War results

[kangal]

I was just wondering for all the anti-war folks if anything in the war would change your opinion? I know that France has said if WMD were used on the coalition troops, their stance may alter. With the news that a huge chemical weapons plant may have been found, would that change any opinions? If the war is a success as a war can be measured, would your feelings towards Bush be altered? What if Iraq does floruish without Saddam and Americans are welcomed in Baghdad? I'm just curious because some say Bush's legacy will hinge on the outcome of the war. Will anything change your opinion period?

[Elizabeth A.]

Seems like a pretty combative question.

Would anything change yours?

[Danny]

Elizabeth, honestly. If we went in there and found no evidence of WMD I would feel that it was a failure as it was in fact a major reason to go in. i doubt that is the case, but that would change my opinion.

[kangal]

Originally posted by Elizabeth A.@Mar 23 2003, 11:06 PM
Seems like a pretty combative question.

Would anything change yours?
NOt being combative, just laying out some reasons that i feel may change opinions....and i am pro-war, so the opposite of what i posted would change out my opinion....

[angel nympho]

A lot of things could change my opinion.

[AngryABCGirl]

It would change my opinion if they did find weapons of mass destruction and plans to use it against other countries.

[Ch8Li179]

I'm against this war I don't think bush even gave a justified reason for going to war. Marines are dying because, of their loyalty to our country and the president. They are willing to sacrifice their lives out of respect to the president. They don't ask any questions. They are just carrying out orders. The righteous ruler would protect his or her people. Not let innocent people people die whether they are from your country or not.

[sandra]

there should be no discussion on a non-Saddam regime until there is a full and proper discussion on why war is/was necessary. so no, it would not change my decision. the ends should not be used to justify the means. would it be okay for a cop to search my home and arrest me absent any probable cause if, in the end, he found cocain in my room?

[Azn Retribution]

well more or less this is just finishing up something that started with Gulf War I.
thats debateable but its just unfinished business more or less.
everyones problem is that its like re-opening a case after 10 years(which it almost is)
and its after everyone has gotten over the problems around the previous case.

So far what we have on Saddam is more then reason enough for his assasination:

1. Kills his own people and has violated human rights and what not more times then you can count

2. Kicked out UN inspectors(What does he have to hide?)

I understand you all want to be liberal and leftist as its hip and cool to question the government in this day and age (Hell I do it all the time. fuck the DMCA and fuck the COPPA).

Sure we dont have a immediate reason(so far) for going to war.
but hey we are at war now.
So regardless of it. We should support the effort and then we can criticize it later(as we did with Gulf War I)
Doing things half ass (ie. Vietnam War) aint good for the country.

and as for you analogy on the cops and cocaine thing.. I dont believe it is valid in this circumstance as we do have a search warrant. ie UN Inspectors.
However they didnt cooperate and even kicked them out for a few years while they hid the stash.
The war is like the cops breaking down the door after you dont respond to the warrant.

The UN however really is getting as powerless as the league of nations was pre-WWII

[angelwiththesword]

the wmd's are there as an excuse for the yankees to raid iraq of thier oil. thus, the burning of the oil fields.
if saddam DOES in fact have wmd's, and he uses them at this stage of the war, he will have lost the support of the different countries that have sympathy toward saddam.
saddam will prolly wait until the war is almost to a close to use them.

[Danny]

Originally posted by kasia@Mar 24 2003, 03:16 AM
there should be no discussion on a non-Saddam regime until there is a full and proper discussion on why war is/was necessary.  so no, it would not change my decision.  the ends should not be used to justify the means.  would it be okay for a cop to search my home and arrest me absent any probable cause if, in the end, he found cocain in my room?
Your little 'scene' that you created is viable one on one.... but you also have to think that there is ALOT of probable cause in Iraq.

saddm took our search warrant, wadded it up and threw it out of his country for four years. How would the cops respond to that? They would walk in and trash the living hell out of him..

Hye turn on CNN, that is what we are doign right now.

[kimpossible]

Even if they found WMD, I'm not sure it would change my mind. A lot of countries have weapons of mass destruction. It'd be pissing in the wind to go after each and every one of them. What would change my mind is a big public presentation of evidence that proves Hussein's regime had invested in some way, shape or form the attack of civilians on American soil in NYC. Then I wouldn't even care if he didn't have WMD. The attack in my mind was a declaration of war.

[Danny]

Originally posted by Hello_Hapa@Mar 24 2003, 11:33 AM
Even if they found WMD, I'm not sure it would change my mind. A lot of countries have weapons of mass destruction. It'd be pissing in the wind to go after each and every one of them. What would change my mind is a big public presentation of evidence that proves Hussein's regime had invested in some way, shape or form the attack of civilians on American soil in NYC. Then I wouldn't even care if he didn't have WMD. The attack in my mind was a declaration of war.
so it would not change your opinion that this country that should have been disarmed after the initial gulf war and has repeatedly denied having SCUDS or Weapons of Mass Destruction for the last 12 years had them.

The point you make that other countries also have them is not the same, Iraq was supposed to disarm, they were not suppose to have them. There is a reason there were 17 resolutions in regrads to disarming them, there is a reason that they were not suppose to have them. It is not the same as North Korea having a nuke, or Libya having biological warheads. Becuase those countries did not attack another country and claim it as their own. Libya did not go into Tunisia and take it over saying that it was their 19th province.

Iraq got their asses handed to them in 91 and signed off that they would indeed disarm. Which they did not do.

[kimpossible]

No, I was asked what would change my opinion. What the countries agreed to on a state level regarding disarmament didn't enter my personal decision. The factor that would primarily change my decision or views would have to do with if we had been attacked or the attack had been subsidized by the Iraqi regime lead by Saddam Hussein.

This was my personal criteria as per the question posed.

[sandra]

Originally posted by Danny@Mar 24 2003, 08:21 AM
Your little 'scene' that you created is viable one on one.... but you also have to think that there is ALOT of probable cause in Iraq.

saddm took our search warrant, wadded it up and threw it out of his country for four years. How would the cops respond to that? They would walk in and trash the living hell out of him..

Hye turn on CNN, that is what we are doign right now.
i think we may just have different news sources. i was listening to a speech by former UN Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter over the weekend. he was there in Iraq doing the weapons inspection. he resigned b/c he didn't agree with what we were doing. he said that, by now, Iraq has destroyed about 99% of their weapons. it is unclear what else bush wanted him to destroy. bush was not specific with his demands.

even with a search warrant, you have to be specific about what you're looking for and where you expect to find it. if you do not find it, the warrant does not permit you to go in again and again and search in other areas not specified in the warrant.

[Xishi]

Hardly any evidence has been provided that Iraq has directed terrorism against the US or has aided any terriorits...however...it is known that Rumsfeld...during the Reagan legacy...was providing military aid to Saddam as Saddam gassed Kurdish villages...

US led attacks on Iraq is in a sense setting a precedent in the favor of uni-lateralism and preemptive warfare....
It will justify other states from these same practices...
So...what would become of the whole principle behind international law and multi-nationalism..?
Our allies in Europe have witnessed our removal of signature from documents to creat an International Criminal Court...they have seen our refusal to ratify the Kyoto protocol...the Test Ban Treaty...
Now...the U.S has even gone as far as to neglect the wishes of the other members of the UN Security Council...
Why are we isolating ourselves like this...?

Oh...let's not forget that our Bush has also been name calling allies opposed to the U.S policies as "Euro Wimps"...how callow is that...? Not to mention silly...oh please...

What is this..? The U.S will only place value on the importance of U.N if it is under U.S leadership...? Erm...

Just utilize common sense....
Will we really feel safer by attacking Iraq...?
By weakening the U.N...we are only weankening international cooperation of defense against terriorism if anything...

[kangal]

Originally posted by Xishi@Mar 25 2003, 04:29 AM
US led attacks on Iraq is in a sense setting a precedent in the favor of uni-lateralism and preemptive warfare....
It will justify other states from these same practices...
So...what would become of the whole principle behind international law and multi-nationalism..?
Our allies in Europe have witnessed our removal of signature from documents to creat an International Criminal Court...they have seen our refusal to ratify the Kyoto protocol...the Test Ban Treaty...
Now...the U.S has even gone as far as to neglect the wishes of the other members of the UN Security Council...
Why are we isolating ourselves like this...?

Oh...let's not forget that our Bush has also been name calling allies opposed to the U.S policies as "Euro Wimps"...how callow is that...? Not to mention silly...oh please...

What is this..? The U.S will only place value on the importance of U.N if it is under U.S leadership...? Erm...

Just utilize common sense....
Will we really feel safer by attacking Iraq...?
By weakening the U.N...we are only weankening international cooperation of defense against terriorism if anything...
I don't believe that this is a totally unilateral approach. We have numerous supporters as almost all of Europe, not counting Germany and France, are supportive. It has been shown that France and Russia have vested interest in Iraq as its well-documented that France sold Iraq parts for a nuclear power plant. Why would one of the world's richest nations in oil need a nuclear plant? I don't by the our "allies" are not supporting us because Russia and China have not really ever been our "allies".

As to Bush's name-calling, I think its only fair that he can have some fun since he's taking ALOT of shots for his actions. Everything from Dumbya to Shrub to the war-mongering cowboy? And he gets flak for saying eurowimps...

As for common sense, I think its just a matter of opinion. I for one do not want a global government. And I don't see how it is international cooperation of defense against terrorism since the UN did nothing to help us after 9-11. The UN didnt send troops to Afghanistan to help hunt out Osama. As for France, it has been said that they are opposing the US on the principle of being anti-American. If they were to support the US, it would put the US solely as the one dominant power. I think that this war is alot of politics as countries like Fr, Ger, Rus, and China are just trying to show that the US can't do what it wants without some opposition.

[VV o n g B a]

Originally posted by kangal@Mar 25 2003, 02:56 PM
I don't believe that this is a totally unilateral approach. We have numerous supporters as almost all of Europe, not counting Germany and France, are supportive.


i've said this b/f, but it's only certain countries' leaders that support bush. not the nations themselves. only 2 nations on earth support the war and they are israel and kuwait. if thats not unilateralist, the word has no meaning. it doesn't mean necessarily we did the wrong thing b/c i think that the entire world could disagree w/ u on something and the world could be wrong. but i do think that chances that u are right on an issue diminish as more and more ppl disagree w/ u. this is exactly what happened to bush. his accumulated arrogance in foreign policy brought us to this point.

As for common sense, I think its just a matter of opinion.  I for one do not want a global government.  
if done correctly, all wars would cease as problems of these nature could be brought to an ultimate arbiter whose position was voted on by the entire world's population. its congress would be made up of representatives from anywhere that has a gov't. it won't be possible until the poorer nations can put together a stable democracy, but i think it can and should be done.

[Danny]

Originally posted by VV o n g B a@Mar 25 2003, 04:28 PM
if done correctly, all wars would cease as problems of these nature could be brought to an ultimate arbiter whose position was voted on by the entire world's population. its congress would be made up of representatives from anywhere that has a gov't. it won't be possible until the poorer nations can put together a stable democracy, but i think it can and should be done.
The UN is not the place for it... When the UN can have Libya at the head of the committee for Human Rights and have Iraq as the head of the disarmerment committee something is overtly wrong with these situatioins. That is why there has been talk about the US leaving the UN, which would in affect basiaclly end the UN's existence. Personally I don't think it is right, but those two points make a strong arguement for leaving....

[ism]

Originally posted by kangal@Mar 25 2003, 03:56 PM
As to Bush's name-calling, I think its only fair that he can have some fun since he's taking ALOT of shots for his actions. Everything from Dumbya to Shrub to the war-mongering cowboy? And he gets flak for saying eurowimps...
... the only difference being that Bush is the top diplomat in U.S. government and should generally follow diplomatic conventions. Unless name-calling is his style of diplomacy, then that's another story...

[kangal]

Originally posted by ism@Mar 25 2003, 03:40 PM
... the only difference being that Bush is the top diplomat in U.S. government and should generally follow diplomatic conventions. Unless name-calling is his style of diplomacy, then that's another story...
Just to point out, I don't think Bush ever said "eurowimp". I think it was an Bush official. And the French gov't and etc have also called Bush the Lone Ranger and etc etc. So i think both sides have been acting childish.

[shaka.brah]

With Germany, China, Russia and France protecting Saddam through the UN, it's no wonder why Saddam didn't want to disarm ..

[FACKU]

Originally posted by kangal@Mar 25 2003, 12:56 PM
Originally posted by Xishi@Mar 25 2003, 04:29 AM
US led attacks on Iraq is in a sense setting a precedent in the favor of uni-lateralism and preemptive warfare....
It will justify other states from these same practices...
So...what would become of the whole principle behind international law and multi-nationalism..?
Our allies in Europe have witnessed our removal of signature from documents to creat an International Criminal Court...they have seen our refusal to ratify the Kyoto protocol...the Test Ban Treaty...
Now...the U.S has even gone as far as to neglect the wishes of the other members of the UN Security Council...
Why are we isolating ourselves like this...?

Oh...let's not forget that our  Bush has also been name calling allies opposed to the U.S policies as "Euro Wimps"...how callow is that...? Not to mention silly...oh please...

What is this..? The U.S will only place value on the importance of U.N if it is under U.S leadership...? Erm...

Just utilize common sense....
Will we really feel safer by attacking Iraq...?
By weakening the U.N...we are only weankening international cooperation of  defense against terriorism if anything...
I don't believe that this is a totally unilateral approach. We have numerous supporters as almost all of Europe, not counting Germany and France, are supportive. It has been shown that France and Russia have vested interest in Iraq as its well-documented that France sold Iraq parts for a nuclear power plant. Why would one of the world's richest nations in oil need a nuclear plant? I don't by the our "allies" are not supporting us because Russia and China have not really ever been our "allies".

As to Bush's name-calling, I think its only fair that he can have some fun since he's taking ALOT of shots for his actions. Everything from Dumbya to Shrub to the war-mongering cowboy? And he gets flak for saying eurowimps...

As for common sense, I think its just a matter of opinion. I for one do not want a global government. And I don't see how it is international cooperation of defense against terrorism since the UN did nothing to help us after 9-11. The UN didnt send troops to Afghanistan to help hunt out Osama. As for France, it has been said that they are opposing the US on the principle of being anti-American. If they were to support the US, it would put the US solely as the one dominant power. I think that this war is alot of politics as countries like Fr, Ger, Rus, and China are just trying to show that the US can't do what it wants without some opposition.
As for common sense, I think its just a matter of opinion.  I for one do not want a global government.  And I don't see how it is international cooperation of defense against terrorism since the UN did nothing to help us after 9-11.  The UN didnt send troops to Afghanistan to help hunt out Osama.  As for France, it has been said that they are opposing the US on the principle of being anti-American.  If they were to support the US, it would put the US solely as the one dominant power.  I think that this war is alot of politics as countries like Fr, Ger, Rus, and China are just trying to show that the US can't do what it wants without some opposition.

WRONG! Check out these links:
http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/11/17...jets/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/11/17/ret.france.jets/index.html)

http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/11/15...oops/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/11/15/ret.france.troops/index.html)

I read it somewhere that ask this question: "would other countries would be as sympathetic as they were after 9-11 if the same thing would happen again to the US?" Good question...

[angelwiththesword]

as far as i am concerned, whether the americans win the war or the iraqis win the war will not effect the world in much of a way. there are americans in iraq, but no iraqi soldiers in the states. either way, the iraqis are going to come out of this with heavy casualties and massive debt. the americans can just borrow money from some other country.

[kitty]

I think if we found a warhead flying over our heads into Washington from Iraq, that would change my opinion. Either that or if the U.S. agreed to similar forms of disarmament as we're requiring of Iraq, or if the U.N. had backed the war, my opinion would probably be less anti-war.

[Fireblade]

I wouldn't care. The only thing that plagues my mind is that i don't want to attend another friend's funeral. That is the only thing I care about, and considering that I have a few friends in the war.... the chances are high. I only want them to return safely, and hopefully the same as they were before they left.