the minority but they are doing a good job of running all over the passive majority.

that and im also impatient

quote:

Originally posted by Izzy i dont know most of what i've been seeing is revolutions supporting more fanitical leadership each time... the revolution in iran, the taliban coming to power, the sultans of saudia...[quote] iran : the shah was replaced by an islamic dictatorship afghanistan : did talibans win elections or something like that ? once they had the power was there any sight of democracy ? saudi arabia : the ben saoud family has the power for decades , there has been no changement [quote]i see often on the news riots supporting the religious leaders and threatening the US and Israel, for that matter the entire western way of life.

yeah there are a lot of rising groups preaching the destruction of the us and israel as the solution to all the problems in the muslim and arab world , they have a lot of success due to the fact that palestinian brothers are still gettin' massacred , but trust me once the israel-palestine problem is solved and the US keeps it's nose out of the middle-east (or at least take no side in resolving the conflict) these groups will blow out like a candle in the wind. unlike the legend spreading out , arabs are not basically hating persons , but don't mess with them

quote:

i've yet to hear about a decent uprising in the mid-east that opposes their dictators or the highjacking of islam by the fantical extremists (though i have heard of the students in iran trying to start a democracy, and morroco is a great example of progressing forward). maybe the ones who are the loudest are really the minority but they are doing a good job of running all over the passive majority.

what you said is true , this is how the arabic society (at least this is how i see it in north africa , please don't take consider UAE koweit and other richer countries) is composed (very sad) : 1% of the government and rich people , 98% of people i would call "sheaps or lambs" they're too poor and too opressed to think about anything else than themselves , if they open their mouth they get beat up by cops , 1% of the good minority composed by middle-class persons but they don't get any support unfortunately

to you morocco is a great exemple of progressing cuz we're the biggest US suck ups in the arab and muslim world we say that the prime minister of morocco is the local us ambassador , of the french one after all we're the first country in the world to recognize the USA (but that's just to bother england who started to have some interests in morocco and thinking to invade us like spain and portugal back in the time) comparing to our friendly neighbours , we're no doubt the most democratic country even tho it's the king who decides everything , but we still need to take some lessons in democracy

quote:

Originally posted by fastmp3 yeah there are a lot of rising groups preaching the destruction of the us and israel as the solution to all the problems in the muslim and arab world , they have a lot of success due to the fact that palestinian brothers are still gettin' massacred , but trust me once the israel-palestine problem is solved and the US keeps it's nose out of the middle-east (or at least take no side in resolving the conflict) these groups will blow out like a candle in the wind. unlike the legend spreading out ...

see this is where i will have to cordially disagree. i belive that the people in most arab countries that live under dictatorships are brainwashed to belive there problems lay outside that of the governments. the government makes the people belive that its an outside forces fault that they are poor when in reality it is their own government that is the cause of there opression and poverty. i seriously belive that if america just left its hands out of the matters of the mid-east and the palestinians gain a full country and peace with israel that there will still be radical fanatics controling and ruling what people think, they will find a new cause for the problems the arabs are having. btw i still cant see how the palestinian struggle has any affect on a poor arab in yemen, oman, or any other arab country, its not like israel is occupying/opressing other arab nations. arab nations must look within to solve there own problems before tackling those that come from the outside.

This is the Third time that the United States has unsuccessfully tried to attck the government of Iraq. To me.. i think President Bush is on a power trip... and can basically be labelled as a state terrorist. During the firt Gulf war.. over one million people died.. most of them innocents on the Iraqi side...and unfortunately... i think more bloodshed will occur in the forthcoming war.

quote:

Originally posted by Cyrus King To me.. i think President Bush is on a power trip... and can basically be labelled as a state terrorist.

well i guess your definition of terrorism is different then mine. what constitutes someone or some entity as being a terrorist? for me its simple. one who INTENTIONALLY aids, contributes or commits killing of innocent civilians in order to achieve a goal of some sort. until you prove to me that Bush's intention are to kill iraq civilians then i refuse to brand him a terrorist. A bully, a hawk yes i will accpet but not a terrorist. sadly saddam falls into my defintion of a terrorist

quote:

Originally posted by Izzy well i guess your definition of terrorism is different then mine. what constitutes someone or some entity as being a terrorist? for me its simple. one who INTENTIONALLY aids, contributes or commits killing of innocent civilians in order to achieve a goal of some sort. until you prove to me that Bush's intention are to kill iraq civilians then i refuse to brand him a terrorist. A bully, a hawk yes i will accpet but not a terrorist. sadly saddam falls into my defintion of a terrorist

To me... bush's intentions are to rid Hussein.. and in the process of doing this.... he will kill millions and he knows this.... i think that is being a terrorist. He will do his job in TERRORIZING the Iraqi civilians.

quote:

Originally posted by Cyrus King To me... bush's intentions are to rid Hussein.. and in the process of doing this.... he will kill millions and he knows this.... i think that is being a terrorist. He will do his job in TERRORIZING the Iraqi civilians.

cool, at least now i know why you think that way

by the way usually in every war civilians are killed does that make every head of state that goes to war a terrorist?

you said bush will end up "killing millions and he knows it" at what number of civilians killed do you become a terrorist? how does Bush know he will kill millions of civilians? i think in all actuallity civilian deaths will be in the about 10% of that, but even i dont know....

I really doubt that if US overthrows Saddam that there'll be a democratic change in Iraq. Every time except the intervention in Afghanistan, american involvment in middle eastern affairs led to a more strict and religious government. The only interest of the US is to have a country whose regime will be on good terms with the US, regardless of its democracy level. Good example for that is Saudi Arabia. They have very strict islamic society, people hate the US, but the government's international policy is to support US whenever necesarry. Besides, continual US interventions in middle east make people less favorable towards the US, so the intervention results might turn up into opposite of what was to be expected of it.
If the US supported liberal oppositions, or at least didn't get involved at all, middle east would now be a very prosperous place to live in.

quote:

i seriously belive that if america just left its hands out of the matters of the mid-east and the palestinians gain a full country and peace with israel that there will still be radical fanatics controling and ruling what people think, they will find a new cause for the problems the arabs are having. btw i still cant see how the palestinian struggle has any affect on a poor arab in yemen, oman, or any other arab country, its not like israel is occupying/opressing other arab nations

There will be radical fanatics, there always are, but not as much. The real problem is that they won't let go so easily, even if people there change. But with a little help from the outside, this time supporting liberal options, that can be changed as well.
And about the second part of your post, would it affect you if some country started killing jews? Of course it would. You don't have to be directly involved to be affected. Mind here that I just made an example, don't take litteraly that I think Israelis go around killing innocent arabs.

quote:

how does Bush know he will kill millions of civilians? i think in all actuallity civilian deaths will be in the about 10% of that, but even i dont know....

He doesn't know, but he can assume.
Oh, so hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths are ok then? That's about 10% of Iraqi population and I doubt Saddam would ever kill that much.

quote:

Originally posted by Cyrus King To me... bush's intentions are to rid Hussein.. and in the process of doing this.... he will kill millions and he knows this.... i think that is being a terrorist. He will do his job in TERRORIZING the Iraqi civilians.

So many civilians will only die because the government of Iraq is without honor. They will use civilians as human shields to serve the dual goals of protecting their fortifications and fueling their disgracefully effective propaganda engine in a childish endeavor to deflect responsibility for their choices onto the United States, but in reality it is their dishonorable tactics which are the primary cause of such massive civilian casualties.

As usual, however, the vast majority of the international community will be taken in by this simple-minded ruse, and place the blame for the deaths of those civilans squarely on the shoulders of the United States. But regardless of who we choose to scapegoat for such tragedies, the true source of these deaths is the same evil we are criticized for trying to purge.

Sure, you can make plenty of excuses for them - such tactics are the only way they can fight back against a country with the power of the U.S., numerous civilians are bound to die anyway, etc. But that's all they are - excuses.

Iraq has the power to minimize civilian casualties. It's their government's decision how many of their people must die. The very fact that they would choose to have so many die is the reason that this war ought to be fought, although I fear the U.S. government is only prepared to fight a small part of the battle it would take to truly bring liberty to Iraq, and if so, it will accomplish nothing.

quote:

Originally posted by Izzy arab nations must look within to solve there own problems before tackling those that come from the outside.

therefore please tell the US to stick their nose out first then we will solve our problems by our own.

by attacking Iraq the USA is helping the raise of the radical and extremists groups , imagine the arab world lead in every country by extremists preaching the war against israel ?

USA & Isreal are lucky to have those suck up puppies who's do anything even kill their own people just for a little commercial partnership with the US.

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 He doesn't know, but he can assume. Oh, so hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths are ok then? That's about 10% of Iraqi population and I doubt Saddam would ever kill that much.

oops i meant more along the lines of tens of thousands if that, but then agian since saddam has in the past lauched scuds at israeli civilian targets and the possibility of them being warheaded with chem/bio then maybe it might be more catastrophic.

quote:

And about the second part of your post, would it affect you if some country started killing jews? Of course it would.

well i would analyze the situation, just because they are jewish means i will support them... if they are innocent then yes that would affect me. i just hope that the other arabs see the conflict for what it is and not for what some religious cleric has told them is the truth

quote:

I really doubt that if US overthrows Saddam that there'll be a democratic change in Iraq.

possibly, i dont know for sure, no one can predict the future. however i was stating that as something i would like to see... my views dont have to reflect those of the US

nice post arbiter

quote:

Originally posted by fastmp3 therefore please tell the US to stick their nose out first then we will solve our problems by our own.

im sorry i belive america even though it may not be the prime mover still hopes for better lives in the mid-east (as it does for everywhere in the world) and are truly trying to help, i want to see the arabs helping themselves regardless of the US.

quote:

by attacking Iraq the USA is helping the raise of the radical and extremists groups , imagine the arab world lead in every country by extremists preaching the war against israel ?

see this is what im saying sucks, why is there no opposition in arab society to fanatisism. saddam is a brutal dictator, why doesnt the world see at least a little decency in america trying to remove him. if it cause more radicals to rise why cant there be an opposing voice to qual this by saying this is for the better?

quote:

Originally posted by Izzy see this is what im saying sucks, why is there no opposition in arab society to fanatisism. saddam is a brutal dictator, why doesnt the world see at least a little decency in america trying to remove him. if it cause more radicals to rise why cant there be an opposing voice to qual this by saying this is for the better?

cuz we don't trust the usa anymore who's gonna put another suck up to lead irak

quote:

So many civilians will only die because the government of Iraq is without honor. They will use civilians as human shields to serve the dual goals of protecting their fortifications and fueling their disgracefully effective propaganda engine in a childish endeavor to deflect responsibility for their choices onto the United States, but in reality it is their dishonorable tactics which are the primary cause of such massive civilian casualties.

Nobody is forcing those civilians to do that, and same thing happens in every country in that position, in Serbia for example, people were standing on bridges during nato bombings. If they want to risk their lives, it's their choice.

quote:

i just hope that the other arabs see the conflict for what it is and not for what some religious cleric has told them is the truth

Unfortunately that is not the case. And in many cases it is so because of the US interventions.

quote:

im sorry i belive america even though it may not be the prime mover still hopes for better lives in the mid-east (as it does for everywhere in the world) and are truly trying to help

American people probably yes, but american government probably no.

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 And in many cases it is so because of the US interventions.

im going to do a little research about this when i get a little less lazy. i feel this excuse has been giving too much strength. thinking about it rationally US has intervened a few times in history and just in a few of the countries but not to the extent people make it out to be. The US has intervened all over the world and more so in parts outside the mid-east and there isnt the same problem of religious fanatisism and terror as there is in the mid-east. which makes you conclude that it isnt becuase of US intervention that we have these problems (although it may play a part). people have to differentiate between diplomacy and intervention, there is a big diffence. anyways maybe ill open a thread specifically about US intervention on a historic point of view some day and show that it really isnt that drastic, especially compared it's intervention else where in the world.

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 Nobody is forcing those civilians to do that, and same thing happens in every country in that position, in Serbia for example, people were standing on bridges during nato bombings. If they want to risk their lives, it's their choice.

Hussein intentionally constructs military installments and weapons depots in areas of extreme population density for the sole and exclusive purpose of forcing the United States to choose between killing civilians and not destroying the infrastructure of his armed forces. In many cases, most of the civilians are not even aware that these tactical military targets are located only a few buildings down from their homes.

This is not a case of civilians choosing to risk their lives, this is a case of civilians being used as human shields, either without their knowledge, or because they don't have the money or the willingness to relocate their entire familities every time Hussein decides to construct a new military facility in their neighborhood. While some civilians would no doubt risk their lives on their own accord, the Iraqi regime doesn't give people that choice. This is a ridiculous and inhumane tactic by the Iraqi regime designed to solely to villify the United States.

The blood of those civilians is not on the hands of the United States for carrying out a just war to rid the world of an oppressor and a tyrant. The blood of those civilians is on the hands of the Iraqi government, and the governments of other countries which encourage such barbarous tactics by demonstrating their effectiveness by allowing them to cloud political discussion about the virtues of such a war.

If other nations didn't sympathize with Iraq as a direct result of Iraq using such degenerate tactics, then Iraq would have no reason to use such tactics. So while it may be conveniently self-righteous for other governments around the world to blame those deaths on the United States, in reality they themselves are far more to blame.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter So many civilians will only die because the government of Iraq is without honor. They will use civilians as human shields to serve the dual goals of protecting their fortifications and fueling their disgracefully effective propaganda engine in a childish endeavor to deflect responsibility for their choices onto the United States, but in reality it is their dishonorable tactics which are the primary cause of such massive civilian casualties.

LOOOOOOOOL....Do you recall the Icubater Baby incident concocted by the US government and the Kuwaiti embassodors daughter? Now that was a "Disgracefully effective propaganda engine" that helped the public support the invasion of iraq in 91. We also shouldnt forget the mis-inforamtion campaigns and the false satellite pictures the US mediated to instill anger in the American public and encourage a war.

quote:

As usual, however, the vast majority of the international community will be taken in by this simple-minded ruse, and place the blame for the deaths of those civilans squarely on the shoulders of the United States. But regardless of who we choose to scapegoat for such tragedies, the true source of these deaths is the same evil we are criticized for trying to purge.

I have seen arial footage of fighter jets that intentionally have bombed shelters filled with hundreds of families.... then claiming that they thought it was a bomb making facility....give me a FUCKING BREAK!!!!

quote:

The very fact that they would choose to have so many die is the reason that this war ought to be fought, although I fear the U.S. government is only prepared to fight a small part of the battle it would take to truly bring liberty to Iraq, and if so, it will accomplish nothing.

I dont think you understand....the civilians of iraq do not choose to die.... so dont say thats a fact. They die because bombs are dropped on their heads as they sleep. And why is the US soooooo concerned with the liberty of Iraqi's.... many people are happy the way things are there.. yet many are not.. it doesnt mean you should invade that country. Also... lets not forget about the constant excuses that the US has being giving to go to war even though Hans Blix has acknowledged the co-operation of the Iraqi government. So far.. nothing has been found in Iraq indicating a nuclear weapons program.

quote:

Originally posted by Cyrus King LOOOOOOOOL....Do you recall the Icubater Baby incident concocted by the US government and the Kuwaiti embassodors daughter? Now that was a "Disgracefully effective propaganda engine" that helped the public support the invasion of iraq in 91.

interesting, never heard of it, what happened?

quote:

false satellite pictures the US mediated to instill anger in the American public and encourage a war.

i'd like to see some of these "false" satellite pictures

quote:

I dont think you understand....the civilians of iraq do not choose to die.... so dont say thats a fact. They die because bombs are dropped on their heads as they sleep.

i dont belive the US does this intentionally, its not part of the US's plan to do this to win a war, there is no strategic value for americans to kill civilians. if anything it only hinders their chance of winning the war because they loose support for it worldwide.

quote:

Hans Blix has acknowledged the co-operation of the Iraqi government. So far.. nothing has been found in Iraq indicating a nuclear weapons program.

officially Hans Blix has said nothing regrading what he has found in iraq, neither for or agianst, he will do so in a report at the UN in 30 days.

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