War unleashed...

[OneThinkingGal and ._.]

The idea that the US is the arbiter of freedom in the 'free' world sounds pretty arrogant to me.  "Oh,you don't meet our ideas of freedom, off you go!"

If we (America) don't do it, who will?  Do you think just because Saddam's regime doesn't meet our ideas of freedom we should let him go on killing people?  What about Milosovich?  What about Hitler?  What about Mohammad Farrah Aidid?  These people shouldn't continue to benefit in their reigns of terror just because they don't meet our ideas of freedom.  You either misinterpret what I said/meant or perhaps don't agree?

The reasons given by the administration have changed almost every day, depending on what suits the current mood of the public.

The initial reason for this war was that "Saddam has weapons of mass destruction and we must initiate a preemptive strike in order to stop him from attacking us in the future."

It has changed from that to being about not complying with the UN resolutions, coupled with telling the UN that the US doesnt really give a rats ass about its opinion, while at the same time conveniently using its resolutions as a reason.

The third and now the noble reason, ah to liberate the people of iraq. They are so opressed. Well people are opressed all over the world, why isnt the US stepping in there? There's a saying that goes 'A man usually has two reasons for doing anything, one reason that sounds good, another that is the truth'. This is the reason that sounds good.

In my opinion, the US has lowered the standards for starting a war. There was no attack by anyone, there was no evidence that there would ever be an attack, there was nothing but a suspicion that he might attack at some future unspecified date. Tomorrow if someone decides the US might attack them sometime in the future, sort of like what n korea is saying, then are they wrong when they attack the US? That reasoning gives every country a reason to attack almost any other country who shows the least bit of aggression towards them. Hell, Saddam didnt even blink towards the US before all this started.

Again, its not about Saddam being good, it is about railroading the world into a war that is causing casualties on all sides and accomplishing little except wiping out every bit of goodwill the US has had in the world, in the short space of a couple of months.

PS: I think you misinterpreted what I meant. I meant that the US cannot just appoint itself arbiter of what does and does not define freedom according to its own ideas of freedom. So you can't just go attack a country because it is not conforming to what your idea of freedom is. Everybody will end up attacking everybody. Unless you somehow intend to apply this rule to the US only, in which you are making it the arbiter of freedom for the entire world.

[DGMacphee]

Scarpia:
Hmm. Actually, those weapons did not come from the US alone. Besides, they came from private (or semi-private) companies and manufacturers, many of which are located in France and Germany, ironically. These companies have made billions of dollars selling technologi and equipment to the Iraqis, sure. But Saddam could have made them himself, and he would have, if western governments in those years hadn't allowed him to buy them abroad.

Thank you!!

Finally, an opposing reply that isn't loaded with nonsense!

I owe you a steak dinner, Scarpia (or vege if you prefer!)

[Dmitri]

Darth: They're taking it from the tax payers and foreign deficit and injecting it into people and business for the war effort. The government isn't allowed to say "Give me all your money, I'm going to war," to businesses, banks etc.

they have already accumulated the wealth beforehand or borrowed from other countries.

[frobozz]

Hats off to Michael Moore at the Oscars tonight.  He said what needed to be said.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/SHOWBIZ/Movies/03/23/sprj.aa03.oscars/index.html

Michael Moore's acceptance speech, however, earned applause from some -- but hoots of derision from others.

Accompanied by his fellow documentary nominees, Moore, who won best documentary for "Bowling for Columbine," wasted no time in lighting into President Bush, the 2000 election and the war in Iraq.

"I've invited my fellow documentary nominees on stage with us here in solidarity with me," he said, "because we like non-fiction and we live in fictitious times. ... We have a man sending us to war for fictitious reasons. We are against this war, Mr. Bush. Shame on you, Mr. Bush, shame on you."

Moore expanded on his comments with the press backstage.

"I'm an American," he said. "You don't leave your citizenship behind when you enter the doors of the Kodak Theatre." He added that expressing opinions is "what I do. I do that in my filmmaking."

Asked what he thought of the catcalls, he said, "Don't report that there was a split decision in the hall because five loud people booed."

-Fro.

[Trapezoid]

It was nice of him to bring all the other nominees up to the stage and make it look like they agreed with him.

[evenwolf]

Please do not turn this into a 'whether or not Michael was justified for exercising free speech during the Oscars' thread.  Please?

[Darth Mandarb]

The reasons given by the administration have changed almost every day, depending on what suits the current mood of the public.

The initial reason for this war was that "Saddam has weapons of mass destruction and we must initiate a preemptive strike in order to stop him from attacking us in the future."

We didn't initiate a preemptive strike without first trying to get him disarm through diplmacy.  12 years of diplomacy to be exact.  Do you think we should have left him alone to continue developing these weapons?

It has changed from that to being about not complying with the UN resolutions, coupled with telling the UN that the US doesnt really give a rats ass about its opinion, while at the same time conveniently using its resolutions as a reason.

The UN failed.  Actually, I don't really blame the UN.  I blame France.  I'm disgusted by France's unwillingness to help the US.  The 56,681 Americans who died liberating France in World Wars I and II are rolling over in their graves.

The third and now the noble reason, ah to liberate the people of iraq. They are so opressed. Well people are opressed all over the world, why isnt the US stepping in there? There's a saying that goes 'A man usually has two reasons for doing anything, one reason that sounds good, another that is the truth'. This is the reason that sounds good.

I would imagine that the US is stepping in.  But if it doesn't come down to military action it doesn't get much press.  I don't like the cynasism in the world that demands that there's always deceit in every situation.  Why can't the reason that sounds good and the truth sometimes be the same?

In my opinion, the US has lowered the standards for starting a war. There was no attack by anyone, there was no evidence that there would ever be an attack, there was nothing but a suspicion that he might attack at some future unspecified date. Tomorrow if someone decides the US might attack them sometime in the future, sort of like what n korea is saying, then are they wrong when they attack the US? That reasoning gives every country a reason to attack almost any other country who shows the least bit of aggression towards them. Hell, Saddam didnt even blink towards the US before all this started.

It's not like the US said, "Well, they might attack us so let's invade" that's silly.  Iraq has been defying the UN for 12 years since the end of the Gulf War?  We didn't (necessarily) invade Iraq just because of their potential threat.  We invaded because they weren't disarming and were defying the sanctions put on them after the Gulf War.  They were throwing it in the worlds faces.  Denying interviews with weapons inspectors, denying them entrance into certain areas, denying them entrance into Iraq at all.  Then giving the run around about supposedly disarming.  They were asking for it.  I think they wanted this war.

Again, its not about Saddam being good, it is about railroading the world into a war that is causing casualties on all sides and accomplishing little except wiping out every bit of goodwill the US has had in the world, in the short space of a couple of months.

Removing a dictator from power and freeing an oppressed people is not 'accomplishing little'.  Again, I say I am afraid of world reaction to what we're doing over there, but again, it's worth it, for the people of Iraq.  I know, and hate that fact, that many will die because of the war in Iraq.  But if Saddam is left in power, far worse tradgedies will continue, in Iraq and possibly around the world.

PS: I think you misinterpreted what I meant. I meant that the US cannot just appoint itself arbiter of what does and does not define freedom according to its own ideas of freedom. So you can't just go attack a country because it is not conforming to what your idea of freedom is. Everybody will end up attacking everybody. Unless you somehow intend to apply this rule to the US only, in which you are making it the arbiter of freedom for the entire world.

I didn't misinterpret you, I just don't agree with you.  Freedom is freedom, and everybody should have it.

[Scarpia]

It has changed from that to being about not complying with the UN resolutions, coupled with telling the UN that the US doesnt really give a rats ass about its opinion, while at the same time conveniently using its resolutions as a reason.

The UN failed.  Actually, I don't really blame the UN.  I blame France.  I'm disgusted by France's unwillingness to help the US.  The 56,681 Americans who died liberating France in World Wars I and II are rolling over in their graves.

I agree that the French leaders are pathetic, they are. And the fact that french people apparently don't get sick of listening to their imperialistic BS, is unbelievable. And the fact that Chirac went on international TV prior to the attacks and said he would not allow the war 'no matter what', is sickening and should be reason enough to throw his incompetent a** out of politics. That kind of uncompromising and stubborn political attitude is a crime.

But France isn't the reason why Bush couldn't get the support of the Security Council. Noone denies that the US would have had a whole lot less than the required 9 votes. It wouldn't even have been necessary for France to use their veto.

Besides, the permanent members of the UN, France, China, Russia, US and Great Britain were originally selected because they were imperialistic 'super powers' in the World. How does that make sense now? Russia is an empovered, corrupt, weak (in all senses) country. Great Britain is no more of a super power than Germany or Spain. France has never forgotten the dream of world domination, which is the same dream that has haunted Saddam Hussein, Hitler etc. How does that make sense?


Scarpia

[Dave Gilbert]

Debating whether the war is "right" or not is kind of a moot point now.  We're there.  We're levelling the city.  It makes me ill to think about it.  Regardless if this war is JUSTIFIED OR NOT, this "Shock and Awe" campaign is complete overkill.  Is all this destruction really recessary?  I heard on the news Friday that "Ten major buildings have been destroyed in the last three minutes."  Is that what we're trying to do?  Take the September 11th attack and unleash the same horror ten times over?  Beh.

[Darth Mandarb]

Some good points.

But France isn't the reason why Bush couldn't get the support of the Security Council. Noone denies that the US would have had a whole lot less than the required 9 votes. It wouldn't even have been necessary for France to use their veto.

I think that too many of the countries wanted to support the US but were too invested with a relationship with France, and since France wasn't going to back it they were too chicken shit to step up.  Plus, and I'll be the first to admit this, the US tends to do what they want regardless of public/world opinion.  Almost all those countries who wouldn't support the US originally have now stepped up.  The coalition has gotten like 42 members in support now.

The AGS board: 'War Unleashed ...' ArmisticeI don't think I'm going to reply to this thread anymore.  I know some of you now hate me (or perhaps just strongly dislike me) and I am saddened by that.   I respect that you all believe as strongly as you do, I hope you can respect that I believe what I believe strongly as well.  But to be honest I'm getting a headache from this thread and I don't want that.  There's enough anger and dissent in the world right now.  I don't want to add (even in this small insignificant way) to it.  I became a member of this forum because I found AGS and am a huge fan of adventure games and I wanted to add to this community.

So I'll make this 'truce' pledge to all of you.  I will continue to post in other threads.  I won't hold my values and beliefs against any of you who oppose them in other posts/threads if you'll do the same for me.  This war is a touchy subject, but lets see if we can rise above our differences and get past this.  I look forward to hearing from you guys (and gals) in other threads.

dm

PS
If there are any serious questions that any of you want me to reply to please PM me.

[Timosity]

I can respect people oppinions whether I agree with them or not, and I don't hold anything against you Darth-Mandarb, even though I don't agree with a lot of it.

I've avoided this thread like the plague, cause i'm sick of all this war debate, I've mentioned my own opinions in the other war threads.

It has all started now and who knows how long it will go for and how many unnecessary lives will be lost. 9/11 is small fry compared to what has been done in return in Afghanistan and Iraq, and it will only get worse. Isn't this just training for North Korea.

I don't like Australia's involvement, being one of very few nations that supplied troops, the main reason is that our Prime minister John Howard was visiting the USA on 9/11 and was effected by it personally. but in a free democratic country, we still have no say.

I also don't like the idea that they are going after a "murderous dictator" and their solution is murdering others to get to hopefully murder him.

aren't most religions against murder, Most nations claim to have a religious background and follow the lord or whoever, but is this all just ignored when it comes to war? Is it any different killing a murderer, than it is a child.

surely if hell exists, even the most moralistic people involved in this war will be going straight there whether they like it or not. It's hereditary for Bush, hell is in his gene's no matter how religious he thinks he is. He'll get to meet Saddam there in person.

I just hope this is over soon.

I hate seeing footage of Troops blowing up shit and going Whoo hoo, and laughing. It's like watching little kids playing war games in the backyard. These types of people shouldn't be given weapons, but on the other hand, I guess those types are the types that join the armed forces.

In a war if you kill someone do you go to prison for murder? no, you come back as a hero with a mental disorder, that's probably worse than gaol.

It's just a giant step back for mankind, but it is human nature, we think we're civilised but it is just a figment of our vivid imagination.

[Andail]

I'm with France on this one.

I think it's strange that people in USA can become so full of hatred just because another country doesn't agree with the foreign policy of their leaders.

So what about the bloody world war 2? It was sixty years ago, and it wasn't like the americans took part just to liberate France, they were involved because it was a world war, and it wasn't like they suffered nearly as much as the french people, who did the horse job, beeing the neighbours and all.

Be happy that america didn't have to suffer that much. Be glad that you're on an isolated continent, but don't think for a minute that after ww2, you would have been completely unaffected by a potential german regime in Europe.

So holding that as some bloody "we helped you back then, now you should help us"-argument, that's plain stupid. Every country has the rights to make their own decisions, and if you have a hard time accepting that without calling them cowards or whimps or schmucks or anti-american, than all the hate it breeds will be your problem.

I'm against the war, I'm against Bush, just like France. I'm not against the americans, and surely most of the french people are not, at least not nearly as much as how the american opinion is againt France.

I think the biggest problem for americans is that every time someone has a different opinion than the government, they are called anti-american. In Sweden, there is no such concept as "anti-swedish". There is a constant debate going on whether our leaders are good or not, and they partake in these debates themselves. If people disagree, it's only natural.

Must be difficult for you to live in a country where there is so much hatred to those who speak against your authorities.

So every time you call the french people plain stupid names and whatnot, I will take personal offense.
And I'm sure you can do better than blaiming the war on one of the few countries who bravely stood up and expressed their yearn for peace. That's just nonsense.
USA wanted the war, France did not want it. Don't confuse the terms here, we don't want some deceptive propaganda war going on.

[Roy Lazarovich]

I don't know if anyone raised this issue in this post, but I'm watching FOX News and they seem to be detailing all the plans of the coalition forces for the viewers, isn't that a breach of military intel?, I mean, won't Saddam's forces be able to forsee their movements and be better prepared by this? isn't there supposed to be a fog of war about military plans of action?

[Barcik]

So far, I wasn't intending to touch this thread with a ten-foot pole, but now that there is some strictly objective stuff here, I'll post.

I think that FOX News really know nothing about the Coalition's plans. There is a huge fog of war about this war. The journalists are only in a few places where the fighting takes place, and almost nothing is really known. There has been much more fighting than what could be gathered by watching TV. The US are hiding the facts about the war very well, and I think they are doing the right thing.

[Roy Lazarovich]

Well, I don't know, they seem to be pretty certain about what they show, they actually show the map and draw lines to show how the tanks are going to cross the euphraties (probably a spelling mistake, but you and I know it as the biblical "Prat" river ) river, and how the choppers are supposed to provide the cover

[Barcik]

They can always presume, and the fact that this managed to go through military censore proves something.

[TheYak]

Darth...  if you're still reading this thread, I would encourage you to continue posting.  I disagree with a vast majority of things you've stated, but I enjoy the arguments you've put forth.  For the most part, I think you're expressing yourself intelligently and with excellent organization.  It would also appear that you're actually reading through all of the refuting posts whereas many that are posting in this thread are not.  

Everybody, I would encourage you to continue this discussion by arguing the points stated.  If somebody has said something wrong - disprove it or shut the hell up.  If somebody's opinion doesn't match yours, state your opinion... even going so far as to offer reasons why your opinion makes sense and the other's doesn't.  For the most part, I consider this group a rather more mature sampling of the masses than is readily available on much of the web... it'd be nice if we'd keep it that way.  Let's stop the attacks on personal aspects and focus more on the arguments themselves.

Pesty...  the US doesn't manufacture money?  Are you sure about this?  Why are we in debt then?  We've been printing currency for decades that has no basis on reality...  no gold and no goods to back it up.

For those that like a simplisitic argument or prefer debates in black and white, I have to state it this way:
Are we all separate countries?  Should each country be allowed to rule itself in whatever manner seems fit to them?  

If you would answer yes to the above, then you (logically) should be against the US's activity in Iraq.  

If you answer no, then you're either saying a) Countries should be able to rule themselves providing what they wish to enforce is in good standing with my personal morals and opinions (sounds rather hypocritical, doesn't it?) or b) There should be a one-world government or at least a separate country rules which are overseen by a government or representative body made up of all countries (The present example is the UN).  

The second statement only works if all countries under that legislation abide by its decisions or are able to bring the issue back under discussion and convince the rest of the ruling body to agree with their point of view.  

I admit that I may have missed a point of view there but I'm pretty sure that that covers basically everybody.  By all of the statements above, the actions of the "allied" forces are wrong.  "Allied" forces?  Why is the news even calling it that?  We (the US) have ignored our allies and have only the following of those that fear the US (or desire its financial support).  Hmm..  looks like we've become the bully of the world instead of the peacekeeper.    Some time ago, when we deigned to enter the first of the World Wars we began to see ourselves as the world's peacekeeper.  The country appointed by God, righteousness and/or morale superiority to decide how the world should be run.  When we at least had a sense of conscience behind this misconception, it was on the verge of making sense.  Now that we're under dysfunctional leadership, we're playing the part of the petty tyrant discipling an errant child.

I'm proud of much of our heritage.  I'm proud of many of my fellow citizens.  I'm amazed at how much the United States of America has contributed to the world over-all.  I'm awed that many of the technical, ethical and environmental achievements can be attributed to our country.   However, I'm ashamed of our government in its current state.  I'm appalled that we've given up many of our rights with the enactment of the homeland security act.  I experienced my first embarassment when the US refused to see the merit of the Kyoto convention's agreement.

The route the US took with Kyoto should've shown everyone what would be happening in the future under the rule of King Bush II -- No Kyoto, screw everybody else, we don't give a damn about the Earth as long as our country is prosperous.

[Even]

Fox news reporting "military strategies" is pure sensationalism, reporting the most "thorough" news in an attempt to win ratings.  In the end, they know they are spewing fiction but to them it hardly matters since the US population will simply watch more of their network's commercials and not complain about the lies, which they can always regard as a result of being misinformed- or "decoying" enemy forces..  which is BS, because it is solely for ratings.

Solution? boycott Fox news, hehehe

[Pumaman]

The justification for starting this war is very much a matter of debate, as there are no arguments I can see that make sense.

First of all they say 'Saddam might have weapons of mass destruction and must be disarmed' - but North Korea does have nuclear missiles, so why aren't we attacking them?

Then they say 'Iraq ignored the UN resolution'. But 10 years ago there was a UN resolution telling Israel to give Palestinian areas independent rule - that's been ignored for years on end, and the US didn't charge in with the troops.

The latest thing seems to be 'Saddam is an evil man and must be stopped'. That's true - but there are plenty more evil regimes out there, so why pick on him?


Anyway, it's started now, there's nothing we can do, and it probably is for the best to remove Saddam from power. Seeing the TV footage of the normal Iraqi people dancing in the streets after the Allied troops took over the town gave me confidence that the people there probably do actually support this war.

[TheYak]

Just a quick note:

Here's a blurb by Senator McCarthy that I have to agree with.  He's against this war and seems unable to comprehend any correct motivation or purpose behind it either.

Here's a bit of the article:

McCarthy, whose 1968 Democratic presidential campaign helped galvanize opposition to the Vietnam War, has been a staunch opponent of war in Iraq and believes it's the result of a military and political system run amok.

The military industry has become too big and its influence on politicians â€" Republican and Democrat â€" too strong, McCarthy said. He compared President Bush (news - web sites) to the Romans, who, he said, attacked northern Africa because they needed something to do.

"Bush has found a cause," said McCarthy, who turns 87 Saturday.