Should we war against Iraq or not? I personally don't know... :confused:

Of course they're bad!

Hundreds of dead and injured - all for some selfish person, it's pointless

You'd achieve more by playing chess:D

I don't mean it like that! :sosad:

USA just wants more oil (which means more money), and therefor they're just waiting for the perfect excuse to attack Iraq (Just like Austria-Hungary in the first world war. They didn't start the war just because their crown prince was shot.).

I agree with you Mollusken and as someone said, USA wouldn't attack if Iraq could retaliate. So that means that they are cowards.
I am against war because it will make things only worse. And terrorists will become more and more extreme. And what about Afghanistan, what did they accomplish there?

Yes I agree with the two guys above.

America achieved a short-term revenge to satisfy its people in Afghanistan, but of course nothing substantial.

Bush wants war with Iraq because, face it, if Bush and Saddam sat down to a game of chess to resolve things, Saddam would win in 4-10 moves...

Mollusken is right, America keeps the unrest in the middle-east to keep the oil price low

Don´t believe us, then ask yourself why America gives $3.000.000.000 (thats 3 billion) to Israel every year, even though its one of the richest countries in the world

Morgoth, Iraq is a very poor country by N.American and European terms. Sure it's developed, but the place really is a dump. And yes America may well be attacking for Oil, but it's not the only thing. The US and Britain are attacking to get Saddamn out of power, and take away it's nukes. And if we benefit with oil all the better. It's the spoils of war. :D

Iraq might seem more or less dangerous and pose a threat to some nations, and I don't think that Bush is just going to take the risk of letting Saddam staying in power. (Ironically, the CIA put him in power years ago.) However, there's still too much problems with al-Qaeda and the interim government in Afghanistan. If the U.S. were to invade Iraq, even with the help of a few other nations, the troops would be way too divided to be able to overthrow Saddam, stop al-Qaeda, and keep Karzai's government in place all at the same time. Furthermore, should this ever happen, it's not likely the U.S. would receive much aid in helping to fight Iraq, so the U.S. military is going to be very strung out if war is declared on Iraq.

Is the attack on Iraq justified? I'd say more or less. Can we do it? Not likely.

Please.

Getting rid of Saddam guarantees nothing about oil from Iraq.

Getting rid of the Taliban in Afghanistan is accomplishing nothing? I beg to differ and I'd wager the Afghanis would too.

And unrest in the Middle East serves to INFLATE oil prices because the futures market sees problems with the oil supply. I wonder how that keeps oil prices low... :rolleyes:

Buncha yank-bashers, toeing the party line...

Yes, the U.S. gives money to Israel...and to Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, etc., etc., etc.

And here is, in my estimation, the most beautiful thing about the U.S.A. You can go to any media source in any country in the world, but you'll never find anyone speaking as harshly (while remaining truthful) about the U.S. as what you'll find in the op-ed pages of American papers.

America produces its own harshest critics, and guarantees them the right to speak. Not bad. Not bad at all.

What was the question? War on Iraq? I'm against.

Arghh. People, please at least THINK about what you're posting before you post it. We give $3Billion a year to Israel BECAUSE THEY'RE OUR FREAKING ALLY! GUESS WHAT WE GIVE TO EGYPT? TWO ****ing BILLION.

[Ignorance is bliss, so you all must be incredibly happy right now.]

[ September 16, 2002, 20:08: Message edited by: SlimShogun ]

Slim, i hope i'm not with the bunch that's directed to. I have defended the USA on every topic where there has been America-bashing. And i'll continue to do so. So all these mainland European America bashers, just think where'd you be right now if it wasn't for the USA and Britain, slaving for a Nazi most likely.

Z-Layrex your opinions on things makes me think we are under Nazi rule.

Iraq can't have it's nukes taken away cos it doesn't have any yet. It does have the right sort of uranium. But it could make them if it had the materials. But Saddam wouldn't bother if people didn't threaten his country.

And they won't have the tech to build long range missiles for at least 4 years! I am with the anti war group.

Well i'm with an all out war. Any man who fires a gun into the air to show his country's strength is a loony. He is constantly threataning other innocent nations, (Kuwait and Isreal for example).

Poodle do you KNOW what this man has done in the past!!!??? Here's an interesting thing my father just told me:
He took thousands of Kuwait people from their homes, never to be seen again. Most likely shot and burned! He then went on to burn hundreds of oil rigs in Kuwait. He has TOTALLY ruined this once grand nation! Any man as insane as this should get get a bullet in his brain as soon as possible.

[ September 17, 2002, 16:08: Message edited by: Z-Layrex ]

Dear Z, watch this topic:
http://www.sorcerers.net/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=7;t=001769;p=2#0000 60
I don't want Germany to be involved in a war against Iraq. I don't want any Germans dying for Bushs revenge. I'm not that fond of killing, dying, screaming and blood and so on.
Or being a pawn in a diabolical chess with two schizophrenic players.

Z
You have written that Sadam is costantly threatening innocent countries like Kuweit and Israel. Also, you have written that he took thousands of Kuweit people from their home, never to be seen again. Israel has made exactly the same thing with Palestinians. So, why Sadam is evil and Israel is innocent?
Also, Iraq is now a poor country. Before the gulf war it was one of the richest nations of the world (richest than USA or UK), but 12 years of international embargo has brought it to its knees.

The war will be just for oil and for nothing else. Iraq has signed agreements with european companies and a change of goverment in Iraq will cancel these agreements in favor of american companies.

USA could finish Sadam problem in 1990, but they did not. Why? Because american interests during that period wanted Sadam in Iraq in order to be able to keep american forces in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia "just in case that someting will happen". Also, Sadam has been used by American politicians as a way of dropping the attention of american public from various interim problems. I remember that when Clinton was under attack because of the Lewinski scandal he used to bomb Iraq. I don't know if something similar is happening now (perhaps an American could bring some information upon this).

'There is always a good peace but never a good war.' - Benjamin Franklin Totally agree with him. Stupid American government.

The war will be just for oil and for nothing else. Iraq has signed agreements with european companies and a change of goverment in Iraq will cancel these agreements in favor of american companies.Unless you have some proof to back up this outrageous claim, I'll have to say this is nothing but wild speculation.

USA could finish Sadam problem in 1990, but they did not. Why? Because american interests during that period wanted Sadam in Iraq in order to be able to keep american forces in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia "just in case that someting will happen". No, because the American people have become too weak willed to stomach war casualties. Once the goal of pushing the Iraqis out of Kuwait was achieved, the American people would not support the additional losses to hunt down Saddam in his lair.

As far as I can remember, Iraqi soldiers have surrendered massively before the final surrender of Iraq, so the casualties would not have been high.
On the other hand, I don't think that goverments care a lot about their casualties when they want to achieve something (USA: see Vietnam, USSR: see Afghanistan, Israel: see Palestine).

All the greek newspapers have published what you consider speculation and as you can understand these are my sources. I can give some web adresses, but you could not understand a word, because they don't have an english version.

As far as I can remember, Iraqi soldiers have surrendered massively before the final surrender of Iraq, so the casualties would not have been high.Are you serious? To try to go into Baghdad and take out Saddam? You think the Iraqis would lay down for that?

On the other hand, I don't think that goverments care a lot about their casualties when they want to achieve something (USA: see Vietnam, USSR: see Afghanistan, Israel: see Palestine).Your first two examples prove my point better than yours. The US left Vietnam without victory because the casualties were too high and the protests at home too fierce. The same is true for the USSR vs. Afghanistan as I understand it. They were forced to leave.

All the greek newspapers have published what you consider speculation and as you can understand these are my sources. I can give some web adresses, but you could not understand a word, because they don't have an english version.How convenient.

Also, Sadam has been used by American politicians as a way of dropping the attention of american public from various interim problems. I remember that when Clinton was under attack because of the Lewinski scandal he used to bomb Iraq. I don't know if something similar is happening now (perhaps an American could bring some information upon this).There's nothing of the sort going on with Bush. If there's any vindictiveness here, it's to finish the Persian Gulf War that never truely ended.

The war will be just for oil and for nothing else.No, the war is to stop Saddam before he starts slaughtering his own citizens with nuclear weapons. Also, what do you think are going to be the first two countries he comes after? The US and Britain. I'd say that attacking now to save millions of our lives is perfectly justified.

Iraq can't have it's nukes taken away cos it doesn't have any yet.Hussein removed the UN weapon inspectors. At present, there's no way to know for certain what he's got in his arsenal.

And unrest in the Middle East serves to INFLATE oil prices because the futures market sees problems with the oil supply.BTA is correct. If the Middle East begins to think we're fickle, they'll start increasing their prices.

Furthermore, should this ever happen, it's not likely the U.S. would receive much aid in helping to fight Iraq, so the U.S. military is going to be very strung out if war is declared on Iraq.At present, only Britain is willing to help us in this, and together I highly doubt that this will be a long conflict. We destroyed the Iraqis during the last attack, and I have seen little evidence that Saddam's army is any more powerful now than it was then.

You have written that Sadam is costantly threatening innocent countries like Kuweit and Israel. Also, you have written that he took thousands of Kuweit people from their home, never to be seen again. Israel has made exactly the same thing with Palestinians. So, why Sadam is evil and Israel is innocent?The Palestinians started that conflict, not the Israelis. Israel wants peace. Israel has not threatened any other country, and has not made any hostile moves except in self-defense. That makes me think that if you want to play the "Good Guy, Bad Guy" game, that Israel would be the Good Guy.

Am I for war? I'm honestly not sure, but I do feel that our attack would be justified.

Wars suck. Period.
It's different if your army is invading Iraq, and you probably don't get all the horror over the news.

Blackthorn TA:

Convenient or not, these are my sources.

USA and USSR left Vietnam and Afganistan after ten years of war not six months and not before the casualties were far more than expected . How may american soldiers have been killed during the gulf war? I don't know their number but I don't think that it could cause a protest wave from american public.
Also, it seems that you forget the Iraq anti-Sadam movement. I remember that they have requested help from USA and other western countries in order to overthrow Sadam, but they did not receive help from nowhere and they have been slaughtered by Sadam's forces. I don't think that the provision of equipment or political support would cost american lives.

Rastor:
Sadam slaughters his citizes for 30 years. He has, also, bombed Persian army with chemical weapons but USA and Britain did not care, because during this period Sadam was their ally and spearhead against Iran.

Palestinian issue is very complicated to be considered as "good guy vs bad guy". You write that palestinians have started the conflict. When someone is conquered, he starts a liberation fight not the conqueror. Just think what the British said during your war of indepedence.

About the Iraqi nuclear capability: In 1983 a student at Princeton designed a nuclear bomb by himself. That was one student. Now in a country like Iraq there is bound to be someone with enough knowledge to design a N bomb. The real trick to aquiring a bomb is getting enchanced uranium, and the proper type of plutonium(forgot which type it was), both of which are very rare, and are very expensive, which i doubt mr Hussein could attain or afford.
So the only thing they could get with the plans of nukes is an "A" in princeton ;)

About Israel and the Palestinians, i do not support any types of terrorsim, but israel has violated god knows how many un resolutions, suppress the people so much that palestinians have to resort to secret schools to teach their children.

And what about the fact that the israeli connections to 9/11?
here are two things that might interset you people that believe everything that comes on CNN.
"Evidence linking these Israelis to 9/11 is classified. I cannot tell you about evidence that has been gathered. It's classified information."
-- US official quoted in Carl Cameron's Fox News report on the Israeli spy ring and its connections to 9-11.
"Investigators within the DEA, INS and FBI have all told Fox News that to pursue or even suggest Israeli spying ... is considered career suicide."
-- Carl Cameron, as quoted in The Spies Who Came In From The Art Sale

About the gassing of kurds in iraq, uas has no right to talk about this, because a certain something that happened in waco,tx

think about it, then awnser.

p.s. sorry about my previous post, i was just REALLY hammered:D:D:D, if i offended someone, i hereby appologize

Sadam slaughters his citizes for 30 years. He has, also, bombed Persian army with chemical weapons but USA and Britain did not care, because during this period Sadam was their ally and spearhead against Iran.He was also placed in power by the CIA, much like Osama. Makes you wonder, huh...

On a slightly different issue, but relevant: I learned today, by a russian-american friend of mine, that Stalin had Zhukov sent to a Ghulag after the war. Zhukov! The guy that was responsible for the defeat of the Germans at stalingrad, the guy responsible for most of the Soviet offensives and victories! And when I asked why, the reply was 'because he was so powerful and popular that Stalin fealt threatened'. So the guy wan the war for Stalin and what he gets as a thank you note is, Siberia.

Now the analogy may be flawed, but it gives you an idea. USA puts dictators/fundamentalists/other whatnots in power, to acheve their goals. These guys eventually get far too much power and/or become popular enough to threaten the US (in their own way). US responds by classifying them all as 'evil' and asking for 'regime changes'.

Now I am not saying that Saddam (or Osama) are not bad guys. They are rather bad (to put it mildly) in the first place. But the US should have known that (and learned from history). Instead they went ahead and did what they did. And the WORST part is, they never even learned from THEIR OWN mistakes (let alone other people's mistakes, i.e. history).

A friend of mine once said:
'An intelligend person is the one that learns from his mistakes. A wise person is the one that also learns from mistakes of others'

Unfortunately, it seems that the US administration is none of the above. And that is sad, and scary.

-thanos

@Thanos: I don't know what "history" you are referring to. These two examples of US placed leaders ending up biting the US were products of the Cold War. Are you suggesting that we should have learned against placing one by the results of placing the other? We didn't have problems with either of them until pos-Cold War, so both had already been set up by then.

The only other regime-change that has become an embarrassment, at least that I can think of off hand, would be Fidel Castro. And numerous effective CIA-sponsored regime changes have occured aside from that, which is what gave the US the undeserved confidence that lead to the batch of mistakes.

And I can't recall offhand any other countries making similar mistakes that the United States could have learned from. Sure, colonialism lead to puppet regimes of many imperial powers, especially Great Britain, but did any of those actually come back and hurt the imperial power?

In short, don't give up on the US government yet. The entire power of the nation rests, ultimately, in the hands of the voters. ;)

(An entirely new frightening topic :rolleyes: )

In short, don't give up on the US government yet. The entire power of the nation rests, ultimately, in the hands of the voters. ...as the Florida elections proved without a doubt.

Tne point, Deviant Mage, is that, if you play with fire (read: put someone like Saddam or Osama in power), expect to get burned. The reason is simple: they pretend to be your friend until they get enough power (and popular support) to bite you back.

The lesson that the US didn't learn, then (or even now it seems) is that, ultimately (as you put it), you should let the PEOPLE decide who they want as their leader, not impose 'leaders' (a-la Chile, or even Greece for that matter) that are nothing but dictators.

-thanos

Tne point, Deviant Mage, is that, if you play with fire (read: put someone like Saddam or Osama in power), expect to get burned. The reason is simple: they pretend to be your friend until they get enough power (and popular support) to bite you back.

The lesson that the US didn't learn, then (or even now it seems) is that, ultimately (as you put it), you should let the PEOPLE decide who they want as their leader, not impose 'leaders' (a-la Chile, or even Greece for that matter) that are nothing but dictators. could you tell me EXACTLY where you heard we put Osama in power? Keep in mind, sending weapons and instructors to oppose the soviets is very different than acutally installing him.

Also, if you think we "haven't learned our lesson," explain to me why Afghanistan HAS chosen its own government.

on a different note, what the hell is with all the America bashing in this topic? Especially since over half has been ignorance and speculation.

On original topic: Yes, I think war is justified. However, I go with Colin Powell's approach to the problem.

If they want Saddam dead why go to a war when there is a thing called assassination? Why waste lives in a massive conflict when all it takes is a one shot or its equivalent?

Ara
(Still asleep, especially after math...)

arabwel,

assassination of Saddam is easy to do. but controlling the effects of such an act is not. fingers will be pointing everywhere, the denials spurred (i don't think we would be expecting anyone to claim the responsibility) by such an action might even trigger war, probably a much bigger one. and nobody knows who will be the players of the "new" war.

i do not want to comment about the US-Iraq conflict but i know i'm against war among any nations... even wars in sp.

Do you really reckon Iraq have some dangerous nuclear weapons? All they say on the News is that they are, they aren't, they are, they aren't... :confused:

:roll: :spin: Wars rock! :roll: :spin: Eventually they are a wonderful opportunity to try out your new toys and to let out all your negative feelings while sorting out the weak :) War is evolutionary progress, yay!!! Not to mention the wonderful chance to define yourself as good while fighting someone even worse than yourself :roll: :spin:

PS: Great thread btw :)

[ September 17, 2002, 11:18: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

I bought up assassinating him before and I stick to it. There are other ways to assassinate someone besides walking up and shooting them.

America's government only care about something if it helps them. Did they help our peace keeping in East Timor, you betcha they didn't. Are they gonna take out Saddam for oil, you betcha they are.
Sure, there are other reasons for killing him than oil which they're doing it for but oil is most likely a major deciding factor.
Anyway, America has Britain and Australia as allies and should probably be able to do the job but what effect would it have on everyone after that. The people over there would more that likely hate us, this has already affected Australia's wheat export to Iraq, what effect will it have on everyone else?
And I must agree, paying money to allies is a smart move, it tends to keep them as allies.

Assassinating evil presidents is cool. I second that. Excellent choice, no-frills politics - why negotiating when you have special forces and aircraft carriers? :)

I think that sovereignty rights of independent countries are rubbish anyway, elected leaders or dictators - where's the difference? If you don't like them - kill them! This is the guaranteed strategy for peace and stability on earth :) Only a dead villain is a good villain! :roll: :spin: Go for the heads! :roll: :spin:

Here I am just about to start my own war with 8people!! Grrrrr... :flaming:

Looks like I'm a bit late but...

BOC:
Do your sources indicate any proof? If not, they're speculating just as you were.

The Vietnam War was more than 25 years ago. Today, (and largely because of the Vietnam debacle) as I said above the American people have become too weak willed to stomach war casualties.

Why do you think we employ standoff weapons like cruise missiles and bombing after we achieve air superiority? It is much more expensive in material that way, but much cheaper in American lives. Ground troops are sent in only when necessary, and only when the enemy has been softened up with massive bombing.

You should see the media uproar these days in America whenever any soldier is killed. You'd think wars were supposed to be bloodless! :)

The thing about the Gulf War is that predictions were for much greater casualties; we escaped unscathed comparatively. The govenment didn't want to screw that up by heading for Baghdad and the casualties that would certainly cause, especially since the stated goal of the Desert Storm was to remove the Iraqis from Kuwait not depose Saddam.

About the Shiites and Kurds afterwards, that's political. The cease-fire had already been agreed to, and unfortunately one of the agreements allowed the Iraqis to fly helicopters in the no-fly zones, which they used to great effect in suppressing the rebellions.

Thanos: I'd call those "unfortunate consequences" rather than "mistakes". There's no way to know whether the world would be better or worse place had those events not taken place.

And I don't understand why people are so upset about the last Presidential election. When the election is so close, what difference does it make which candidate wins out in the end? Both were wanted in the position relatively equally.

Arabwel and nior - You've been watching too many movies. Assassination of a government leader in his own country when he's expecting it and protecting against it is most definitely not a trivial matter. If it was, Saddam would be dead.

Are they gonna take out Saddam for oil, you betcha they are. Where does this come from? The Iraqis would love to sell as much oil as they could to us... I really don't get this...

On the topic of assassination:

A while back the US was a part of a many-nation agreement to end assassination in non-war times. Now, it's not as if "Us silly, obese Americans are too stupid and greedy to assassinate Saddam." Even if the US was to try, it is a well known fact that Saddam sleeps in a random, different house every night, and that he has scattered body doubles accross his country, and he has had those doubles have major plastic surgery to make them look more like him. This makes our assassination life difficult, so to speak.

Are they gonna take out Saddam for oil, you betcha they are. Last I heard, we have a trade embargo against Iraq and do not buy anything from them, so I fail to see how oil is of any consequence.

The people over there would more that likely hate usThey don't already? That's a shock!

SlimShogun is right, the assassination attempt would fail. Saddam is far too wary of that for it to work.

[ September 18, 2002, 00:47: Message edited by: Rastor ]

USA wouldn't attack if Iraq could retaliate. So that means that they are cowards.
I'm sure you realize that Iraq actually has an army :p , not to mention the various biological weapons well-hidden here and there (though this is just an educated theory, I have no more proof of this than the next guy).

However, there's still too much problems with al-Qaeda and the interim government in Afghanistan. If the U.S. were to invade Iraq, even with the help of a few other nations, the troops would be way too divided to be able to overthrow Saddam, stop al-Qaeda, and keep Karzai's government in place all at the same time. WW2 suddenly comes to mind. You know, when the US fought Japan *and* the Nazis, that's two very big fronts, and still managed to come out pretty well (relatively). Granted, is was over 60 years ago, and things have changed, but to the best of my knowledge, the US is much more capable of fighting on multiple fronts now than it was then.

One of the many reasons the US didn't drive deeper into Iraq in the Gulf War, was because there were those who remembered the extensive casualties suffered by the *Vietnamese*. Think of it, the Vietnamese lost over a million soldiers, and still won, that's determination. Nothing is more dangerous than a cornered animal (or person or nation).

Oh, and Arabwel, We make war that we may live in peace. -Aristotle.

So, I think we should go to war with Iraq. However, I do not think that the US should start its own crusade, since it's more than likely that if the US charges into Iraq, with only Britain at its side, a rather large portion of the Mid-East will likely unite to fight off the "Western Powers," especially if there are a few brilliant fanatics that use a great deal of propaganda to convince their people that the US and Britain are "evil." What, IMO, the US should do, is gather all the evidence they can possibly collect, and present it before the UN council. Unfortunately, this is the only option I can think of that (I hope) won't plunge the world in another great war.

America's government only care about something if it helps them. Did they help our peace keeping in East Timor, you betcha they didn't. Are they gonna take out Saddam for oil, you betcha they are. excuse me, are you suggesting there is such a thing as a truly altruistic nation in this world? Please point them out to me.

I suppose the $250 million worth of grain we recently sent to africa was an attempt to get oil. As was the 50% increase in foreign aid since Bush was elected.

Can America do more? Yes. Should America do more? Yes. Does America do everything for altruistic reasons? Of course not. But then, neither does any other country in the world. At least we do some altruistic things for the world at large. What has YOUR nation done recently? Yes, I want a real answer.

The events in America and Iraq are starting to sound familiar, see what you think:

A relative unknown, came to power on the back of big business with some dispute as to the regularity of his appointment. He sought to sway people to his cause by the championing of the common man. Now he seeks to increase his power by stoking up the populace to support a war which will result in the deaths of many innocent people, ostensibly because of the threat the enemy nation poses, but mainly to prove himself to be worthy to succeed his father.

Did George W Bush kill Gorion?

Slightly off topic here but sticking to the title of the thread

Wars being good and bad are a matter of opinion.

Pacifists with hate it while people like Hitler would have seen it as a necessary means in order to aquire Lebensram for the German 'Empire'

So in a way, he may have seen war as a means to an end and thus war would appear to be a good factor if it ment 'bettering' the German people. Then again, I'm sure that if he idn't have to fight wars, he would. For example, when he re-took Austria and the Sudetenland.

Okay i've said my piece. Thanks.

As for Iraq. Saddam Hussain is a terrorist and will try to develop nuclear weapons. Why react to him when we can proact to him and stop him developing nuclear war heads instead of waiting for him to make the first move.

We have the initiative here ... why waste it on time consuming debate and strike while he is weaker than he will be in the future.

http://www.milnet.com/milnet/nukeweap/Nfaq7.html
A list of countries owning nuclear weapons.
Think of my country. Germany is capable of the development of nuclear weapons. Do we/they already have the nuclear bomb. Germany should be a country of peasants, but it is not. We/they have industry. Some Germans are really weird. Think about Hitler or Karl Marx. Some terrorists were captured in Hamburg. There was a fanatic muslim leader in Köln.
Why not invade Germany. We/they have good sausages.

[ September 18, 2002, 19:13: Message edited by: Oblate ]

We/they have good sausages.Also, pretty women! :D

-thanos

Oh no! Don't get me started on the heaven that is German meats. Ragusa made that mistake once :lol: ;)

WW2 suddenly comes to mind. You know, when the US fought Japan *and* the Nazis, that's two very big fronts, and still managed to come out pretty well (relatively). Granted, is was over 60 years ago, and things have changed, but to the best of my knowledge, the US is much more capable of fighting on multiple fronts now than it was then.
Faerus, keep in mind that that was with the help of the draft. We haven't used one of those since Vietnam. Getting it started again would cause an amazing uproar, barring another post-9/11 rally-to-the-flag.

As of a year ago, our military was quite a bit smaller than it had been when we rescued Kuwait(3 million as opposed to 5 million I believe...I'm pretty sure this includes everyone that could be sent without instating a draft, such as the Army Reserves). I'm sure there has been an increase in military personnel since 9/11, but I don't know to what extent.

*clears throat*
*darth vader like voice*
war doesn't determine who is right, only who is left

Blackthorn TA:
Since it seems that you believe this war has nothing to do with oil, what is your opinion about the following:
"What makes the new Bush administration different from previous wealthy cabinets is that so many of the officials have links to the same industry - oil.

The president, vice-president, commerce secretary and national security adviser all have strong ties to the oil industry."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1138009.stm

I hope that you consider BBC as a reliable source.

AMaster:
There is no room for altruism and humanism in world politics. It always has been this way and it always will be this way. The thing that drives me mad is when USA or any other country try to hide their motives by using an altruistic/humanistic cloak.

Originaly posted by 8People: Of course they're bad!
Hundreds of dead and injured - all for some selfish person, it's pointless

You'd achieve more by playing chess:D Hmmm, sounds very much like the US and George Bush :)

All wars are useless, there are no winners in wars, just loosers. Refuse! The world today really suck hard, some people live extremly well, To well, ehen others starve. Rebell against capitalism! We can make a differense!

Slim, i hope i'm not with the bunch that's directed to. I have defended the USA on every topic where there has been America-bashing. And i'll continue to do so. So all these mainland European America bashers, just think where'd you be right now if it wasn't for the USA and Britain, slaving for a Nazi most likely.

Well, from Stalin maybe. Hitler was as good as defeated when the US troops arrived.

I think the USA is a strange nation.
Hitler put jews in camps, beacuse they thought them as a risk...USA condemned it hard. Not much later they put Japaneses (?) in camps, and now they got prisoners on Guentanama without a trial and on unfaie conditions. Far from all of them ares o called Terrorists. (= People with defferent oppinions then USA) You condemn Terrorism, Facism, diktators and such, and with all rights. But no country have supported more of these folks then the USA, yes not even the sovjet union. Chile, Afhanistan, Israel and many more.
You cannnot hope to make up rules for everyone to follow when you don't do it yourself.
USA is alowed to have biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons but Iraq is not. I do not trust either of you. And I don't like capitalsiem either, but that soesn't belong here....

[ September 18, 2002, 23:43: Message edited by: Turandil ]

Word up Turandil! *waves the red flag around*

And war is always bad, nothing can justify a war. I can perhaps agree that it might be righteous to defend yourself if your nation was attacked, but even then thousands of lives would be spared if the attacked nation just gave up. (Very unrealistic and it wouldnt exactly be a deterrent for nations to not attack but in a cold bodycount it would be the way to save lives.)

BOC - Sure they have ties to the oil industry, but what you fail to see is that they want to reduce our reliance on foreign oil by despoiling the Alaskan wilderness preserves :lol:

Seriously though, if oil was the only motivation for this confrontation, all we'd have to do is lift the sanctions on Iraq. Iraq's oil minister has said if the sanctions are lifted we'd get as much oil as we wanted.

Also, you know all those navy ships whose job it is to interdict the smuggling of Iraqi oil? Whose oil do you think they're consuming to keep running? As I understand it we already buy 68% of the oil being produced in Iraq, so why would we need to go to war to get oil from Iraq?

You see it just doesn't make sense...

[ September 18, 2002, 23:56: Message edited by: Blackthorne TA ]

Joaquin:

That is totally out of the question. Give up when attacked, just like that? Great deterrent...

I think the only way to prevent war from actually happening is extactly that, deterrence. It got us all through the cold war in one piece (more or less). The only way to make aggresive countries give up their adventourous and risky thoughts is to make it clear to them that attacking you would be a difficult thing indeed. If they do indeed get that message, they won't attack. No one is THAT suicidial.

-thanos

The trick is Joacqin. What was the motive for invading? What if millions died of starvation or poverty if they just gave in to the attackers? Which is then better? War or not? :)

ON TOPPIC
There are so many aspects of each war, that the only fact I am sure of is that I cannot be sure of a general opinion. Some concepts are better discussed in individuality. On the Iraq war. I don't think it is a good idea as long as UN is pushing so hard for allowing the weapon inspectors. The concept of UN is that we are united. Just look at the name. UN= United nations. If one part wants to negotiate and the other wants to fight, we don't seem united anymore. And that can be taken advantage of.

"The greatest crime since World War II has been U.S. foreign policy."-- Ramsey Clark, former United States Attorney General and human rights activist

Faerus, keep in mind that that was with the help of the draft. We haven't used one of those since Vietnam. Getting it started again would cause an amazing uproar, barring another post-9/11 rally-to-the-flag.

As of a year ago, our military was quite a bit smaller than it had been when we rescued Kuwait(3 million as opposed to 5 million I believe...I'm pretty sure this includes everyone that could be sent without instating a draft, such as the Army Reserves). I'm sure there has been an increase in military personnel since 9/11, but I don't know to what extent. Deviant Mage, 3 million men is still an incredible amount of manpower. The US doesn't need to start up another draft, unless another world war starts (which I'm sure everyone here can agree, would NOT be a good thing), especially considering all the incredibly high-tech stuff the US has now.
If you want a small point of comparison, just think that there are more (and more advanced!) fighter jets on ONE American aircraft carrier (Harry S. Truman Class, maybe some smaller ones too) than in the ENTIRE Canadian Air Force.

I can perhaps agree that it might be righteous to defend yourself if your nation was attacked, but even then thousands of lives would be spared if the attacked nation just gave up joacqin, that would be extremely stupid. By not defending oneself, one only suffers more. Think of the Jews when they were being rounded up in the ghettos by the Nazis, if they had resisted, especially at first, much suffering may have been prevented. Likely, (since moving the Jews into the ghettos happened BEFORE WW2 started) the war would have started earlier, and had that been the case, the Nazis may have been caught a little less prepared. (Although, one must consider the alternate possibility, that the Nazis would have likely began mass executions...but had THAT happened, they could, and probably would, have lost the support of the German people at large). Granted, this argument is full of "what-ifs," but it'll hopefully help you consider the possibilities of simply giving up before anything has began.

Actually, I believe Saddam has survived at least a half a dozen assassination attempts so far. He's a slippery b**tard.

The question, I thought, wasn't whether he has nuclear weapons or not. Bush's position is he has been working to gain nukes, and once he does you will have this crazy person running around with weapons of mass destruction in his hands. It would be only be a matter of time before he attacks someone with them. He HAS used chemical weapons on his own citizens and engaged in "ethnic cleansing" against the Kurds.

Mind you, this is Bush's position, not mine.
I see no easy solutions either way.
I do not think Saddam should be in power. He has shown blatant disregard for the freedom and welfare of his countrymen and those of other countries. Should we attack Iraq and go to war to remove him? I don't know. That might cause more problems than it would solve.

And who will guarantee that the next ruler will be any better? Look at what happened after the US helped drive the Soviets out of Afghanastan by supporting the Taliban. Then we have to go in and remove the Taliban from power. Who is to say we will not be back in Afghanistan again 5 or 10 years from now to remove the Taliban's replacements? All of the Arab countries hate us for our perceived (rightly or wrongly) interference in the Middle East.

Deviant Mage, 3 million men is still an incredible amount of manpower. The US doesn't need to start up another draft, unless another world war starts (which I'm sure everyone here can agree, would NOT be a good thing), especially considering all the incredibly high-tech stuff the US has now.
If you want a small point of comparison, just think that there are more (and more advanced!) fighter jets on ONE American aircraft carrier (Harry S. Truman Class, maybe some smaller ones too) than in the ENTIRE Canadian Air Force. the thing is, out of the 3 million people, only 250k - 500k or so are actually combat troops.(don't have the stats on hand right now)

even a Nimitz class carrier only carries 50-70 combat aircraft

Yes, approximately, in cold war days the number was highter, up to 90 aircraft. However, the US have about 10 carriers of that size, that makes some 500-700 aircraft. Usually two of them are deployed in *areas of interest*, makes 100-140 aircraft, still much more than the average small airforce is able to set up. These aircract can attack targes in a circle of around ... let's guess ... 1.000km around the carrier with sophisticated standoff and precision weaponry - and a high rate of success. Indeed the US forces have become weak. :rolleyes:

[ September 19, 2002, 08:15: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

@who ever asked me what my country has done lately.
Well, as mentioned, we helped peacekeeping in East Timor in their completly unstable state with (as far as I can tell) no other motive than to help them.

As a wise boy once said (I think it was Bart Simpson):

"There are only three good wars:

1) The American Revolutionary War

2) World War II

3) The Star Wars Trilogy (now a Quintology :p )"

War is never a good thing, but sometimes diplomacy fails and all you have left is the sword....