[OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics. - Page 86

Unknown_Enemy · #**851** April 10th, 2003, 03:56 PM

I had a look at the link, but there was nothing contrary to startfor's article. In fact the 2 complement each others quite well.

Unknown_Enemy · #**852** April 10th, 2003, 04:11 PM

Revisited opinion.

I stumbled into this passage

Quote:

5- Civil war breaks out in Iraq between die hard Sunnis (Saddam's power base), Shia militias (that have been maintaining training camps in Iran) and Kurds. None of this would Last long. The invasion is largely to stomp on Saddam's Sunni backers and that will happen no matter what. The Turks will take care of any violent Kurds, something the Turks have been doing quite handily for over a thousand years. The Shia militias couldn't defeat the Republican Guard, and they certainly can't defeat the U.S. Army. Iraq still loses the war.

As if the invasion was versus an ethnical group (the Sunni), while the Kurds were just cannon fooder for the Turc. This part is especially avoiding the difficult part of US policie between their need of Kurds and their need of Turkey to access the Balkans.

As a whole, I was not impressed by that website, so I'll keep on with stratfor which seems much more serious in its work.

MegaTrain · #**853** April 10th, 2003, 06:58 PM

Very powerful first person article from a war protester:

http://assyrianchristians.com/i_was_wrong_mar_26_03.htm

"`What in the world do you mean?` I asked. `How could you not want peace?` `We don't want peace. We want the war to come` he continued."

"`Look at it this way. No matter how bad it is we will not all die. We have hoped for some other way but nothing has worked. 12 years ago it went almost all the way but failed. We cannot wait anymore. We want the war and we want it now`"

Some1 · #**854** April 10th, 2003, 07:11 PM

Thermodyne: When writing an "end-message" to this discussion, you should take a neutral position...

R.

Thermodyne · #**855** April 10th, 2003, 07:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Some1:
Thermodyne: When writing an "end-message" to this discussion, you should take a neutral position...

R.

Says you!

This was a very soft post from the likes of me. I could have been much more harsh. But for me the enjoyment is in the debate, not the result.

Master Belisarius · #**856** April 10th, 2003, 08:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Thermodyne:

quote:
Originally posted by Some1:
Thermodyne: When writing an "end-message" to this discussion, you should take a neutral position...

R.

Says you!

This was a very soft post from the likes of me. I could have been much more harsh. But for me the enjoyment is in the debate, not the result.

Hey Thermo, you was Soft again!

You should have wrote "fight" instead "debate", I think!

rextorres · #**857** April 10th, 2003, 08:35 PM

What about the WMDs? That's what all the warmongers said this war was about - we couldn't wait for the inspectors because Saddam had hundreds of labs ready to give us all Anthrax or whatever. Now I am reading long diatribes about saving Iraqis from dictators and WMD being incidental. Where is the integrity?

I for one don't want to pay taxes to "liberate" anyone from his or her life. What about African countries there are lots of WORSE dictators their - I don't see anyone clamoring to invade Nigeria for instance. What happened to giving the Afghanis a better life? It looks like the Taliban are back. This is hypocrisy at its most blatant!!

Dare I say this war was about Oil after all. I just found out that Saddam had shut out U.S. and British oil companies from Iraqi oil contracts - kind of coincidental that these are the two countries that invaded.

[ April 10, 2003, 19:49: Message edited by: rextorres ]

Fyron · #**858** April 10th, 2003, 09:23 PM

People that support the war are not necessarily war-mongers. A war-monger is someone that always wants war, no matter what. Most people that have supported this war are not war-mongers. I suggest you apologize for using that term Rex. Its connotations are highly insulting.

[ April 10, 2003, 20:24: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

rextorres · #**859** April 10th, 2003, 09:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
People that support the war are not necessarily war-mongers. A war-monger is someone that always wants war, no matter what. Most people that have supported this war are not war-mongers. I suggest you apologize for using that term Rex. Its connotations are highly insulting.

I didn't say everyone that supported the war was a warmonger - read my post. But, now that you mention it - it does seem that most people who wanted this war - wanted this war "no matter what". Why else would their rational for supporting the war shift?

geoschmo · #**860** April 10th, 2003, 09:55 PM

I can't speak for everybody, but my reasons for supporting the decision to go to war did not shift. It's always been about removing the threat that Saddam posed to our nation. The fact that the Iraqi people are liberated from a oppresive murderous regime is a very nice consequence of the actions taken.

Geoschmo