NationStates Jolt Archive

This is a fairly balanced argument for and against the war.

FOR
1. Saddam was a murderous creature - he gassed several thousands of his own citizens. It is the duty of countries like Britain and America to remove such people from power just as they removed Hitler from power in the Second World War.

2. Saddam's Iraq was destabilising an already volatile region by declaring war on its neighbours (see the Iraq Iran War) and generally threatening peace in the region. It was also preventing the spread of democracy.

3. Saddam's fall allowed for democratic elections in Iraq to take place for the first time. It also allowed for relative freedom of speech and freedom of the press for the first time.

4. Democratic elections have been relatively well received, with 59% of the population voting despite numerous death threats from terrorist organisations.

5. By granting Iraq democracy, a wave of change is now spreading throughout the Middle East beginning with Lebannon. Citizens of countries in the region are seeing the freedom in Iraq and are demanding the same from their own governments.

6. Just because Saddam had no WMDs does not mean he never planned to make them. Previous experience shows that Saddam was not afraid to construct such weapons and use them - note the use of biological weapons on the Kurdish population

7. Soldiers know when they join up that they might die - they accept the risks. These deaths were justified in achieving a higher cause and in dying they served their countries and their people.

8. Why should sovereign nations have foreign policy dictated to them by the UN? Surely it is the right of nations whether they declare war not the right of the UN.

AGAINST
1. Saddam might have been bad but he kept Iraq running. There has been a general decline in the Iraqi standard of living since Saddam was defeated. Electricity is no longer constant, sewage runs openly in the streets and many hospitals are under-equipped to deal with the harsh increase in illnesses.

2. Would Saddam have killed the 100,000 Iraqis estimated to have died since the beginning of the war?

3. The liberation has only exposed deep religious and cultural differences in Iraq which will lead to divisive splits in government and possibly even civil war. These religious divisions were covered by Saddam.

4. The democracy is a poor excuse for a democracy - Sunni Muslims boycotted the election which means any government only stands for the Kurds and Shi'ites.

5. Due to the fact that the Iraqi army and police force were disbanded after the invasion, there is now no native authority in Iraq to keep the peace, only the force of foreign soldiers.

6. Were it not for the war, a great many allied soliders would still be alive

7. The invasion of Iraq has only increased Middle Eastern resentment of the West for conducting what (in their eyes) is an anti-Islamic crusade and thus is sending them into the arms of fundamentalists and terrorists.

8. The UN did not give a second resolution to the war which, in the view of many, makes the war illegal.

9. The war damaged diplomatic relationships with the UN and other key European allies like France and Germany. Such diplomatic rifts have been hard to heal: many now believe they cannot be healed.

10. Several conclusive studies have shown that Saddam had no WMDs nor did he have any programmes to build them. Therefore many governments lied or mis-interpreted intelligence to persaude the people and the democratic chambers that the war was necessary.

11. If the war was indeed over cheaper oil, then it cannot be justified.

Hasent this topic been beaten to death with a Sledgehammer already?

Hasent this topic been beaten to death with a Sledgehammer already?
AGH! ZOMBIE TOPIC!

AGH! ZOMBIE TOPIC!


Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!

RUN AWAY!!!

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!

RUN AWAY!!!

No, no, no... You grab your boomstick and blow the shit out of it!

It doesn't really matter.

It doesn't really matter.
Kazzzzzahahahaha!

Oh God this has been debated to death already. IBTL!

it was NOT justified. Even if saddam had killed a billion iraqis, who the hell are the brits and americans to be the world's police? And who the hell said democracy is always the best system? democracy is only good in developed, stable countries, if a country is stil undeveloped and unstable, it should be a dictatorship.

Yes I know but its an interesting one and worth debating. Anyway haven't atheism, homosexuality and gun laws been done to death?

Yes I know but its an interesting one and worth debating. Anyway haven't atheism, homosexuality and gun laws been done to death?

Yes.

This is a fairly balanced argument for and against the war.

FOR
1. Saddam was a murderous creature - he gassed several thousands of his own citizens. It is the duty of countries like Britain and America to remove such people from power.1) even if I support any effort to overtrow Saddam (like giving free weapons, body armor, SAMS, anti tank mines,nigth vision, etc) to the opressed peoples...I do not support the war of Iraq.

Tens of thounsads where killed when DaddyBush called on the Shia to subert against Saddam...and never gave them any support.

Also, I have a problem with the Bushites only willing to remove the Dictators when they no longer taking orders from them.

1) even if I support any effort to overtrow Saddam (like giving free weapons, body armor, SAMS, anti tank mines,nigth vision, etc) to the opressed peoples...I do not support the war of Iraq.

Tens of thounsads where killed when DaddyBush called on the Shia to subert against Saddam...and never gave them any support.

Also, I have a problem with the Bushites only willing to remove the Dictators when they no longer taking orders from them.

I know that Western powers placed Saddam where he was but surely we must put our wrongs right when granted the opportunity?

2. Would Saddam have killed the 100,000 Iraqis estimated to have died since the beginning of the war?No.

just stop it with the iraq war already...... ive had quite enough after 2 years already

just stop it with the iraq war already...... ive had quite enough after 2 years alreadyI will stop when the occupation Army goes home...

No, no, no... You grab your boomstick and blow the shit out of it!

hahahaha, boomstick.

I salute you New British Glory. If there were more people like you, willing to see both sides of an argument, perhaps we would no longer have war.

SHALOM

I know that *the US* placed Saddam where he was but surely we must put our wrongs right when granted the opportunity?

like i said... the opportunity was rite there in 1991(the shia Uprising)...had we giving them Air suport + Free weapons.
It would have been over in 1991.

but I guess we do not want then to be free on thier own uprising...we must be the "liberators"

btw i edited *Western Powers*

that wont be for a long while so i hope you are prepared for some lonnnnnnnggggggg ranting and raving (ie/ wasting your time because everyone's sick to the back teeth about the arguments for the iraq war)

just stop it with the iraq war already...... ive had quite enough after 2 years already

Some of us would like to discuss real life rather than warbling on about atheism vs Christainty as most of this forum seem content to do.

My problem with the war is just that Bush flat out lied to the American public and to the world. The reason we were given for going to war was WMDs. That's it. No grand nation building scheme. Saddaam had WMDs, and he was going to sell them to "terrerists". Now, it's the "War for Iraqi Freedom." Bush is a lying fuck, and the Republicans in Congress (most Democrats too) are sheep. Fuck 'em all. I pray to god my cousin doesn't die over there.

Some of us would like to discuss real life rather than warbling on about atheism vs Christainty as most of this forum seem content to do.

come on though its been in the british press near enough non-stop for 2 years! especially the last few weeks with our glorious election result!!

who needs to watse time debating on a forum when youve all the garbage in the media floating around? go and sink your head in there if you want other's opinions on the war

My problem with the war is just that Bush flat out lied to the American public and to the world. The reason we were given for going to war was WMDs. That's it. No grand nation building scheme. Saddaam had WMDs, and he was going to sell them to "terrerists". Now, it's the "War for Iraqi Freedom." Bush is a lying fuck, and the Republicans in Congress (most Democrats too) are sheep. Fuck 'em all. I pray to god my cousin doesn't die over there.

There was intelligence at the time to suggest there were indeed WMD, but isn't it a positive outcome for the world that a ruthless dictator has been removed from his grasp?

Sure is for the majority of the Iraqis.

Also people join the army to defend your country when called upon, and if necessary die for their country when called upon.

I swear, this war will be remembered as a historical blip 100 years from now. So many people go into histronics about it. It just isn't that important.

I swear, this war will be remembered as a historical blip 100 years from now. So many people go into histronics about it. It just isn't that important.

Agreed.

I swear, this war will be remembered as a historical blip 100 years from now. So many people go into histronics about it. It just isn't that important.
what is histronics ???

I swear, this war will be remembered as a historical blip 100 years from now. So many people go into histronics about it. It just isn't that important.

Histiography is what you are referring to - the debate of history and historical study. That is based around very small things in history - some historians argue endlessly over the smallest details. This war will be one such thing.

There was intelligence at the time to suggest there were indeed WMD, but isn't it a positive outcome for the world that a ruthless dictator has been removed from his grasp?

Sure is for the majority of the Iraqis.

Also people join the army to defend your country when called upon, and if necessary die for their country when called upon.

Then why didn't Bush fire the CIA director instead of giving him the highest medal that can be bestowed upon a civilian?

What about North Korea? Sudan? Libya? Countless other nations? Oh, wait, they don't have oil.

War should be entered into with extreme caution so as to not waste the lives of those brave souls trusting in their government. Bush betrayed that trust by rushing headlong into invasion, without properly checking his intelligence. Do you know how many offspring of congressional reps currently serve in Iraq? I'll give you a hint: It's the number that comes before 1.

The war in Iraq was not justiable for the reasons offered at its inception. You have to remember that Hussein was backed by several Western powers during the time that he was committing attrocities against segments of his own population. We in the United States were offering him both military and economic aide right up to and including the day that "Iraq I" (Desert Storm) was initiated (following the invasion of Kuwait---which is another topic altogether.)

You can't have your cake and eat it too. This is the reason that the continuing war and the specious justifications for it are viewed as hypocritical by the vast majority of countries around the world.

Histiography is what you are referring to...
Histiography is not on Webster either

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=Histiography&x=15&y=17
The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary. Click on a spelling suggestion below or try again using the search box to the right.

Suggestions for histiography:

1. hectographs
2. histogram
3. hysterically
4. hysterical
5. hysteresis
6. hysteric
7. histograms
8. high-spirited
9. hysterics
10. hysterias

Histiography is not on Webster either

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=Histiography&x=15&y=17
The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary. Click on a spelling suggestion below or try again using the search box to the right.

Suggestions for histiography:

1. hectographs
2. histogram
3. hysterically
4. hysterical
5. hysteresis
6. hysteric
7. histograms
8. high-spirited
9. hysterics
10. hysterias

I might have mis-spelt it but believe me (as a history student) it is an actual thing.

Histiography is what you are referring to - the debate of history and historical study. That is based around very small things in history - some historians argue endlessly over the smallest details. This war will be one such thing.

Hysterics. . .histronics. Not Histiography. heh heh, whoops.

Debating small historical details can be fun, I love history.

Is that "hystrionics?"

I'm pretty sure they were referring to histrionics.

Someone with a histrionic personality is basically a drama queen. They break down into tears and smudge their mascara when they break a nail. Of course, men can be histrionic too, but the female imagery was more convenient for getting the point across.

I might have mis-spelt it but believe me (as a history student) it is an actual thing.
must be on 31's dictionary (rite after histronics) :D

Then why didn't Bush fire the CIA director instead of giving him the highest medal that can be bestowed upon a civilian?

What about North Korea? Sudan? Libya? Countless other nations? Oh, wait, they don't have oil.

War should be entered into with extreme caution so as to not waste the lives of those brave souls trusting in their government. Bush betrayed that trust by rushing headlong into invasion, without properly checking his intelligence. Do you know how many offspring of congressional reps currently serve in Iraq? I'll give you a hint: It's the number that comes before 1.

The first point I shall make is that I care very little for American politics; the system is full of beaurocracy-choked; multi-national conglemerate-influenced bufoons who pay far too much on their campaigns. You yanks wouldn't know a good politican if he came and put his arse on your face.

Secondly, since the war we have made real progress in terms of communication and co-operation in such countries as you mentioned: Libya have entered talks with the Americans; there was relative peace in Palestine for a while; North Korea have also entered talks into disarming (even today some cooperation was made with the nuclear testing site they had planned); and even headway has been made with Indian/Pakistan relations.

ME WANT OIL!!!!!

I'm pretty sure they were referring to histrionics.

Someone with a histrionic personality is basically a drama queen. They break down into tears and smudge their mascara when they break a nail. Of course, men can be histrionic too, but the female imagery was more convenient for getting the point across.

LOL, Winter alliance to the rescue. good job.

One entry found for histrionics.
Main Entry: his·tri·on·ics
Pronunciation: -niks
Function: noun plural but singular or plural in construction
1 : theatrical performances
2 : deliberate display of emotion for effect

I would put in a hesitant 'yes'.
Mostly simply because Saddam was an evil SOB and his sons were worse than him, at least now Iraq has some possibility of a good future, as opposed to continuing evil-dictator style of govornment.
That and I am willing to bet Saddam did have weapons of mass destruction, most likely theyre buried in the middle of a desert along with the bodies of the fellows who dug the holes.

That and I am willing to bet Saddam did have weapons of mass destruction, most likely theyre buried in the middle of a desert along with the bodies of the fellows who dug the holes.

Well put :)

here you go:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historiography

The first point I shall make is that I care very little for American politics; the system is full of beaurocracy-choked; multi-national conglemerate-influenced bufoons who pay far too much on their campaigns. You yanks wouldn't know a good politican if he came and put his arse on your face.

Good point. *rolls eyes* You should care, because our moronic politicians are invading countries, while yours are yelling at each other "two sword lengths" apart.

Secondly, since the war we have made real progress in terms of communication and co-operation in such countries as you mentioned: Libya have entered talks with the Americans; there was relative peace in Palestine for a while; North Korea have also entered talks into disarming (even today some cooperation was made with the nuclear testing site they had planned); and even headway has been made with Indian/Pakistan relations.

That was not my point. Bush set a precedent with invasion. By invading a nation based purely on limited intelligence, he proved that the role of the United States is not one of peaceful mediation, but one of policing. He proved that we do not need solid reasons to invade, nor do we need to even consider the possible international implications of our actions. By giving contracts to Halliburton in Iraq, a company our VP was VP of and still gets money from, Bush further cemented the bond between MNCs and our corrupt government. It also throws into question his motivation for war, whether it truly was to "domino effect" the region, or if it was simply for monetary gain for him and his cronies, at the cost of the image of the country to our allies.

MORE OIL!!!!!!!!

It also throws into question his motivation for war, whether it truly was to "domino effect" the region, or if it was simply for monetary gain for him and his cronies, at the cost of the image of the country to our allies.

Well concluded :)

on that note I'm off to bed :)

Well concluded :)

on that note I'm off to bed :)

Thanks for the debate, it's nice to have someone who is logical and expressive.

By giving contracts to Halliburton in Iraq, a company our VP was VP of and still gets money from, Bush further cemented the bond between MNCs and our corrupt government.
What other company has the experience and capital to provide the infrastructure to rebuild an entire country? Haliburton would have gotten the contract no matter what. President Clinton gave Haliburton a no-bid contract back when NATO moved in on Kosovo, and if he'd been in power during the Iraq invasion, he'd have given it to them again.

Whats done is done....

Justified...... no

Are we safer....no

Will we be attacked again....yep

Will politicians or their families fight?.......no

Will regular joe fight and die?........yep

Then why didn't Bush fire the CIA director instead of giving him the highest medal that can be bestowed upon a civilian?

What about North Korea? Sudan? Libya? Countless other nations? Oh, wait, they don't have oil.

War should be entered into with extreme caution so as to not waste the lives of those brave souls trusting in their government. Bush betrayed that trust by rushing headlong into invasion, without properly checking his intelligence. Do you know how many offspring of congressional reps currently serve in Iraq? I'll give you a hint: It's the number that comes before 1.

I'll give you a hint you are twice as likely to serve in the military if you are the son of a congressmen or senator. This whole idea that political families don't serve is total BS. Most of them are from military families and most of their children with serve as well. I believe a senator or rep from Min. has a cousin in Afgahanistan and a son about to serve in the military this is common. Not to mention most politicians also have served in the military.

There was intelligence at the time to suggest there were indeed WMD, but isn't it a positive outcome for the world that a ruthless dictator has been removed from his grasp?

Sure is for the majority of the Iraqis.

Also people join the army to defend your country when called upon, and if necessary die for their country when called upon.

Actually, most join the military because it pays for two years of their college education. And, right now, our troops are defending a different country in case you havn't noticed that the war is in IRAQ! :headbang: Not the U.S.
Still, they're a lot braver than I am.

C'mere, dead horse, I must beat you!

*with a tip of the hat to Giacamo, underdog and winner of the 2005 Kentucky Derby

I swear, this war will be remembered as a historical blip 100 years from now. So many people go into histronics about it. It just isn't that important.

No it won't be remembered as a historical blip because it will be the beginning of the end of U.S. dominance in the world and people would look back on it like that not about the war itself and everything it stood but the beginning of the end of U.S. dominance and the beginning of Chinese dominance in the world.

P.S. The U.S. gov. is borrowing over $1 billion dollars from the Chinese everyday to function we're screwed.

I'll give you a hint you are twice as likely to serve in the military if you are the son of a congressmen or senator. This whole idea that political families don't serve is total BS. Most of them are from military families and most of their children with serve as well. I believe a senator or rep from Min. has a cousin in Afgahanistan and a son about to serve in the military this is common. Not to mention most politicians also have served in the military.

Just like our dear President who bravely joined some Air Defence in Texas so he could dodge the draft?
And wow, how bizarre that the majority of our politicians (according to you) are in military families and agreed to an unnecessary war! Hmmm, coincidence? NO!
I think you may be right about the Min. Senator, but who cares? There are people living in Iraq who had absolutely no say in fighting at all, and they're dying every day! Civilians!
Not to mention, it doesn't matter if they're from military families or not, it doesn't change the fact that only one senator has family in Iraq. ONE! :headbang:

Whats done is done....

Justified...... no

Are we safer....no

Will we be attacked again....yep

Will politicians or their families fight?.......no

Will regular joe fight and die?........yep

What he said!

P.S. The U.S. gov. is borrowing over $1 billion dollars from the Chinese everyday to function we're screwed.

I think some people mentioned something about declaring that debt null as a way to solve the deficit problem. :roll:

They seem to forget that their going to need to borrow more money from another sucker if that happens since the American habit of spending more than they have is still quite strong. And who the heck is going to lend you any money when you just declared that multi billion dollar debt of yours null and void?

War should be entered into with extreme caution so as to not waste the lives of those brave souls trusting in their government. Bush betrayed that trust by rushing headlong into invasion, without properly checking his intelligence. Do you know how many offspring of congressional reps currently serve in Iraq? I'll give you a hint: It's the number that comes before 1.

See I believe any politician should only vote for a if and only if they believe that if any of their sons/daughters got wounded or killed the cause was 100% justified and you cannot say that about the iraq war

I don't understand this it was only WMD that we went to war. How about the voilations of UN resolution 1441. Or any of the other reasons given in president Bush's speechs i think he did mention Sadam as a threat to his people and bordering countries. Think Iran, Jerusalem and pretty much all the others. I think there were a lot more reasons then Oil and Money, and middle east dominance, and political gain (raly to the flag idea). If he lied prove it is all i have to say. Prove to me he (Bush) knew 100% that Iraq had no WMD's because thats the only way he could of lied if he thought they where there then it's not a lie.

I am going to regret posting this :(

I am sorry but i just can't help but put this line. "I think what we are all forgeting here is that if you dont support going to war with Iraq your gay" Peter Griffen.

I don't understand this it was only WMD that we went to war. How about the voilations of UN resolution 1441.

How about them? Violations happen all the time because the UN is largely a gentleman's agreement. Are we supposed to invade a country every time this happens? We violated several UN resolutions by invading Iraq. Should we invade ourselves? An interesting concept, I'll grant you, but military masturbation is not only messy, but expensive.

The question isn't one of WMDs as the sole reason for invading. The issue is that WMDs and a imminent usage of them against US interests was given as the reason for the timetable, the call to action that demanded we take immediate steps. This is no known to have been a falsehood. Iraq not only didn't have WMDs, but had no way to manufacture them or use them and, even if they did have them, their only reason to have them was to stalemate Iran.

So Bush's call to action may not have been an outright lie, but it was a massaging of the facts to inspire fear and reckless action. That is at best questionable and, at worst, treasonous.


Or any of the other reasons given in president Bush's speechs i think he did mention Sadam as a threat to his people and bordering countries. Think Iran, Jerusalem and pretty much all the others.

Lots of people are a threat to their bordering countries. Canada and Mexico are probably feeling a little less comfortable nowadays. Again, this isn't the issue. Petty dictators abound in the world. Is it our job to root them out, immediately, against the wishes of the rest of the world? If so, how are we any different than the dictators we're overthrowing?

Again, though, this isn't the issue. We went to war when we did not because Bush said Saddam was going to invade Iran or nuke Israel (which contains Jerusalem), but that he was going to use his WMDs against us. This wasn't true, therefore his call to action was misapplied and misleading.

I think there were a lot more reasons then Oil and Money, and middle east dominance, and political gain (raly to the flag idea).

Undoubtedly there were. But then, there are always a plethora of reasons to go to war. The challenge is to figure out when those reason are justified. In this situation, they clearly weren't.


If he lied prove it is all i have to say. Prove to me he (Bush) knew 100% that Iraq had no WMD's because thats the only way he could of lied if he thought they where there then it's not a lie.

Well, first of all, plausible deniability is far more of a threat to the fabric of our nation than homosexual marriage. To say, "Well, he didn't know, so it's not his fault," or "His people kept info from him," is to give a leader a blank check when it comes to responsibility for their actions. As we know now, his people were well aware that Iraq didn't have WMDs, wasn't planning on using WMDs and didn't have any way to acquire WMDs. If Bush is in a position to send thousands of US men and women to die, he damn well better find out the correct information. It's his job. If he finds out later that his information was wrong, at the least he can admit the error instead of trying to tap dance the pretence. He is responsible for the decisions he makes and he made one either out of willful manipulation of the evidence or poor understanding of the evidence. Either way, he's culpable.

Snipp .

Ok there was a lot in that on and some good points were raised. How many violations does it take for the UN to OK war. I would also like to ask why no other war current or recent is getting the look over as good as this one. Only two wars have been oked by the UN. Korea, and Iraq 1. So what about all the rest if we need 100% and other countries also need 100% ok from the UN to attack another country. Why no questions of the Russian invasion and destruction of Checenya(yes i probly misspelled that). Or any other reccent war there have been plenty. And i believe some where around 54 countries are at war right now. Second if the President acts on Intelligence that he feels is good then he needs to take responsiblity for that. IE. rebuild the country you destroyed. and try to make it a better place.

Whats done is done....

Justified...... no

Are we safer....no

Will we be attacked again....yep

Will politicians or their families fight?.......no

Will regular joe fight and die?........yepexactamente

How many violations does it take for the UN to OK war.

Well, the point wasn't to establish a "war threshold" for UN resolutions. The point was that to claim you're going to war to uphold UN resolution when the act itself violates UN resolutions is ingenuous at best.

UN resolutions hold very little real political clout. The UN serves as an international roundtable where individual countries can explicitly state their positions on world events. It is not a world governing body. Therefore, breaking a UN resolution is not the same as breaking an international law.


I would also like to ask why no other war current or recent is getting the look over as good as this one.

Possibly because no other current war was as flagrantly misrepresented to the world stage as this one. Also, as a world power, actions the US takes are naturally going to receive a higher level of scrutiny. If you're the biggest target, you'd better expect people to shoot at you.


Only two wars have been oked by the UN. Korea, and Iraq 1. So what about all the rest if we need 100% and other countries also need 100% ok from the UN to attack another country.

Well, short answer is: We don't. Long answer is: we don't, but if nearly every other country in the world is saying "Don't do this," then perhaps we should at least take a second look at our position. If we decide to then go ahead, we need to be prepared for the fallout and it's silly to act all hurt that the rest of the world didn't fall in line when they said they didn't want to be a part of it in the first place.


Why no questions of the Russian invasion and destruction of Checenya(yes i probly misspelled that). Or any other reccent war there have been plenty. And i believe some where around 54 countries are at war right now.

There are plenty of questions about Chechnya, just as there are plenty of questions about Darfur and the million other international hotspots currently simmering on the world stage.


And i believe some where around 54 countries are at war right now. Second if the President acts on Intelligence that he feels is good then he needs to take responsiblity for that. IE. rebuild the country you destroyed. and try to make it a better place.

Oh, I'm in agreement. An apology isn't enough at this point. We now have to rebuild Iraq, like it or not. The thing that still irks me, however, is that instead of taking responsibility, blame is shifted around and fall guys are found and the administration itself still refuses to admit that their initial call to action was misguided. That, to me, says far more about the character of the administration than any "rebuilding" efforts, which were war spoils divvied up before the actual invasion occured anyway.

just stop it with the iraq war already...... ive had quite enough after 2 years already

Hear hear!!! Pick a new topic.

The French intervention in fifteenth century Italy: Was it justified, yes or no?

The industrial revolution, good or bad?

Tastes Great, or Less Filling?

that wont be for a long while so i hope you are prepared for some lonnnnnnnggggggg ranting and raving (ie/ wasting your time because everyone's sick to the back teeth about the arguments for the iraq war)
Imagine how the people in Iraq feel? You only have to put up with the typed opinions offered here. NO wait!! You don't have to put up with all of this.....just post on another thread....you will be fine. :eek:

FOR
1. Saddam was a murderous creature - he gassed several thousands of his own citizens. It is the duty of countries like Britain and America to remove such people from power just as they removed Hitler from power in the Second World War.

In WWII, Hitler posed an immediate and direct threat to Britain and America.

Britain because Hitler wanted to conquer Europe and Britain finally stopped the appeasement game when German forces invaded Poland.

America because Germany declared war on America following America's declaration of war on Japan.


AGAINST
1. ...There has been a general decline in the Iraqi standard of living since Saddam was defeated. Electricity is no longer constant, sewage runs openly in the streets and many hospitals are under-equipped to deal with the harsh increase in illnesses.

Actually, Coalition forces have been working to restore electricity, sewage, and medical facilities. There is also work being done to restore the highways and other basic things that fell into disrepair because money was going to build palaces.


5. Due to the fact that the Iraqi army and police force were disbanded after the invasion, there is now no native authority in Iraq to keep the peace, only the force of foreign soldiers.

Perhaps you haven't been paying attention to the news recently, but Iraqi police and army units have been stepping up recently. Coalition forces still support the Iraqi unit, but Iraqi units are increasing in size, ability, and effectiveness.


10. Several conclusive studies have shown that Saddam had no WMDs nor did he have any programmes to build them. Therefore many governments lied or mis-interpreted intelligence to persaude the people and the democratic chambers that the war was necessary.

Currently, it's been noted that intelligence coming from Iraq was as acurate as possible. The United States government acted on what it was given. I hate to say that we gave Saddam what, eleven or twelve years, to do as he pleased and then had a huge international debate for several months prior to the invasion. More than likely he shipped off what he had to sympathetic countries. I'm not saying that's what Saddam did for sure, but it's probable.

11. If the war was indeed over cheaper oil, then it cannot be justified.

If the war had just been for oil, then America would have simply done all the fun illegal, under-the-table dealings a few other countries partook in. France being the most widely publicized one here.

Only two wars have been oked by the UN. Korea, and Iraq 1.

Korea wasn't a war. 'Twas a "Police Action". But that's just political bull. Every soldier there will say it was a war, and I support them in that.

How do most Americans feel about all this?

Most Americans say Iraq war not worth it: poll (http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1115218059971_43?s_name=&no_ads=)

The national survey conducted last week found support for the war is at its lowest level since the U.S.-led invasion in 2003.

A majority of Americans are now against it; with 57 per cent of respondents saying it was not worth going to war compared to 41 per cent who thought it was, according to the CNN/US Today/Gallup poll that was released on Tuesday.

This poll supports a poll that I saw about two months ago, which had similar results.

Hear hear!!! Pick a new topic.

The French intervention in fifteenth century Italy: Was it justified, yes or no?

The industrial revolution, good or bad?

Tastes Great, or Less Filling?

No, it's France. Tentative good, would be all good w/o all the pollution. Tastes Great, who the hell drinks a beer because it's less filling?

Korea wasn't a war. 'Twas a "Police Action". But that's just political bull. Every soldier there will say it was a war, and I support them in that.

Twas no police action the UN declared war. and they still havn't declared peace.