Where do "we" stand on Iraq?

Harpoon...do not be so hastefull to dish out death to other people.....If America was to follow all their foreign policies they would become the new Germany and Bush would become the new Hitler....the U.S. Is the largest of all the nations that mean anything anymore..all the more reason to be more sceptic of other nations, decisions.....allways be part of a team and not the one enemy.....Peace out....Sid

 

When one large country stands alone 5 smaller countries united may be even larger.

My thoughts on this matter!

We don't know for sure that Sadman Insane has biological weapons in his hands. If we piss off the UN and start a war, we maybe opening up a big fucking can of worms!

We must be united on all thingsa that deal with war!

Personally I feel war is a bad way to get our economy back together. I do believe BPP hit the nail on the head!

 

krazi

Yes, of course, as history has proven war is an end all solution to everything.

Nobody is saying that war is the only option. Just that if it is what the US decides to do, that we shouldn't go and ask the UN's "permission".

I remember the last 'sovereign' nations to attack other countries unprovoked

Not to quibble, but there have been dozens of unprovoked attacks since WWII (Iraq has been accountable for at least two.)

Sidious

Hey Sid, don't take offense when I disagree with you.

If America was to follow all their foreign policies they would become the new Germany and Bush would become the new Hitler....

This is simply hyperbole. America has no imperialistic ambitions to rule other nations, Bush has no desire to create a master aryan race, and we're not a national socialist republic last time I checked. It's a weak comparison.

allways be part of a team and not the one enemy

I don't think that's a bad concept, I just think the "coach" as it were shouldn't be taking orders from the players on the bench, that's all.

 

Dudes,

I just want you all to meditate on the opinions we are seeing here. It´s great! (Except for the Bombs Away guy). If non-stoners would see what stoners write, they would realize the marvels of the fine herb. We all are against war and have a much broader way of looking at things. I wish all people were like this. It´s a fine example for all the dudes that criticize potheads. We are definitely more advanced!

Like someone said...if we ruled the world, the word war wouldn´t even exist.

Remember...make love, not war!

KraziHare, your posts are my favorites...very intelligent!

Ok...laterz my amigos!

P.S.: if i had GWB in my house, i´d force him to drink Bong water for eternity! He´s such an asshole!

 

Harpoon, i did not take offence from you're comments, having a debate is allways better than having an arguement....maybe my comparrison was a bit harsh of comparing him with Hitler...all i'm saying is that it resembles a lot of the same points that the Germans went through...i.e. when Hitler first started to do his beer cellar putsch, he was one man with some ideas who had a lot of backing.....soon it became that he forced his opinions onto other people and it became a dictatorship without anyone really noticing it, till it was too late.....as for President Bush....from what i've been led to beleive, he shouldn't even be President, that the polls were rigged.!!...now what would happen if he had some ideas and that had more than 50% of the population of America behind him?..does it make those ideas right?....if this was the case, who decides if he's wrong or not??...who is his oversight commitee outside of the U.S....i'm not saying that nothing is to be done with Saddam, he's an idiot, we all know that, however he was democratically elected by his people..(possibly through death threats to any other opposition)...but he's just like Bush, the wrong man for the job...as for the weapons of mass destruction, the USA allready has all of these weapons and at the disposal of an idiot as well......Peace out...Sid

 

Harpoon, you have yet to explain exactly why we shouldn't have to ask permission from the U.N. I can't remember where I read this but I recall recently seeing a phrase on a website stating that "America seeks UN resolution to stop UN resolution so that they can ignore UN resolution." As funny as that is it's also quite disturbing considering it's essentially true. In context it's talking about how we're actually going out of our way to have a war. We (our government anyway) used politcal strong-arming and called in favors just so that we could circumvent all this mucky-muck about weapons inspectors and attack Iraq because we have 'proof' that they have biological, chemical, and possibly nuclear weapons, and that they're willing to use them. The funny thing is that Iraq is not hostile towards any countries right now (in the sense of a war anyway) nor is it showing any signs of it. Therefore it's safe to assume that Sadam has these weapons in case someone attacks him. Will you still have your current point of view when someone you know experiences a horrible death from, say, anthrax or something comparable to mustard gas (i.e. a very painful death)?

America itself is a democratic republic. We elect leaders to make our decisions, and we (should) have the ability to remove those leaders from office when they deny their duties (not listening to public opinion, or even worse, yet more common, working for themselves rather than the people) But I don't think you're reffering to America as the 'players' From what I can tell, you're using this word to describe the U.N. So you're trying to say that somehow America, or even Dubya (the 'coach') are somehow superior to, or have some kind of authority over the other nations in the United Nations? That's the kind of thinking that makes people from other countries not only disagree with us but also flat out dislike us. So we have the most money, the most power, and supposedly the best 'morals' out of any country (a laughable statement at best). Even so why the hell would that give us the right to go attack another country that has done nothing to us directly in any kind of current political, social, or moral context? If anyone besides the preseedayent (as Dubya would say it) were to make the argument that he's pushing on us every day now concerning Iraq, "bullshit", "extreme", or "convoluted" would be the least of the words people would be using to describe that person and their point of view.

I noticed that right after I made my post. I should have said "I remember the last two modern, industrialised, westernised (okay, maybe not japan), 'sovereign' nations..."
Essentially I was talking about countries powerful and notable enough to bring the world to war simply by attacking another country, unprovoked. I haven't even adressed the fact that, for the most part, any middle-eastern country (aside from Israel) that doesn't already think we're out to get Muslims are going to quickly change their mind once the bombs start falling. Two thirds of the world don't really like us and only cooperate begrudgingly, and half of them would be happy to see us do something so rash as blatantly attack a musilm country without provocation. Though Iraq isn't exactly a 'real' muslim country (Saddam certainly isn't a real muslim anyway) that won't matter. Saddam has already taken steps to make sure it seems that way to the people that count. That way they (the other muslim nations) don't need to come up with excuses to dislike us (or hate us with a passion). The evidence of our evil (in their eyes) will be there in the open. The other third are either too similar to us and entreanched in our way of thinking (Canada, for example) to begin with or are in the pockets of our leaders (Tony Blair's a nice guy and I'd rather have him as a leader than Dubya, but come on). And though dissent isn't an option for the countries that rely on our financial aid right now (most of Africa and chunks of east Asia) they're not gonna lift a finger when the guys next door come marching through to fight 'the great satan' (or whatever you wanna call us). The world is already getting sick of this war and it hasn't even happened yet. Do you honestly think they'll sit idly by forever waiting for us to stop? The more this government gets away with the more they'll try. The people in power right now (the same ones that were in power when Reagan, Bush Sr., and others were president) have tasted blood and they want more. How many people (from America, Iraq, as well as other places) will have to die before they've had enough?

ps Thanks for the nice comment GanjaGoblin

 

Sidious

Harpoon, i did not take offence from you're comments, having a debate is allways better than having an arguement

Good, and agreed.

....maybe my comparrison was a bit harsh of comparing him with Hitler...all i'm saying is that it resembles a lot of the same points that the Germans went through...i.e. when Hitler first started to do his beer cellar putsch, he was one man with some ideas who had a lot of backing.....soon it became that he forced his opinions onto other people and it became a dictatorship without anyone really noticing it, till it was too late.....

I think it's obvious that the motivations are different. If you listen to other posters, nobody in the world is behind this war, which would make it quite unpopular. Not a good way to form a power base, especially when the political consequences are so clear. If this war goes poorly, Bush is out.

as for President Bush....from what i've been led to beleive, he shouldn't even be President, that the polls were rigged.!!...

You were definitely 'led to believe' ;-)

Honestly though, when even the New York Times can't come up with a scenario under which Gore would have won, it's pretty obvious that Bush did win the election.

who is his oversight commitee outside of the U.S....

Congress and the American voting public.

i'm not saying that nothing is to be done with Saddam, he's an idiot, we all know that, however he was democratically elected by his people..(possibly through death threats to any other opposition)

Come on, you have to realize how silly that is. Nobody is "democratically elected" when there is only one name on the ballot and a guy with a gun hands you the ballot. Nobody is "democratically elected" with 100% of the vote.

 

Krazi

Harpoon, you have yet to explain exactly why we shouldn't have to ask permission from the U.N.

Didn't think I had to, though there are several reasons.

- The United States is a sovereign nation, and I don't think it's necessary to point out that a sovereign nation has every right to protect itself from an outside threat.

- Iraq has not fullfilled its obligations under the cease-fire
agreement of the Gulf War. This isn't a new war, it's a resumption of hostilities. The resolution passed by the U.N. Security Council, as well as the legislature passed by the U.S. Congress in the period of 1990-91 are technically still in effect. Neither of these have been revoked, thus no new resolution is necessary.

- Your statement presupposes that the U.N. is somehow a neutral/moral institution. The feet-dragging that we've seen in the Security Council have been completely for reasons of self-interest, not principle.

France wants assurances that it will be allowed to maintain their lucrative oil contracts. Russian wants a guarantee that the $9 billion owed to it by Iraq will be paid, and that the U.S. will look the other way re: Chechyna. China wants tacit approval of it's own crackdown on Islamic extremists.

Simply put: international opinion should not guide the U.S. in matters of "right and wrong" when it is formed on conditions such as these.

We (our government anyway) used politcal strong-arming
and called in favors just so that we could circumvent all this mucky-muck about weapons inspectors and attack Iraq because we have 'proof' that they have biological, chemical, and possibly nuclear weapons, and that they're willing to use them. The funny thing is that Iraq is not hostile towards any countries right now (in the sense of a war anyway) nor is it showing any signs of it.

Iraqi defectors insist that Saddam is frantically trying to acquire WMD. He has used them before (against Iran, and against his own people). His regime has strong ties to al Queda and terrorism. He has a strong history of aggression against his neighbors. Those are the facts.

Remember the whole "did Bush know about 9/11 and could he have stopped it" questioning going on a few months ago? Compare and contrast that with the same critics demanding he not take action against Iraq. So which is it? Should he prevent terrorist attacks against the U.S. or not?

Therefore it's safe to assume that Sadam has these weapons in case someone attacks him. Will you still have your current point of view when someone you know experiences a horrible death from, say, anthrax or something comparable to mustard gas (i.e. a very painful death)?

Will I still want him to be taken out? Of course I will. Will you maintain your current views if Saddam is left alone to build up his weapons programme and uses it against Americans?

America itself is a democratic republic. We elect leaders to make our decisions, and we (should) have the ability to remove those leaders from office when they deny their duties (not listening to public opinion, or even worse, yet more common, working for themselves rather than the people)

We do have that ability. But don't confuse the duties of the president. It is not the duty of the president to follow public opinion polls - it is the sworn duty of the president to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

If public opinion said that free speech should be outlawed, the president has the duty to ignore the public opinion, and to preserve the Constitution.

So you're trying to say that somehow America, or even Dubya (the 'coach') are somehow superior to, or have some kind of authority over the other nations in the United Nations?

Yes, I absolutely believe that we are superior to other nations in the U.N. When the Western European nations, the Kuwaiti's, the Saudi's, the Taiwanese, the Koreans, etc. are attacked, who do they turn to? When nations need money/loans, who do they turn to (and rarely repay)? When countries are unable to feed themselves (by poor agricultural systems or sadistic warlords), who do they ask for help?

Ask yourself this: if the U.S. were to pull out of the U.N., how long would the U.N. last?

You bet we're superior.

That's the kind of thinking that makes people from other countries not only disagree with us but also flat out dislike us.

Foreign policy is not (nor should it be) a popularity contest. The U.S. should act in its best interests, especially when it comes to defending this nation. Its main goal should not be getting people to like us.

So we have the most money, the most power, and supposedly the best 'morals' out of any country (a laughable statement at best).

Just for shits and giggles, what nation has better "morals" than the U.S.?

Essentially I was talking about countries powerful and notable enough to bring the world to war simply by attacking another country, unprovoked. I haven't even adressed the fact that, for the most part, any middle-eastern country (aside from Israel) that doesn't already think we're out to get Muslims are going to quickly change their mind once the bombs start falling.

The U.S. should not let the Arab street dictate its foreign policy. Guess what: they don't like us anyways. But that's irrelevant - unlike Americans, they can't vote. Their leaders don't care at all what the Arab street thinks.

It way they (the other muslim nations) don't need to come up with excuses to dislike us (or hate us with a passion). The evidence of our evil (in their eyes) will be there in the open.

Except for that small but important fact that the Muslim population respects a show of power over all else, because they understand it. The U.S. dealt from a position of extraordinary power in the Middle East following the Gulf War. Think the Oslo accord was just a coincidence?

The more this government gets away with the more they'll try. The people in power right now (the same ones that were in power when Reagan, Bush Sr., and others were president) have tasted blood and they want more. How many people (from America, Iraq, as well as other places) will have to die before they've had enough?

This is just hyperbole. Bush is focusing on Iraq at great political risk - he's not going to invade just for kicks.

Let's look at the reasons for going after Saddam:

He is a brutal totalitarian dictator.

He is a proven threat to his neighbors, his own people, and
our allies.

He is willing to export terrorism abroad.

It is likely that if he got WMD, he would use them.

That's enough for me.


Damn, I could use a bowl after that.

 

Dude,

All i can say is this...how would you feel if a relative of yours was killed because some dumb-ass president decided to attack another country in the name of "freedom"?

Iraq may and may not have chemical, nuclear and biological weapons. If they do or don't, it's none of our business. Just like the U.S. has tons of nukes is nobody else's business. Why should we shoot and ask questions later? You fail to notice that a GREAT deal of U.S. agreements are solely based on $$$$, not humanitarian morals. If Iraq doesn't attack us we don't have any right to attack them.

Why hasn't the U.S. helped the Palestinians? Plain and simple...they don't mean anything economically to us. Siince the Israeilis have loads of cash, Bush kisses their asses all the time becaus of all the jewish supporters he has in the U.S.

You should read about many other things before you comment on one story. Bush is a fucking idiot, and he happens to lead the strongest country in the world. This is a terrible combination, and for the sake of mankind, i hope he doesn't decide to attack, because if he does you can consider your town a chemical wasteland.

laterz.
ganjagoblin

 

Thought it would be interesting to bump this, five years later.

Maybe move this to general, mods?

 

My theory is that this whole war is just a diversion man... we're just trying to get the mounties at ease, and as soon as they let their guard down... we'll go manifest destiny on Canada's ass... heh...

 

to be honest if Bush is still in charge, I wouldn't rule that one out....haha .....Peace out.............Sid

 

5 yrs later we all c now how incompetent our administration is. The people that run our country aren't capable of running a 7-11. Our focus should never have been turned from Afghanistan and now that it has been al-quada is regaining strength.. well atleast thats what our gov. says so who knows... its all bullshit.. I hope that the American people all smoke one huge collective joint and vote in a decent administration... so get out there and Vote..

 

I suppose you still believe that the troops are over there to give Democracy to the Iraqi people and to free them of a tyrant.........and bring stability to the middle East?.................Thats worked well hasn't it? Peace out............Sid

 

hahahhahha

 

This war was the dumbest thing bush did..........his excuse to move from afganistan to iraq was b/c they had WMD and all that bullshit and wen he pulled that claim out his ass every other country in the world looked at us like, "Dude, why the fuk do u think hes got WMD's", and we had countless world powers tell us that he didn't have shit. The only reason were in iraq is cuz bush wanted saddam dead cuz he tried to assassinate his father.........now that he got wat he wants he realized he doesnt have a choice but stay now cuz he would look like a complete dumbass.....which he is.......i still think our government had something to do with 9/11 too...........theres too many coincidences(sp?)....w.e theres my two cents...........Mike Gravel '08