"Peacekeepers of the world"

Should we even be in iraq?

Total Votes:

[ 0 ]

This poll closed on January 10, 2005.
No longer accepting new votes.

[Shygoth]

Can you imagine everyone dying in a major city in the U.S? Everyone would be freaking out. That?s what?s happening in the war in Iraq. So many civilians are dying, women and children. Imagine how many graveyards 17,000 people would take up.

What is the whole point in fighting when it just causes ciaos, pain, and suffering? What has mankind come to? Now why is it all most people care about is the U.S casualties? Why don?t they care about the Iraq casualties? So many people get hurt/killed everyday, its very hard to imagine. What?s the point, in us fighting other peoples? wars for them? This isn?t every about us. We just have to be the peacekeepers of the world, don?t we?

So why do people think that killing or fighting other people resolves things. Its just makes them bring other people into it, and it all just blows out of proportion. Talking it over is a good thing. They should make some kind of treaty or work something out, so the killing of innocent peoples? stops. We are sending all of our young men into wars that we have no business being in the first place.

I am a pacifist. I don?t believe in Fighting or killing. I find there is no point to it. We can solve things in many different ways, then grabbing a gun and letting our instincts take control of us. Taking out all of your problems out on other people, thinking its going to do something, but really your just making yourself look bad, and your just hurting yourself and others. I just don?t like it. Killing is murder. What makes it different than murder? We are murdering them. Fighting just makes things worse. It makes people angry.

In conclusion, I think that we shouldn?t even be in Iraq? or any other country, in fact. It isn?t any of our business. We shouldn?t be killing civilians, raiding peoples? houses, etc. It?s like pillaging. Are we going to stoop that low, to just take things out on other peoples? different than ourselves?

[Shygoth]

Post your opinion, i think i make a valad argument. I actually took the TIME to write this.

Lick bush, Its patriotic! 3nodding

[Shygoth]

Say something? sweatdrop

[Andreyis]

*assuming the thread's about the war in Iraq*

Quote:

The war in Iraq was about several things, including:
- Oil
- Ending state terrorism
- Getting a foot in the door
- Disarming Iraq of WMDs

So, let's start with oil. Oil is the lifeblood of an army these days. If a new democratic government is set up in such a way that makes it favourable to the Coalition, they will be more willing to provide oil for the military as it stamps out more terrorism around the globe. Why not invade Saudi Arabia for this reason? Because they are already friendly towards the U.S.A.

Next, ending state terrorism there. The violations of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights were fairly blatant. You can learn more about them here. The UDoHR can be viewed here. This is a moral objective of the war. To prevent the abuse of civilians by the Iraqi government. If the new government starts abusing the civilians, perhaps we shall see a return to the country. As you might notice, Iraq has been a member of the UN since 1945, and as such, must abide by the UDoHR.

Third: getting a foot in the door. Geographically speaking, Iraq is in quite a nice place. If the new government is favourable towards the Coalition, it may be that they will allow the militaries to launch strikes from there, reducing relocation costs.

Fourthly, disarming Iraq of WMDs. You might say that Iraq had no WMDs, and current evidence does support that there are no WMDs there now. However, observations have shown continual movement across the border to Syria. Syria is not being helpful at all in determining what it was exactly. Also remember that the inspectors were not given full cooperation. So it is entirely possible that the WMDs were moved out of Iraq during the inspection time and during the war. Or they could have been moved before the inspections and they were just being impossible to goad the US into a war and destroy its international standing. The question is not: "Did Iraq have WMDs?", it is: "When were they moved?" History will reveal the truth, so I will spend no more time on this.

Now, the threat to the USA caused by these hypothetical WMDs is this. To the border of Iraq lies Saudi Arabia. Where does America get a lot of its investment from? Saudi Arabia. That's where a large threat lies. Iraq had invaded Kuwait ten years ago, and thus shown an interest in invading. Saudi Arabia also shares a border with Kuwait.

Moving on to other aspects of the war. We'll start with the events leading up to the violations of the UDoHR. Because of the heavy sanctions on Iraq after 1988, the nation's economy began to deteriorate. Saddam Hussein was forced to resort to more and more religious methods of keeping order. As we should all know, religious methods are dangerous and highly discriminatory when it comes to governing. So it's partly the Americans' fault for this. It does not make what was done right.

Now, the way the war has been fought. This I cannot teach the whole on. I'll stick to what I know. The American troops have not been given what they need to heavily reduce casualties. They need more armour for their vehicles. This has not been entirely granted, and the Pentagon has not, last I heard, requested much armour. There was reportedly an offer by a company to armour 1200 vehicles a year. Last I heard, this offer has not been taken up on.

Now, what this means is that the Coalition forces have been forced to shoot first, ask questions later. This is in order to protect themselves and their allies. When you don't get a second chance, you tend to be more on edge.

Civilians have done some fairly stupid things which got them killed. Such as: hanging around a broken down Bradley, as a helicopter sounds a siren indicating it is about to annihilate said Bradley. Or driving at full speed up to a checkpoint, despite orders to stop. The latter caused to Coalition forces to fire upon the vehicles.

Now, there have reportedly been orders to fire on crowds of civilians. Now, the enemy forces wear civilian clothing. They don't wear uniforms. The only difference between the enemy and civilians is that one group is trying to kill the Coalition forces. This, understandably, puts the troops on edge. In this respect, it is similar to 'Nam. When you cannot be sure who's trying to kill you, you don't take chances. This is not to condone the slaughter of civilians, 15,000 last count I heard, but it does slightly make it 'better'.

If the goal of the military were to kill civilians, I'm rather certain that over the past 21 months, there would be more than 15,000 civilians dead in a country of 25,000,000. This number of 15,000 is negligible compared to the numbers dead from the 'crimes against humanity', thought to be in the hundreds of thousands. The troops are doing a rather good job of firing on the enemy rather than civilians.

[JeuneFille]

Andreyis

*assuming the thread's about the war in Iraq* (big long thing about iraq)

Excellent read. Where did you find that? Or did you write it yourself?

[Sjlver Tongue]

Two things...

Last time America played the ilsolationist...it was the 1930s and we got WWII out of that...

Second...all the people in the world can say that they don't like fighting and it won't stop people from doing it...what you need to do is come up with some kind of plan/idea to end wars...and good luck with that...

[Shygoth]

Andreyis

*assuming the thread's about the war in Iraq*

Quote:

The war in Iraq was about several things, including:
- Oil
- Ending state terrorism
- Getting a foot in the door
- Disarming Iraq of WMDs

So, let's start with oil. Oil is the lifeblood of an army these days. If a new democratic government is set up in such a way that makes it favourable to the Coalition, they will be more willing to provide oil for the military as it stamps out more terrorism around the globe. Why not invade Saudi Arabia for this reason? Because they are already friendly towards the U.S.A.

Next, ending state terrorism there. The violations of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights were fairly blatant. You can learn more about them here. The UDoHR can be viewed here. This is a moral objective of the war. To prevent the abuse of civilians by the Iraqi government. If the new government starts abusing the civilians, perhaps we shall see a return to the country. As you might notice, Iraq has been a member of the UN since 1945, and as such, must abide by the UDoHR.

Third: getting a foot in the door. Geographically speaking, Iraq is in quite a nice place. If the new government is favourable towards the Coalition, it may be that they will allow the militaries to launch strikes from there, reducing relocation costs.

Fourthly, disarming Iraq of WMDs. You might say that Iraq had no WMDs, and current evidence does support that there are no WMDs there now. However, observations have shown continual movement across the border to Syria. Syria is not being helpful at all in determining what it was exactly. Also remember that the inspectors were not given full cooperation. So it is entirely possible that the WMDs were moved out of Iraq during the inspection time and during the war. Or they could have been moved before the inspections and they were just being impossible to goad the US into a war and destroy its international standing. The question is not: "Did Iraq have WMDs?", it is: "When were they moved?" History will reveal the truth, so I will spend no more time on this.

Now, the threat to the USA caused by these hypothetical WMDs is this. To the border of Iraq lies Saudi Arabia. Where does America get a lot of its investment from? Saudi Arabia. That's where a large threat lies. Iraq had invaded Kuwait ten years ago, and thus shown an interest in invading. Saudi Arabia also shares a border with Kuwait.

Moving on to other aspects of the war. We'll start with the events leading up to the violations of the UDoHR. Because of the heavy sanctions on Iraq after 1988, the nation's economy began to deteriorate. Saddam Hussein was forced to resort to more and more religious methods of keeping order. As we should all know, religious methods are dangerous and highly discriminatory when it comes to governing. So it's partly the Americans' fault for this. It does not make what was done right.

Now, the way the war has been fought. This I cannot teach the whole on. I'll stick to what I know. The American troops have not been given what they need to heavily reduce casualties. They need more armour for their vehicles. This has not been entirely granted, and the Pentagon has not, last I heard, requested much armour. There was reportedly an offer by a company to armour 1200 vehicles a year. Last I heard, this offer has not been taken up on.

Now, what this means is that the Coalition forces have been forced to shoot first, ask questions later. This is in order to protect themselves and their allies. When you don't get a second chance, you tend to be more on edge.

Civilians have done some fairly stupid things which got them killed. Such as: hanging around a broken down Bradley, as a helicopter sounds a siren indicating it is about to annihilate said Bradley. Or driving at full speed up to a checkpoint, despite orders to stop. The latter caused to Coalition forces to fire upon the vehicles.

Now, there have reportedly been orders to fire on crowds of civilians. Now, the enemy forces wear civilian clothing. They don't wear uniforms. The only difference between the enemy and civilians is that one group is trying to kill the Coalition forces. This, understandably, puts the troops on edge. In this respect, it is similar to 'Nam. When you cannot be sure who's trying to kill you, you don't take chances. This is not to condone the slaughter of civilians, 15,000 last count I heard, but it does slightly make it 'better'.

If the goal of the military were to kill civilians, I'm rather certain that over the past 21 months, there would be more than 15,000 civilians dead in a country of 25,000,000. This number of 15,000 is negligible compared to the numbers dead from the 'crimes against humanity', thought to be in the hundreds of thousands. The troops are doing a rather good job of firing on the enemy rather than civilians.

I dont know what to say to that.... sweatdrop

[Andreyis]

JeuneFille

Andreyis

*assuming the thread's about the war in Iraq* (big long thing about iraq)

Excellent read. Where did you find that? Or did you write it yourself?

Wrote it meself.

[JeuneFille]

Andreyis

JeuneFille

Andreyis

*assuming the thread's about the war in Iraq* (big long thing about iraq)

Excellent read. Where did you find that? Or did you write it yourself?

Wrote it meself.

Bravo, sir.

[Shygoth]

Andreyis

JeuneFille

Andreyis

*assuming the thread's about the war in Iraq* (big long thing about iraq)

Excellent read. Where did you find that? Or did you write it yourself?

Wrote it meself.

*claps hands*
You may have your own opinion
but you are smart. 3nodding

[Lady Nadji]

i just wanted to say that people who say that optimistic people should 'bring their heads out of the clouds' are being dumb. the first step to getting something done is saying that it can be done.

[JeuneFille]

Lady Nadji

i just wanted to say that people who say that optimistic people should 'bring their heads out of the clouds' are being dumb. the first step to getting something done is saying that it can be done.

Optimism is fine, if taken with a dose of reality.

[Dalwin001]

Well I agree with you in that the U.S shouldn't be in Iraq. Not living in the U.S i've had a chance to see what is really happening in Iraq and I have yet to see them go raid and pilage a city. You may want to rethink your title for this forum because peace keepers don't go into a country to looking for weapons of mass destruction, they go into a country to prevent wars not start them trust me I should know. Your right the war in Iraq wasn't about you it was about Bush wanting to go into Iraq but not having the balls to go and say that your going into Iraq to remove Saddam Hussien from power. Then let's not forget his other excuse that Saddam Hussien and Osama Bin Laden were working together, which just goes to show what you guys know. Saddam Hussien is a Sunni Muslim, Osama is a Sheit, they wouldn't be working together they would be killing eachother. But back to the topic at had your not really against the war in Iraq your against war period.

There are somethings that cannot be talked out your just to nieve to know that you live in your own little world were every one is a good guy and there are no bad guys. Well I got news for you step into my world, the real world, you'll find there are so many bad guys and each and every one of them is not going to throw their hands in the air and say "Oh I am so so so sorry for slaughtering those ten thousand people just because of their religion. You can take me to a international court now were they will either put me away for life or I will be killed." Maybe in your world they would say that. Now in my world this is what they would say "Kill those pigs" then his men would open fire. Now I am lef with a choice I could decide to the way of the pacifist and just walk away seeing fighting doesn't solve anything in which that man would go and kill many thousands more. Or I could go my way which is kill each of his men and if necessary kill him saving thousands.

Oh and I have forgotten one last thing. Seeing your to nieve to know this so far it has been Iraqi militants that have been planting the car bombs that are killing the Iraqi civilans.

[eternal_black_kiss]

They just want the oil and so they made up a lie about weapons of mass destruction *scoff* Like you don't call atomic bombs w.o.m.d?

[Shygoth]

Dalwin001

Well I agree with you in that the U.S shouldn't be in Iraq. Not living in the U.S i've had a chance to see what is really happening in Iraq and I have yet to see them go raid and pilage a city. You may want to rethink your title for this forum because peace keepers don't go into a country to looking for weapons of mass destruction, they go into a country to prevent wars not start them trust me I should know. Your right the war in Iraq wasn't about you it was about Bush wanting to go into Iraq but not having the balls to go and say that your going into Iraq to remove Saddam Hussien from power. Then let's not forget his other excuse that Saddam Hussien and Osama Bin Laden were working together, which just goes to show what you guys know. Saddam Hussien is a Sunni Muslim, Osama is a Sheit, they wouldn't be working together they would be killing eachother. But back to the topic at had your not really against the war in Iraq your against war period.

There are somethings that cannot be talked out your just to nieve to know that you live in your own little world were every one is a good guy and there are no bad guys. Well I got news for you step into my world, the real world, you'll find there are so many bad guys and each and every one of them is not going to throw their hands in the air and say "Oh I am so so so sorry for slaughtering those ten thousand people just because of their religion. You can take me to a international court now were they will either put me away for life or I will be killed." Maybe in your world they would say that. Now in my world this is what they would say "Kill those pigs" then his men would open fire. Now I am lef with a choice I could decide to the way of the pacifist and just walk away seeing fighting doesn't solve anything in which that man would go and kill many thousands more. Or I could go my way which is kill each of his men and if necessary kill him saving thousands.

Oh and I have forgotten one last thing. Seeing your to nieve to know this so far it has been Iraqi militants that have been planting the car bombs that are killing the Iraqi civilans.

The title is more of a sarcastic thing. 3nodding