Why is the US/UK at war with Iraq?

  • News
  • Thread starter Lifegazer
  • Start date
In summary, the conversation revolves around the justification for the war in Iraq and the motivations behind it. While some argue that Saddam Hussein's brutal dictatorship and failure to disarm as per UN resolutions are reason enough for the war, others believe that it is driven by ulterior motives such as securing oil and projecting imperialistic might. The conversation also touches on the role of other world powers, particularly France, in the conflict and the potential consequences of the war.
  • #36
Originally posted by Alias
If you change your mind, I'll see you on the battlefield. Don't forget to bring your balls.
What battlefield? Sat behind your computer 10,000 miles from Iraq?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #37
Originally posted by N_Quire
Zargawee,
Perhaps more time should have been given to Saddam to disarm. Then, we might have had France and Germany with us. However, the probability was too great that Saddam would abuse that extra time by engaging in even more trickery.

The American troops are not conscripts, they chose to join the armed forces. Some might have done so because they could not get other work but the fact remains, they are in the military by choice. Part of being in the armed forces can involve being sent to war: this is understood by those that join.

Let us hope that this war will be brief. By my guess, more than 90 percent of the Iraqi people hate Saddam Hussein and the allied forces will soon be seen as liberators, just as they were in Kuwait.
N_Quire ,
But 100% Of Iraqi Poeple Hate America ...

anyway, If UN Insectors keep Looking For Weapons for Ever ,This Means That He will not be able to use them , becuase if he did , this means he has ... So Un Inspectors exsistance in Iraq was the first deffence to avoid using WMD's.
 
  • #38
But 100% Of Iraqi Poeple Hate America ...
How in the world can you make a statement like this? Zarg, I'm beginning to think your anti-american.

When we finish liberating Iraqi and the people end up being grateful, you better apologize in this topic. There are tons of reports that the afgans treat our troops over there like rock stars. Sure there will be some that still hate our guts, but once the Iraqi people taste freedom there is no going back. Are you against freedom Zarg?
 
Last edited:
  • #39
Zargawee,
Many of those Iraqis you mention are Kurds and they are longing to be liberated by America and its allies. So the figure is hardly 100 percent, rock solid hatred of America. Also, once Iraq is liberated, we will see expressions of gratitude from Iraqis to the United States.

The United States and Britain will do quickly what the United Nations talked of doing but never did. Liberation of Iraq from brutality and dictatorship is a worthy aim and one we should support.
 
  • #40
Originally posted by Greg Bernhardt
How in the world can you make a statement like this? Zarg, I'm beginning to think your anti-american.

When we finish liberating Iraqi and the people end up being grateful, you better apologize in this topic. There are tons of reports that the afgans treat our troops over there like rock stars. Sure there will be some that still hate our guts, but once the Iraqi people taste freedom there is no going back. Are you against freedom Zarg?

I'm Not Anti-American , I Have Nothing Against America But It's Supportance To Israel, But That Doesn't Make Me Anti-American.

And Surely I'm Not Against Freedom , I Really Support Freedom , But Freedom is deffirent for eveyone , everyone sees it from his angle.

Most Of Iraqi Poeple are Very fanatic To The Palestinian Side , Because They Know they are very oppressed by The Israeli forces ( Which is supported by the US government ) .
This means that They Will Not Accept The US Exsistnance In Their Home .
 
  • #41
I didn't ask for UN to take the action , only take the decision !
UN represents the world, if UN is not with you, then the world is not with you, and you don't have the right to do something in the globe without the permission of the world.
So "I pledge alegience to the flag... of the UN?" No, sorry it doesn't work that way. You may WANT it to work that way, but wishing things to be so has never made them so. The UN has prove on countless occasions that it is IMPOTENT to deal with real problems. Thats why we circumvented the UN when we liberated Yugoslavia. In fact, the UN only exists because of the US. *WE* are in charge. Like it or not. The fact that we created the UN and allow it to oppose us is a demonstration of our excessive benevolence.

Yes, Iraq has not disarmed like it was supposed to. But we have to think about the consequences of war. Why not have armed escorts for pumped-up inspections instead? It seems that people have in their heads "war against sadam", but there is more at stake than just hussein's hide.
So lay out a full cause and effect scenario of going to war and not going to war. Add up the body counts and the other positives and negatives and see what you get. People who make this case base their opinion on rediculous assumptions of the severity of the war.
Whether Saddam has WMD's Or Not , There Was Still Time To Search For Them ...
There is always time. The question is how much time are you willing to waste on failure? I guess Bush decided 12 years was enough failure.
But your president is a person who looks for war when it can be started , he fought with afghanistan
Clearly you have forgotten why we went to Afghanistan. If there is a better reason for war, I haven't heard it. And it CANNOT be argued that the end result of that conflict was negative. We took down a regime that was almost unanamously considered to be just a bunch of criminals (ironically not unlike Iraq).
But 100% Of Iraqi Poeple Hate America ...
Heh. We'll see. In two days when the Marine Corps gets to Bagdhad, people will be dancing in the streets (just like in Afghanistan) and trading their children for American flags.
 
  • #42
Originally posted by Lifegazer
What battlefield? Sat behind your computer 10,000 miles from Iraq?

Is that all you've got? I completely trashed your argument, yet, instead of conceeding defeat like any decent scientist, your position struggles from beyond the grave with some pathetic attempt at retaliation much like a child that can't think of anything to say except, "Well, you're a big dummie!" Loose like a man. Good greif!

Also for your information, I served in the US Army for over 5 years during the first Gulf war. While I spent much of my time in South Korea, and was not assigned to duty in the Gulf, I gladly voluteered my service in that theater. I would gladly do it again if they would let me.

And all this crap about how we should have given the inspectors more time is a cowards way out and not an effective means by which to solve the problem. The UN is a paper tiger and doesn't have the balls to enforce its mandates. It's much like you in that it believes that the way to deal with dictators and terrorists is negotiation.

The wildabeast will loose its life everytime it tries to "negotiate" with the lion.

Maybe your motives are the same as many of the anti-war protestors. You simply don't like George Bush. That's fine. If that's your motivation, use your spine, stand up straight and give us a sound argument about why Bush is the Devil. Don't obfuscate the discussion by arguing that all humans are rational and can be dealt with using reason.

When you realize that many people are irrational, and that your idea of a socialist utopia will never work, then you can join the rest of the real world and help make it a better place.

Don't misunderstand, youthful idealism is a wonderful thing, unfortunately it seems many people have to be slapped in the face by the harsh realities of the imperfect world we live in, before they take a more practical approach. Hopefully, your face will be slapped by logical prose and not VX gas. I'm doing everything I can to see that your slap comes from the former, and not the latter.

(The bile and condescending tone of this post was provided free of charge.:wink:)
 
  • #43
[salutes Alias] (go Navy, beat Army)
 
  • #44
Originally posted by Alias
Is that all you've got? I completely trashed your argument, yet, instead of conceeding defeat like any decent scientist, your position struggles from beyond the grave with some pathetic attempt at retaliation much like a child that can't think of anything to say except, "Well, you're a big dummie!" Loose like a man. Good greif!
No squire. I was laughing at the battlecry of a soldier stationed in Texas. I was also mocking your "let's kick their butt" attitude.
I didn't respond further because I understand your mindset, and realize that I'd be wasting my time. Forget it.
 
  • #45
Originally posted by Lifegazer
No squire. I was laughing at the battlecry of a soldier stationed in Texas. I was also mocking your "let's kick their butt" attitude.


You are right. I suppose that was a bit of cheerleading from the sidelines.

Or could this forum be considered a "battlefield" of ideas. Hmmm.

Oh, and "mocking" is entirely expected from the left as this seems to be the method to fall back on when you don't have a viable solution. So mock on brother, it bolsters my point.

I didn't respond further because I understand your mindset, and realize that I'd be wasting my time. Forget it.

Hey wait a minute. What happened to your humanitarian urges? I thought you really cared about your fellow human beings? By all means, help me understand the errors of my "mindset".
 
  • #46
well i imagine that he would do so if he felt you would give his efforts respect.
 
  • #47
Originally posted by Greg Bernhardt
Sure, but not Chemical/Bio SCUDS. My point is that they lied about having SCUDS and now they use them against us.

We are invading the country. The USA would do the same thing.

Originally posted by russ_watters

Yes, Iraq has not disarmed like it was supposed to. But we have to think about the consequences of war. Why not have armed escorts for pumped-up inspections instead? It seems that people have in their heads "war against sadam", but there is more at stake than just hussein's hide.

So lay out a full cause and effect scenario of going to war and not going to war. Add up the body counts and the other positives and negatives and see what you get. People who make this case base their opinion on rediculous assumptions of the severity of the war.


I briefly explained my ideas in another thread. I don't know how you can possibly expect me to lay out exact body counts. You have increased terrorists action through more terrorists and an increase in the fervency of current terrorists. You have the grave possibility of the spread of war through pre-emptive doctrine and the tensity of relations that will result.

Originally posted by Alias

And all this crap about how we should have given the inspectors more time is a cowards way out and not an effective means by which to solve the problem. The UN is a paper tiger and doesn't have the balls to enforce its mandates. It's much like you in that it believes that the way to deal with dictators and terrorists is negotiation.


You reveal a lot about your mindset. It seems that you are concerned with being a "manly man". Let's not call people cowards, but have rational debate.

The wildabeast will loose its life everytime it tries to "negotiate" with the lion.

A perfect example of why I am sick of analogies. People just find some relationship and magically extend it to another situation.

When you realize that many people are irrational, and that your idea of a socialist utopia will never work, then you can join the rest of the real world and help make it a better place.

You reveal a lot about your assumptions. I haven't seen lifegazer post any idea of a socialist utopia, and I doubt that he has. It would be best to stop stereotyping people into easily-digestible explanations.

Don't misunderstand, youthful idealism is a wonderful thing, unfortunately it seems many people have to be slapped in the face by the harsh realities of the imperfect world we live in, before they take a more practical approach. Hopefully, your face will be slapped by logical prose and not VX gas. I'm doing everything I can to see that your slap comes from the former, and not the latter.

Is this another reference to Iraq being behind terrorist attacks? This war will not prevent terrorism, only increase it.
 
  • #48
Originally posted by kyleb
well i imagine that he would do so if he felt you would give his efforts respect.

I give respect where respect is due.

If you mean I have to be polite and say, "Well, I guess your argument may have some merit" when in fact it is arguments like his that allow dictators and tyrants to butcher innocents, then I say "thicken your skin" because not only will I not bough to the ridiculous and dangerous, but I will emphasize my arguments with flammable rhetoric in hopes that it will quiet those with ridiculous and dangerous opinions. It's a right we regularly exercise in the US. We call it "free speech".

Of course, I understand that the forum moderators can shut me down any time they want as that is their right. That is also why I have the utmost respect for the moderators supreme intelligence and good looks.:wink:
 
  • #49
I briefly explained my ideas in another thread. I don't know how you can possibly expect me to lay out exact body counts.
What? How can you expect to use the deaths of civilians as a reason not to go to war when you won't even speculate on how many are going to die? 'Too many' is not an answer. Clearly no one can give EXACT body counts, but you must have an order of magnitude type of idea here, don't you? 100? 1,000? 10,000? Unless you can speculate on that and then decide how many is too many, you can't have a reasoned opinion - you haven't done the reasoning.

Here's mine: In this conflict we will probably kill on the order of 1,000 civilians if it goes according to plan. If there is extremely heavy resistance in Baghdad (unlikely) it could be 10,000. Even 10,000 is justifiable (indeed quite reasonable) considering people estimate 100,000 (some say 500,000) have died since the 1991 as a direct result of Saddam's tyranny.

If I thought we were going to kill 100,000 civilans, I would not be in favor of this war. Given the extrordinary lengths the US goes to to avoid civilian casualties, I don't see this as being reasonable.
 
  • #50
go here:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/22/sprj.irq.war.main/index.html

then go down to the video section and click on the "Coalition troops liberate Iraqis in Safwan, southern Iraq (March 21)" video. Play it and tell me that Iraqi isn't happy they are being liberated!

• Villagers in Safwan in southern Iraq were seen shaking hands Friday with coalition soldiers and saying "thank you." A coalition soldier tore down a picture of Saddam Hussein, and one villager pounded it with his shoe.
 
  • #51
*We attacked at will, without a significant international coalition.

*We used effective tactics from world war II; massive air strikes with the mother of all bombs coupled with the mother of all panzer columns.

*We destroyed most of the government infrastructure.

*We attacked without a significant threat or beligerance on the part of the enemy.

*George Bush seemed relaxed and carefree, playing with the dog and taking a vacation to camp david.

What the hell is going on here? Is the best case scenario portrayed by the not so free press realistic? In any case the international reputation of the US is deeply at stake. It is not difficult to imagine an Imperialist superpower striding the globe like a collosus. One thing is certain - such an enterprise will not be a democracy.
 
  • #52
Coupled with your president having called Saddam a "Tyrant and a Dictator" for his attempt to asassinate George's dad, yet George is out doing the EXACT SAME THING! (on the world stage no less!)

It is a simple principal, called "Moral Equivalence", but, alas, they are not 'equivalent' as your president is quite capable of having that death sentance enforced, hence it actually makes him worse!

There is not one single good reason for what is being done, it is an Evil, nothing less,

It was where I started in all of this, I wanted to know the reason why George wanted to send my family off to there deaths.

Heck, if they had had a good reason, I would have been willing to go in their place, but George is breaking International law, the only difference between a 'freedom fighter' and a 'terrorist' is which side of the law you are really on.

It is the Motto of the Canadian Mounties, "Maintain the right" which is to say, "stay on the proper side of the law" as it is long known in this world that staying on the proper side of the law is the only real difference between criminals and police, respective of the use of force, and is why the Peace officers (police) are allowed to use force...Legally!

Geo-ogre is on the wrong side of the law, laws that YOUR country, America, helped write, signed there names to, and are now, by his actions, in contravention of.

His Saviour, (Geo-ogre's) Jesus Christ, tells us in the Bible that the Devil Himself is characterized as a "Liar and a murderer" so if you are in contravention of the words of your very own personal saviour, well...Do you know what that means?
 
  • #53
For those of you who have no problem with this war I would like to put a new born Iraqi baby in your left hand a pistol in your other hand and let you fire the first shot by blowing the baby's brains out. Children will die in this war people, nothing is more certain. Or is it you only want to go to war if someone else does your killing for you?

Laser Eyes
 
Last edited:
  • #54
Actually Laser, the one group that will benefit most from this war is new born babies. Currently Iraq has a ridiculously high infant mortality rate due to shortages at hospitals. It is the selling of medicines from the oil-for-food program that is causing this. They smuggle the medicines into Jordan and sell them to get money for Saddam's loyalists.

So, it is if you oppose this war that you should be willing to shoot this baby in the head. But I forget...people who never take any action are blameless for everything, right?

Njorl
 
  • #55
Originally posted by Laser Eyes
For those of you who have no problem with this war I would like to put a new born Iraqi baby in your left hand a pistol in your other hand and let you fire the first shot by blowing the baby's brains out. Children will die in this war people, nothing is more certain. Or is it you only want to go to war if someone else does your killing for you?

Laser Eyes

For those of you who are so blind I would like to allow you to become a volunteer conscript for Saddam's army and perhaps you can stand next to his son the next time he goes down the street beheading women in front of their homes and assist him by being the one to hang them on a stick for their children and parents to see?
Or perhaps you would next like to be the one in charge of dragging 3,000 political prisoners out to "the garden" and mowing them down with your little machine gun?
yes, yes, entire families, children, women and men are dying and being tortured daily under Saddams brutal regime, nothing is more certian, Or is it you only are interested in your anger at the big bad Americans?
 
  • #56
Originally posted by kat

For those of you who are so blind I would like to allow you to become a volunteer conscript for Saddam's army and perhaps you can stand next to his son the next time he goes down the street beheading women in front of their homes and assist him by being the one to hang them on a stick for their children and parents to see?
Or perhaps you would next like to be the one in charge of dragging 3,000 political prisoners out to "the garden" and mowing them down with your little machine gun?
yes, yes, entire families, children, women and men are dying and being tortured daily under Saddams brutal regime, nothing is more certian, Or is it you only are interested in your anger at the big bad Americans?

Got any referances to that?

American have been a very trusted part of the worlds Peoples for a long time, longer then most of the People alive today.

For a Country, as powerful as the US is, to demonstrate instigational war hostilities, based upon having 3 (or is it 4) Alleged Ex Oil Company Execs., having usurped the 'body politics' agenda, (the 'Peoples' agenda) directing the execution of a foriegn President, in a country the size of California, sitting upon a pile of oil, sorry, but you are the cause of the breech of trust here, not the rest of us!

Then again, you could always live in a country where criminals use suppression fire tactics, and body armour, to attempt to subdue the police/peace officers called to the scene of the robbery.

I suppose that it is apparently better to execute your criminals, call it capital punishment, sort of along the same chant that says that "gas is bad" (for killing) but "BOMBS are GOOD!" (for killing)

Every countries got there problem, and it would be much better to help that change, but War is not the method as the making of this war is an Illegal action, A Globally Illegal action/activety

Otherwise, just chant "Four legs good, two legs better!"

(and no, I do not agree with 'beheading' anyone, nor starting, aggressing, war!)
 
  • #57
* Millions of people worldwide are fed up with Bush and his rogue nation tactics.

Ironic quote of the day:
"He starves his people to build himself palaces" GWB on Saddam.
 
  • #58
It would be really nice if anyone of you could explain the difference between, lining people up against a wall, and machine gunning them to death, and surrounding a city with tanks and artillery, then bringing in B 52's to saturate bomb that city, when that city no longer has any viable air defences!

What is the difference? (Self evident truth, NONE!, or if you are really heartless, like Geo-Ogre, the co$t!)

Don't be fooled by 'Optics' please, yes you can see anti aircraft fire eminating from the city, but they cannot shoot down a 'stratospheric flier', so they are, in a nutshell, defenceless

This is NOT WAR, this is simply Bloody Murder
 
  • #59
Mr. Parsons,
Are you aware that Baghdad is generally on TV? No saturation bombing is happening. This is just another example of your delusional, dishonest, ardently anti-American, hysterical ranting.

Njorl
 
  • #60
Originally posted by Njorl
Mr. Parsons,
Are you aware that Baghdad is generally on TV? No saturation bombing is happening. This is just another example of your delusional, dishonest, ardently anti-American, hysterical ranting.

Njorl

Call it whatever you want but 2000+ cruise missiles landing in three cities is a lot of firepower. Even if it would be 100% certain that each missile hits it's designated target, it would be a miracle if this is not going to cost a lot of (normal) Iraqi lives.
 
  • #61
Originally posted by Njorl
Mr. Parsons,
Are you aware that Baghdad is generally on TV? No saturation bombing is happening. This is just another example of your delusional, dishonest, ardently anti-American, hysterical ranting.

Njorl

Norjl, I live in an emergency shelters, (Because the tent I normally live in is flooded in the spring melting) I am a homeless person, I have no TV, but I do still get to hear some of the news, and the last I had heard is that Geo-Orge is calling in the B 52's.

Tell me, oh one of dubious insult, what do you think that they are used for??

The only difference between "Shooting fish in a barrel", and what Geo-Ogre is about to do, is, well NOTHING, 'cept this time it is innocent men women and children, in 'the barrel'!
 
  • #62
In case you missed the News Norjl, try this one...

http://asia.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=2430955
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #63
Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Norjl, I live in an emergency shelters, (Because the tent I normally live in is flooded in the spring melting) I am a homeless person, I have no TV, but I do still get to hear some of the news, and the last I had heard is that Geo-Orge is calling in the B 52's.

Tell me, oh one of dubious insult, what do you think that they are used for??

The only difference between "Shooting fish in a barrel", and what Geo-Ogre is about to do, is, well NOTHING, 'cept this time it is innocent men women and children, in 'the barrel'!

So you admit to speaking without accurate information. The vast majority of Baghdad is untouched. The B-52's are not dropping bombs, they are launching stand-off precision guided cruise missiles. This reduces a B-52's explosive payload by more than an order of magnitude. These missiles are landing almost exclusively in a small part of western Baghdad occupied by government buildings. Most of these have been destroyed, and the bombing, which has dropped off significantly, is now targetted mostly on army barracks on the outskirts of town. This is not saturation bombing.

But you did not know; you were in doubt. Your philosophy seems to be, when in doubt, spout the most insulting thing about the US that you can think of.

Njorl
 
  • #64
missed it big time Norjl, try this one...

http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,6174050%255E25777,00.html [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #65
From the site linked above.. (h**p://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,6174050%255E25777,00.html)

This lovely quotation;
"Dozens of missiles and bombs rained down between nine and 10pm. A final wave of attacks by low flying jet fighters at 10.30pm was the ultimate proof of how defenceless Baghdad really is."


So you think that I am somehow wrong for thinking that attacking people, with/by the last standing superpower in the world, DEFENCELESS PEOPLE, is wrong?, anti American? to be pro American you must think that slaughtering defenceless people is, what?? GOOD? (YA NUTS?)
 
  • #66
Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
missed it big time Norjl, try this one...

http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,6174050%255E25777,00.html [Broken]

Did you bother reading this? It is almost an exact description of what I posted. I understand that as a French Canadien English is not your primary language, but perhaps you should restrict your comments to the things you do comprehend.

Njorl
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #67
I can see from the last bit of history that America has a certain element that promotes a sort of 'cultural imperialism', in which America sets teh rules for everyone else. This 'war' is just one aspect of it...there will likely be much more in teh works.
 
  • #68
Inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are the content of America's "cultural imperialism". What a horror to beset on the world? Good grief!
 
  • #69
Originally posted by Alias
Inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are the content of America's "cultural imperialism". What a horror to beset on the world? Good grief!
Do other cultures not have the right to self-determination. And how do you deal with the idea that a free, democratic world might tell America to take a hike and keep to its own borders?

It is not the responsibility of the world to agree with the U.S..
 
  • #70
Do other cultures not have the right to self-determination. And how do you deal with the idea that a free, democratic world might tell America to take a hike and keep to its own borders?
No country EVER given the gift of self-determination has EVER chosen tyranny over the principles Alias outlined. EVERY country we have set up a government in has CHOSEN these principles through self-determination.

Furthermore, those principles are the ONLY ones compatible with the concept of self-determination itself.
 

Similar threads

  • General Discussion
9
Replies
298
Views
67K
  • General Discussion
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • General Discussion
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • General Discussion
Replies
24
Views
5K
Replies
1
Views
932
  • General Discussion
Replies
31
Views
5K
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
49
Views
6K
Replies
29
Views
3K
Back
Top