Disarmament or regime change? - Why do you support the war?

[honest intellectual]

To the cappies: why do you think war is justified: because it will disarm Iraq of illegal weapons which are a "threat to peace" or because it will oust Saddam's regime for the good of the Iraqis? Just trying to educate myself about your views.

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

Im not a "cappie" but I am in support of the war.

The reason? Hussein is an evil bastard who has tortured his people and the Kurds for too long. He has not obeyed warnings put against him as punishment for what he has been doing and he deserves to be killed.

As for the regime change, I think Iraq needs help in change once Hussein is ousted. But the allies shouldnt enforce their own systems in the country. Let the people decide. They have been wanting to for too long now.

[man in the red suit]

Quote: from Socialsmo o Muerte on 12:13 am on Mar. 17, 2003
Im not a "cappie" but I am in support of the war.

The reason? Hussein is an evil bastard who has tortured his people and the Kurds for too long. He has not obeyed warnings put against him as punishment for what he has been doing and he deserves to be killed.

As for the regime change, I think Iraq needs help in change once Hussein is ousted. But the allies shouldnt enforce their own systems in the country. Let the people decide. They have been wanting to for too long now.

I agree with you all the way. I am also a socialist and I strongly support the war. I think that the idea that this war is merely to support economic imperialism is the stupidest fucking thing I have ever heard from anyone in my lifetime. But that is another issue. I agree that Sadam is a threat to Americans and more importantly, to his own people. He has violated sanctions imposed on him by the U.N, NOT to re-militarize and he goes right ahead and does the exact opposite of what we told him to do. Weaopons of such a powerful magnitude can not be trusted by any means in the hands of a complete madman. I do not support the concept of war but in this instance I believe that it is essential to rid the world of Sadam. These protestors ***** about how innocent Iraqi's will be killed, and unfortunately they WILL be killed. But in reponse to this statement I pose the protestors this question, "how many people will have to die under Sadam's rule before we eliminate him?" Sadam has killed and tortured so many of his people during all the years of his rule that it would be very hard for American forces to match that same number in killings in Iraq. Americans also fail to recognize the outstanding new technological advancements in the military. They are beggining to fund new suits that can prevent American G.I casualties and in addition, the accuracy of the weapons they are creating are able to effectively prevent more civilian casualties.

Honestly, how can you NOT support the war?

(Edited by man in the red suit at 12:42 am on Mar. 17, 2003)

[jjack]

Because if our government hadn't actively subverted their every effort for their entire existence, groups such as the Communist Party of Iraq could have ousted the Ba'ath party long ago.

The only way I would support the war is if a coalition of nations came together to provide *support* to an Iraqi-based rebellion which would overthrow Saddam and then hold UN-monitored elections.

[man in the red suit]

Quote: from jjack on 1:02 am on Mar. 17, 2003
Because if our government hadn't actively subverted their every effort for their entire existence, groups such as the Communist Party of Iraq could have ousted the Ba'ath party long ago.



that is a logical reason but it is too biased. How can you not support ridding the world of sadam? do you really believe that there is any way in hell that we can do this asides from war? If you do, let me know. If you don't, then I have come to the conclusion that you would NOT like to remove Sadam. And if that is the case then why?

[honest intellectual]

man in the red suit, Socialsmo o Muerte, you both say you support the war because it will liberate the people of Iraq? Socialsmo o Muerte, you say "let the people decide"

Consider that the Iraqis don't want to be bombed

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

You know that do you?

No, you don't, and I know you don't. How? Becuase you're wrong. I read, every day, a newspaper from the Arabic world. Public opinion is against Saddam and many people, especially the Kurdish people are willing to face war for the prospect of life with Hussein.

[CruelVerdad]

I´m socialist, and i can´t believe that you guys support war on Iraq.
I don´t support Saddam, i agree he is a bastard! I think that they must change their leaders, like Saddam. But those are not good reasons to let the us army kill innocent people.
If they wanna kill people, let it be the Iraquis soldiers to die...
But please you can´t say that you want a war over there!
It´s not fair that a little kid see how his parents are killed, it´s not fair that he doens´t know what´s going on....

---> STOP THE WAR!

[Eastside Revolt]

Saddam is not the only dictator in the world who tortures people or has "weapons of mass destruction" , why not go after the other dictators?

Because they want the resources of Iraq, and they want to protect Israel. They also want to take-over OPEC and dissolvge the UN.

Sounds like Imperialism to me.

[man in the red suit]

you guys don't quite understand this do you? This is war is not a war to kill innocent civilians. It is a war for a regime change. This is not a whole lot different from the 1989 war (if you can call it a war) in pnama to remove Manuel Noriega. We are not going to fly into Iraq and bomb the country to smithereens. Times have changed since hiroshima. We don't simply drop atomic bombs on people. There will much less civilian casualties than you think if any at all. Even if there are many innocents bombed, (which there won't be I might add) the number of causualties will be far less than those killed and tortured under Sadam. The way I see it, if you don't support the war, you need to re-take your elementary school math classes. I know your reasons for being anti-war are admirable but they simply don't make any sense in this situation. Just so you can see where I am coming from I would like you all to look back in history and realize that there were those who protested US involvement in WW II.

It is really quite simple.

War = a few civilian deaths

Sadam = many more civilian deaths.

This is not vietnam. Our involvement in this war is credible. To say that it is not is simply ignorance or stupidity

[KRAZYKILLA]

WE should be more concerned with how to stop DEMOCRACY AND THE SPREAD OF CAPITALISM AFTER THE WAR.

[man in the red suit]

Quote: from redcanada on 12:25 am on Mar. 18, 2003
Saddam is not the only dictator in the world who tortures people or has "weapons of mass destruction" , why not go after the other dictators?

because Iraq has only violated about 17 or so UN sanctions placed against him after the gulf war. that's why. And besides we are still looking into norht korea. Their little shit of a leader is guilty of similar crimes.
therefore we have two dictators who have weopons of mass destruction, have violated US sanctions and are for all intensive purposes, evil.


Because they want the resources of Iraq, uh........the answer is.........NO!!! would you like to try again? this time I will tell you the answer it is the exact opposite of your first answer. Think hard now.....concentrate.....very good...


and they want to protect Israel.
yeah......and your point is........?


They also want to take-over OPEC and dissolvge the UN.

right....and you heard this from where....national enquirer perhaps?

[man in the red suit]

Quote: from KRAZYKILLA on 1:55 am on Mar. 18, 2003
WE should be more concerned with how to stop DEMOCRACY AND THE SPREAD OF CAPITALISM AFTER THE WAR.


well obviously we would all love to prevent the spread of capitalism but democracy?? what do you have against democracy, pal?

[synthesis]

This is not a whole lot different from the 1989 war (if you can call it a war) in pnama to remove Manuel Noriega.

No shit? We bombed a tenement barrio in Panama, killing several thousand natives and leaving 15,000 homeless. Try again.

Even if there are many innocents bombed, (which there won't be I might add)

The U.S. leaves bloody footprints WHEREVER it walks, no exceptions.

the number of causualties will be far less than those killed and tortured under Sadam

Think about this for a second, Sherlock. If the U.S. was so devoid of morals that they installed his party and funded him in the first place, what makes you think that the new figurehead they'll install in Iraq will be any fucking different from the barbaric dictators they've installed everywhere else?

[Liberty Lover]

Think about this for a second, Sherlock. If the U.S. was so devoid of morals that they installed his party and funded him in the first place, what makes you think that the new figurehead they'll install in Iraq will be any fucking different from the barbaric dictators they've installed everywhere else?

Tell me...how many dictators have America installed since the end of the cold war and the evaporation of the communist threat?



Saddam is not the only dictator in the world who tortures people or has "weapons of mass destruction" , why not go after the other dictators?


Don't worry...we will.

[Eastside Revolt]

Quote: from man in the red suit on 2:06 am on Mar. 18, 2003

Quote: from redcanada on 12:25 am on Mar. 18, 2003
Saddam is not the only dictator in the world who tortures people or has "weapons of mass destruction" , why not go after the other dictators?

because Iraq has only violated about 17 or so UN sanctions placed against him after the gulf war. that's why. And besides we are still looking into norht korea. Their little shit of a leader is guilty of similar crimes.
therefore we have two dictators who have weopons of mass destruction, have violated US sanctions and are for all intensive purposes, evil.


Because they want the resources of Iraq, uh........the answer is.........NO!!! would you like to try again? this time I will tell you the answer it is the exact opposite of your first answer. Think hard now.....concentrate.....very good...


and they want to protect Israel.
yeah......and your point is........?


They also want to take-over OPEC and dissolvge the UN.

right....and you heard this from where....national enquirer perhaps?



I didn't have to read it anywhere!! It's just the way of imperialism.Just watch: before the end of this decade there will be no such thing as the UN or OPEC. Actually it is possible that there will still be a UN but it wont include the US.

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

The fact is, all those "heroic" opinionated anti-war protesters are selfish. If not selfish then stupid.

For years, Hussein has tortured his people. He needs to be ousted. Every diplomatic way has been tried. War is always a last resort and the time has come to choose the last resort.

Like man in the red suit said, the war isn't going ahead to kill innocent civilians. That is a sad fact of war, that civilians die. However witht he weaponry that America has, civilian casualties will be limited.

I'm basically saying exactly what man in the red suit said....You all chose;

a) No war, let Hussein and his successors torture and kill many more Iraqi's and Kurds over a longperiod of time

B) Wage war, oust Hussein and all those who are planning to enforce his ideology whilst killing a few civilians over a short period of time.

Like I said....anti war = selfish

[Mazdak]

Well, Socialismo o Muerte, you are a supporter of Iran, i would expect you to support a war against Iraq, and to be honest, you have every right to.

However, Bush has NO right to declare war solely because he might be a "threat." I support Saddam 100%. The CIA itself, according to what i heard, has already admitted Saddam didnt intentionally go and kill Kurds.

Saddam destroyed the few weapons he had, and telling him you are going to kill him in two days ISN'T GOING TO STOP HIM FROM USING THEM as a "farewell" present to the US.

Furthermore, Saddam's problem with Iran has nothing to do with the present situation, so if Iran wishes to see Saddam ousted, then by all means, invade. The US should keep out of the business of others the way it is right now.

Bush also clearly stated in his speech he did not want the Iraqi's to touch the oil wells. Now, how obvious can it be?!?

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

Quote: from Mazdak on 9:00 pm on Mar. 18, 2003


Bush also clearly stated in his speech he did not want the Iraqi's to touch the oil wells. Now, how obvious can it be?!?

That was so funny. I had to check I was actually hearing it correctly. It was 1am here, so I thought maybe my tired senses were going crazy!

[honest intellectual]

Quote: from Socialsmo o Muerte on 12:04 am on Mar. 18, 2003
You know that do you?

No, you don't, and I know you don't. How? Becuase you're wrong. I read, every day, a newspaper from the Arabic world. I love it: " I know.... the papers said so..." *nods solemnly*

Don't believe everything you read!

man in the red suit, the UN has estimated Iraqi civilian casualties at 50,000 - 250,000. The US don't want to fight in the cities (because obviously the 'home team' always has a huge advantage in urban warfare). They won't enter the cities until they've surrendered. They will probably surround at least Baghdad and Basra and either a) starve them out or B) bomb them until they surrender (or both). You think this will kill "a few" Iraqis? Like the UN said, 50000 minimum, that's more than Saddam has killed, as far as i know

[Larissa]

It's neither about disarmament nor change of regime...Prez has stated it clear (last night's speech)

"And all Iraqi military and civilian personnel should listen carefully to this warning: In any conflict, your fate will depend on your actions. Do not destroy oil wells, a source of wealth that belongs to the Iraqi people. Do not obey any command to use weapons of mass destruction against anyone, including the Iraqi people. War crimes will be prosecuted, war criminals will be punished and it will be no defense to say, "I was just following orders."

- 1) a proven fact what his unique war goal is = oil (and global control)
- 2) will Bush ever be prosecuted for his war crimes? Will he ever destroy his mass drestruction weapons?

[man in the red suit]

man in the red suit, the UN has estimated Iraqi civilian casualties at 50,000 - 250,000.

a sad price to pay unfortunately, but still less than the countless millions of people sadam has killed, tortured, raped, etc.


The US don't want to fight in the cities (because obviously the 'home team' always has a huge advantage in urban warfare). They won't enter the cities until they've surrendered.

which will take how long, maybe a week? common. In the last gulf war, Iraqis surrendered to news reporters. There have already been some Iraqi's surrendering because they saw a flare go off somewhere and they thought the war had started. The iraqi's may have home court advantage but their military power has enough damage to inflict the same destruction as pop guns and rubberbands at best.


They will probably surround at least Baghdad and Basra and either a) starve them out or B) bomb them until they surrender (or both). You think this will kill "a few" Iraqis? Like the UN said, 50000 minimum, that's more than Saddam has killed, as far as i know

uh think again buddy. 50,000 you say right? and this is LESS than the numbers that sadam has killed, tortured, and raped. Shall I laugh now or laugh later?

[/quote]


(Edited by man in the red suit at 1:49 am on Mar. 20, 2003)

[man in the red suit]

Quote: from Larissa on 1:01 am on Mar. 19, 2003
It's neither about disarmament nor change of regime...Prez has stated it clear (last night's speech)

did you actually listen to the speech or pretend to? it is clear this war is for a regime change.


"And all Iraqi military and civilian personnel should listen carefully to this warning: In any conflict, your fate will depend on your actions. Do not destroy oil wells, a source of wealth that belongs to the Iraqi people. Do not obey any command to use weapons of mass destruction against anyone, including the Iraqi people. War crimes will be prosecuted, war criminals will be punished and it will be no defense to say, "I was just following orders."

- 1) a proven fact what his unique war goal is = oil (and global control)

ok now look back at what you wrote.......good.....now...after the words "source of wealth" it is necesary that you continue to read the sentence. If you look closely you will see that there are another 6 words after the phrase "source of wealth."

These 6 words read, "THAT BELONGS TO THE IRAQI PEOPLE"



- 2) will Bush ever be prosecuted for his war crimes?

what war crimes? there were never any UN sanctions imposed against him that said he couldn't have a military or weapons of mass destruction



Will he ever destroy his mass drestruction weapons?

uh let's see.......nope..... ;)


(Edited by man in the red suit at 1:52 am on Mar. 20, 2003)

[Larissa]

Maybe there is still some hope this mad mass murder will be prosecuted in the future. Not only he will kill innocent Iraqi civilians, but also he will cause many US civilians to die from counterattacks in the near future.

http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/top...m=11&topic=3167 (http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/topic.pl?forum=11&topic=3167)

[Larissa]

"ok now look back at what you wrote.......good.....now...after the words "source of wealth" it is necesary that you continue to read the sentence. If you look closely you will see that there are another 6 words after the phrase "source of wealth."

These 6 words read, "THAT BELONGS TO THE IRAQI PEOPLE" !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Until Cheney's Halliburton Corp starts exploiting it!! Let's not be so innocent, please.

[man in the red suit]

thank you. Some of what you gave me was very enlightening but I don't mean to be rude when I say that most of it was just nonsense. under article VI it talks about him violating the kelogg-briand pact. This pact made war illegal. The idea of imposing penalties for starting war is somewhat ludicrous to me.

Personally I am not buying the part about him bribing, intimidating, and threatening members of the security council.

article II is a heap of opinionated drivel and it cannot be substantiated that bush is violating the equal protection clause. How? did he hand pick the blacks, Mexicans, and poor white folk? I think not. What is he supposed to do? Have a conscription for upper class white bourgeoisie?

the only legitimate part of that which I would hold against bush is article ! and most certainly Article III if it is in fact true. I am having a very hard time believing article III however I guess that isn't hard for a man like Bush to do is it?