To the cause of war


How do you feel about war with Iraq? Agree/Disagree

  1. Strongly Disagree

    9 vote(s)
  2. Diagree

    3 vote(s)
  3. Agree

    3 vote(s)
  4. Strongly Agree

    4 vote(s)
  5. Don't Know

    1 vote(s)
  6. Disagree give the inspecters more time

    7 vote(s)
  7. Disagree Bush is a warmonger

    3 vote(s)
  8. Agree Iraq is playing games with the UN

    3 vote(s)
  9. Agree Iraq is a threat to the world

    4 vote(s)
  10. Other (post opinion below)

    2 vote(s)
By conradguerrero · 101 replies
Feb 15, 2003
  1. I have read much in the news regarding the potential war with America vs Iraq and the opinions of many people and nations.

    I am posting a poll where you can vote for or against war with Iraq and don't forget to post your opinions.

    The future of America, UN, or NATO
    Reasons for or against War
    Reasons for or against Weapons of Mass Destruction
    Reasons for or against Freedom
    The threat of Iraq, North Korea, and America.

    I regards to the UN disagreements:
    I recommend that everyone read some of for the latest news from lots of newspapers around the world before posting and to refer to any facts with some data or reference.

    Please no rude comments directed at any members.
  2. TS | Crazyace

    TS | Crazyace TS Rookie Posts: 275

    I fully AGREE!
    Any American that wants the USA and world to be a safer place should also agree.

    IRAQ is not complying with the UN resolutions set during the Gulf War, therefore they need to be put in their place. There should be no need of any evidence of anything, PERIOD! They signed and are not following the agreement, therefore they need to be BOMBED.

    Just my 5 cents.
  3. vassil3427

    vassil3427 TS Rookie Posts: 640

    I completely AGREE also...Time to watch the planes fly and bombs drop....:grinthumb
  4. Nick

    Nick TS Rookie Posts: 185

    agreed, if the terrorist/iraq drop a bomb on the u.s they need to drop it at one of the anti war portests. Pathetic how no class americans can act. If you don't like it, and want to make fun of our leaders, go to another country and get killed or beaten for that type of action. It disgusts me how people can do such crap.
  5. StormBringer

    StormBringer TS Maniac Posts: 2,244

    I agree that Iraq is playing games with the UN, they have been doing so for quite some time. It is time this ends. Something has to be done to stop them. Sadaam is insane and a clear threat to everyone. He has to be stopped.
  6. Phantasm66

    Phantasm66 TS Rookie Posts: 5,734   +8

    I feel sorry for the people of Iraq, I am sure it can't be much fun living under someone like Saddam.

    Saddam is a head case and needs to be removed. It would of course be preferable if this would be done with the minimum of bloodshed.
  7. mrslippyfist

    mrslippyfist TS Rookie Posts: 50

    I agree that Saddam is an evil dictator, and a bad leader, but America has no right to police the world, Saddam should be removed from power, but not by America and Britain going to war themselves. If there is to be a war, it should have the blessing of the UN. The reason that the UN hasn't agreed on war is because there is no serious proof that he has done anything wrong, America has had to scrabble around complaining about some obsolete empty missile warheads to justify action.
    Not that it matters what anybody says, Geoge Bush has had his mind set on war from the begining, I doubt anything would have dissuaded him from military action.
    It is my personal view that the UN is the police of the world, and no war is just without them deciding. Fair enought they may be cautious, but that is better than charging in guns blazing. Not everybody listens to the UN, but a major country like the USA has to, or it undermines the whole system.
    Incidently, how many Americans here agree with the war? I'm British and don't know anybody who is pro war, but then again I'm a peace loving student. :D
  8. Nodsu

    Nodsu TS Rookie Posts: 5,837   +6

    I stronly DISAGREE.

    Although the reasons given to us bu US government are rational and may justify a war, we have to look at the big picture here - the US is barking up the wrong tree.

    There a many other countries with weapons of mass destruction for sure (muslim Pakistan, communist North Korea).

    There are tons of countries with undemocratic and oppressive governments (China, Russia).

    There are many countries openly supporting terrorists (Libya, Syria).

    Iraqi military force is pathetic, even Israeli generals consider traffic accidents to be a bigger threat than Iraqi army.

    There aren't any other countries with large oil supplies and a defiant attitude towards US.

    US taking the right to make preemptive strikes against potential enemies gives the same right to everyone else, resulting in every military power "eliminating threats to freedom".

    Changing governemnt in a democratic way in Iraq will change nothing, power will still go to islam fundamentalists (look at Afghainstan).

    Spreading destruction and death in a foreign country will only increase the number of frustrated young men seeking revenge against the force that is working against their own people.

    There is nothing to gain from this war besides better ratings for Mr. Bush and a temporary boost to US economy.

    War is always the wrong solution!
    War means dead people, people crippled for live, people without homes, children without parents, mothers without sons, lives ruined forever. Threre is no good in war.

  9. TS | Crazyace

    TS | Crazyace TS Rookie Posts: 275

    Iraq DID do somthing wrong, they violated the UN resolution that they signed (resolution 1441 I believe)

    In America, the consitution does not state that we need any blessing from ANY country to protect our home land.

    I predict that the UN will be dissolved.

    Just remember this last thing, as many of us know, most of the world is jealous of American lifestyles, including UN leaders. They are not looking at the facts, instead relying on some inspectors looking for weapons, which are stored in other countries so they are not going to find them anyhow!
  10. vassil3427

    vassil3427 TS Rookie Posts: 640

    That's right, America doesn't need anyone's blessing, especially if we have to beg before a security council... we showed our evidence, yet the council still refuses to use any backbone..In my opinion, the United Nation needs to be dissolved...I cant really see anything good that's come from it...
  11. mrslippyfist

    mrslippyfist TS Rookie Posts: 50

    The US does many things that many parts of the world don't agree with, it polutes more than any other nation on earth per square mile, and won't commit to reducing it, it still produces land mines, which have no purpose except to kill (probably inocents) despite them being banned in almost every country. The US makes its self out to be leader of the free world, but is irresposible. Im not suggesting that anyone should go to war against the USA because of this though.

    If the UN is dissolved, there will be nobody looking over countries shoulders saying you can't do that.
    Agreed, the UN doesn't have much power to stop a large nation from action, but it is the best solution available.

    Anyway, I don't know why US citizens need to worry, its not as if saddam could actually launch an attack on US soil, he doesn't have any rockets capable of that range. This war is more about oil, and is only going to annoy more fundementalists, which in turn is going to create a larger terrorist threat.
    Also, North Korea is building nuclear weapons, and the usa will allow this to continue, because china is there to back korea up, is korea less of a threat, or is George Bush afraid of losing to them?

    The first gulf war had a very good reason, Iraq invaded a sovereign state, but this is exactly what America wants to do to iraq this time, a bit hypocritical don't you think?

    Unless there is very good proof of iminent danger, that is show to the public, I will be opposed to this war.
  12. Nick

    Nick TS Rookie Posts: 185

    We could have taken out Sadaam the first time in the Gulf War, but the purpose of the war was to stop Iraq from invading Kuwait. The troops were all ready to go into Bahgdad and police everything. The result would have been Sadaam being taken out. Since we aren't gorillas and we are a respectful powerful nation, we decided not to since it was not the purpose of the war and wouldn't have been accepted by the collalition if the purpose of the war was that.

    Iraq has done something wrong, and needs to be punished. Even the citizens of Iraq can say that they want this war since they are under the rule of an insane and cruel man.

    You say we use our power too much? Look what we did in Iraq in the Persian Gulf war. Any Iraqi that was injured we treated them with respect, gave them food, shelter, water ect. You say that is not caring?

    Also the U.S does not need the U.N's support. The U.N did next to nothing in the persian gulf war. U.S sent in over 450,000 soldiers, the other 33 countries sent in 100,000 soldiers. About 4/5 of the soldiers were american troops. So why need the U.N's support besides for them to agree if its right or not?

    One more thing, Sadaam is responsible for 9/11 for sure. Bush has evidence that it was Sadaam behind the whole thing and is basically the leader of the Al Queda network. Al Queda gets most of their fundings from Iraq. There was a video from a few days before 9/11 showing a few leaders from Iraq meeting with Al Queda leaders. Just think about it for a minute, wouldn't it be a good idea for Sadaam to have another network do it rather than have Iraq do it and be immediately guilty?

  13. SNGX1275

    SNGX1275 TS Forces Special Posts: 10,742   +421

    I don't know where you got your info, but apparently not the same place I got mine.
    The world would be a much different place as far as progression in anything without the US. I don't like arguing about pollution because the US does do a lot to try to be cleaner, but its just not as economical for us in our current state as it may be for other countries.
    Besides lets not argue that, you are bringing more personal feelings about the US into this rather than discussing what the thread is about.
  14. Didou

    Didou Bowtie extraordinair! Posts: 4,274

    If you guys really wanna discuss the matter, you need to see the whole picture.

    You need to ask yourselves who put leaders like Sadaam where they are in the first place...
  15. Phantasm66

    Phantasm66 TS Rookie Posts: 5,734   +8


    That cartoon is cool.....

    I am afraid that's the most intelligent thing I have to say at the moment..... ;)
  16. vassil3427

    vassil3427 TS Rookie Posts: 640

    I personally find that cartoon to be a bit disrespectful....
  17. Nick

    Nick TS Rookie Posts: 185

    me too. RACIST!
  18. TS | Crazyace

    TS | Crazyace TS Rookie Posts: 275

    Awww cmon, its just a cartoon.

    Nice grab SNGX, you banged out the facts just a bit quicker that I was going to , thanks.

    It doesnt matter if Iraq was involved in 9/11, it doesnt matter if they harbor terrorism, it doesn't matter if the UN says no. IRAQ signed a treaty, and they knew the punishment if they did not comply. That is enough of a reason to attack. Did anyone see on CNN those IRAQ dudes burning the American flag? That gives me all the reason!
  19. Nick

    Nick TS Rookie Posts: 185

    saw it, made me sick. what made me even more sick was the americans making violent protests in places like nyc.
  20. Nodsu

    Nodsu TS Rookie Posts: 5,837   +6

    FYI treaties mean nothing in politics, they are followed only when it's convenient. Everybody works for their own good. You think US doesn't break treaties, or any other country in the world?

    Let's look at this scenario:

    ¤ Iraq is developing new wepons (missiles)
    ¤ Their arch enemy says "You must not make better weapons than this"
    ¤ Iraq throws away all their work and say "sorry"?

    No way. It's so naive to say: "hey, why don't you play by rules!" There are no rules and this war is a clear sign of that.
  21. sampson2k

    sampson2k TS Rookie

    poor poor world

    What a place to place your 1st reply to the message board. Oh well, here goes. I have come to the conclusion about this matter in this type of thinking..."poop or get off the pot". 1st thing, the French, Germans, Chinese, as well as the former Soviet Union are playing a very dangerous game indeed with world politics (much like the Saudis). It has been proven and shown that these countries have had dealings with Iraq when it came to selling and producing the mechcanics for weapons of mass destruction(CBR). There is a paper trail from hell. The reason these countries are continuing to veto and say no is because they themselves are trying to whitewash their mess, and are stalling for time. Pure and simple. Heck, it was the French that helped the North Koreans design their reactors. This pro Saddam stance that the world has is crap. What about the "poor innocents of Iraq". What about them, they have elections, vote the sucker out. I find it hard to believe that there are far more people that hate him, but instead of taking care of buiseness en masse, they cow themselves and "follow the leader".
    Silence is compliance. It was said, in every revolution, there will be bloodshed, unfortunately, that is what needs to be done if there is a change. By sitting on our thumbs and accepting the "status quo", we invite stagnation. Stagnation leads to complacency, complacency leads to extinction. History teaches this time and time again but again we ignore it.
    Another thing, I also feel this way. To hell with the rest of the world. Bring our boys home, close our overseas bases, and let them deal with what happens. What is guaranteed is 12 months to 3 years, Europe will engulf itself in another continental war, the far east will desintegrate into choas as the 3 major powers in that area (China, Japan, and Korea) slug it out over atrocities committed as late as WW2 that the rest of the world conviently(?) forgot about (as the Japanese government/leadership killed at least 3x more humans than Hitler ever dreamed not to mention the ecological devastation that still exists 50 years plus after that war). The country of Isreal, will probably be oblitarated as the arab powers consolidate their power and do what they have wanted to since the creation of Isreal.
    Not to mention the fact that with our bretheren in uniform, being stationed over seas, they provide economical support beyond belief in the areas they are in. Without their monies comming in, those countries would probably economically fall apart, and become welfare states (with a few exceptions, Norway, Finland, Denmark, Great Britian to name a few that don't need us in anyway shape or form).
    As far this liberal crap, being spewed, (having been one and got smart over the years), they are the biggest group of self- centered, self-serving individuals there can be for the most part. Me, me , me is all they care about(at least in America). Save the whales, stop the madness, blah blah blah, it comes down to "how much money can I get. Just ask these "do gooders" how much their CEO's for the most part took home after 9/11 (think United Way and those groups) and why I refuse to support them. Follower the paper trail, it is there. As far as war goes, they are scared to death that there will be a reinstated draft (not likely) or , like in the 60's, gets them out of school with a reason that won't get them kicked out.(why didn't you goto class......well, I went to a anti-war demonstration.......ok, you are excused). Why did I change, I saw the ugly side and excesses of liberalism, that was not what I truely believed in at all. With that thought, I left it all behind. Not to mention that people in general love to ***** about everything and anything. Reminds me of the old saying, "You would complain if your ice cream was cold".

    As I think I have said in a ver long way is, there is no easy way. To say it is over oil is niave and simplistic, for there is a bigger threat. To go trouncing off to war (even though in this case it will be over in say maybe 12-24 hours) for the sake of war, well, you figure it out. I have said over enough, and welcome good discussion.
  22. conradguerrero

    conradguerrero TS Rookie Topic Starter Posts: 310

    I like all of the posts so far and I believe saddam is playing games with the UN. However, I just read an interesting New York Times article. It attempts to explain the reasons for the respective French, German, and Belgian positions.

  23. conradguerrero

    conradguerrero TS Rookie Topic Starter Posts: 310

    I just tested the link and the site asks for registration so here is the article:

    Europe's Groundswell: Public Opinion

    RUSSELS, Feb. 16 — At one point during an angry debate at NATO headquarters here today, one clearly irritated and not very diplomatic diplomat complained, "NATO cannot be subordinated to city hall politics."

    What the diplomat meant was that tiny Belgium, that most unlikely opponent of the United States, was stubbornly dividing the entire 19-member Atlantic alliance, not for high-minded opposition to NATO's planning for the defense of Turkey before the United Nations Security Council has authorized a war in Iraq but because of petty politics. There is going to be an election in Belgium soon and, even before that, the narrow governing coalition could collapse if it appeared to give up too easily on the Turkish question.


    The NATO matter was finally resolved, but the day after some of the largest peace demonstrations in European history, Belgium is not the only country feeling the pressure of public opinion.

    Several countries in Europe face a painful quandary:choosing between NATO, their main source of security for more than half a century, and a public opinion that is increasingly opposed to a war.

    Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain, for one, has staked his political reputation on his backing of the Americans. Of all the national actors in the continuing drama, Germany's situation is probably the most excruciating. More than any other country, Germany's fundamental strategic position was founded on a close alliance with the United States. In the past — when, for example, Adenauer chose to rearm or when another former chancellor, Helmut Schmidt, expressed a willingness to install medium-range nuclear missiles in Europe during the cold war — the Germans opted for the American preference, despite fierce and vocal public opposition.

    But last September, in a closely contested election, Chancellor Gerhard Schröder enunciated a refusal to participate in a war in Iraq. That helped win a tough election. But his campaign slogan also hardened into a policy from which Germany itself or, certainly, many of its policy makers would like to escape.

    The NATO crisis has been particularly difficult for Germany, which was initially one of the three countries objecting to NATO planning for Turkey's defense. According to diplomats and NATO officials here, it was always France that led the coalition of 3 against the NATO majority of 16 on this issue.

    "Germany's foreign policy has been subordinated to Chirac's Gaullism, and they don't like it," one diplomat here said as the debate at NATO went into the night. The reference was to the chief foreign policy heritage of former President Charles de Gaulle, to steer a course independent from that of Washington. "But," the diplomat continued, "they haven't disliked it enough to ditch the French."

    One reason for that, of course, is the pacifist sentiment of many Germans, particularly the Greens, who make up a major part of Mr. Schröder's coalition. Their distaste for war makes it embarrassing and politically treacherous for Mr. Schröder to back away from his antiwar stance. Still, Germany has shown some sign of trying to wiggle out of the box. Even as German peace marchers filled the streets over the weekend, the government quietly dropped its opposition to NATO planning for Turkey's defense.

    France also agreed to let the matter drop, suggesting that it was sensitive to more than one kind of public opinion. In response at least in part to domestic pressures, France has staked out a position on Iraq in opposition to the American one. But it has also been nervous about the rise of strong anti-French sentiment in the United States. The French ambassador to Washington, Jean-David Levitte, has been trying to assure the American public that France is a loyal ally grateful for American help in the world wars of the last century.

    President Jacques Chirac has sought other ways of moderating his country's Gaullism, most conspicuously by sending an aircraft carrier on maneuvers just where it would be most useful in military action against Iraq. French officials have not explained why, on one hand, they would dispatch it and, on the other, object to NATO planning for Turkey on the ground that it would be sending the wrong signal.

    In the end, France does not want to be left out of the picture if there is a war with Iraq. In this sense, that Gaullism has always been simultaneously a show of independence from the United States and an effort to keep the national options open. Twelve years ago, as Mr. Levitte pointed out today on CNN, France took part with the United States in the Persian Gulf war. What he did not say is that until hours before the conflict began, France was still calling for a peaceful solution.
  24. Phantasm66

    Phantasm66 TS Rookie Posts: 5,734   +8

    Its just a cartoon. And I don't think it is racist. Its mildly cheeky. Plenty of cartoons about Israel vs Palestine, Saddam gasing his own people, human rights in zimbabwe, etc. and funny how no one things its racist till its about them.

    The situation in Iraq is multi-faceted, and can't be reduced to a simple cartoon. Its not as simple as Saddam being an insane tyrant and its not as simple as Bush being trigger happy. Nor is it as simple that's its all about oil. Its about many, many things in that part of the world as a whole, and all over the world.
  25. TS | Crazyace

    TS | Crazyace TS Rookie Posts: 275

    Very nice first post Samson, some EXCELLENT points! I really like your comments of left wingers!

    If the US does not go to war, we are showing the world that resoultions mean nothing when we sign them, and it also shows the world that we do not back our word up.

    If we do go to war, half the world that doesn't hate us yet will hate us.

    Its a no win situation, so at least lets make the best of this. Go remove Sadam, and these damn hippy freaks should be the first ones over there fighting

    Also, notice the type of people going against the war. Most are post secondary school students, minorities, etc.. People that are against Republicans is what it comes down to. Somtimes left wingers need to think whats best for the country instead of best for them.
Topic Status:
Not open for further replies.

Similar Topics

Add your comment to this article

You need to be a member to leave a comment. Join thousands of tech enthusiasts and participate.
TechSpot Account You may also...