Read This!! Why Iraq War Is Wrong. - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 10-07-2004, 06:58 PM   #1
Refugee
 
Infinity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,188
Local Time: 06:40 PM
Read This!! Why Iraq War Is Wrong.

Hey Everybody! IF YOU ARE INTELLIGENT, YOU'D VOTE FOR KERRY, AND HERE'S WHY.

The Iraq war was wrong for many reasons:
1) When Bush first started talks of war on Iraq, he said that war is necessary because Iraq has weapons of mass destruction and has ties with al-qaeda/9-11. When the UN weapons inspectors went into Iraq in 2002, Bush was confident that they'd find weapons, thats why he didnt have to worry about what to do if they didnt find weapons, cuz he was going to war no matter what. However, the inspectors found NO weapons. Yet still bush insisted that Iraq has weapons and went to war anyway. Meanwhile, there was no evidence of a connection between Iraq and Al-qaeda, that's why bush had to make an excuse for the war...and then came the 3rd reason: he said Saddam was a bad leader. Yes, we all agree with that, however this was just an excuse because Bush couldnt find any evidence of weapons or ties with al-qaeda.

Ok, so Saddam Hussein was a bad leader. But there are other countries that the leaders are bad AND have ties to alqaeda AND have weapons of mass destruction.

1) IRAN, for example, let the 9/11 hijackers pass through their country without stopping them

2) SAUDI ARABIA funded 9/11, most of the hijackers were Saudi.

3) North Korea. It has about 8 nuclear weapons. The leader of N.K., Kim, even admitted this. Each of these nukes can destroy New York City, and a 40 mile radius around it. Also, these nukes CAN reach west coast of the U.S. Also, even if Saddam had weapons, there would be no way they could reach the U.S.

So let's review:
1) There is no evidence found that Iraq had WMD's, says a very recent CIA report.
2) Also, the Iraqi weapons facilities are old and out of use!!! This also came from the recent CIA report.
3) The 9/11 commission concluded that Iraq had NO connection with 9/11.
4) Meanwhile, North Korea has weapons, they aren't afraid to use them, and those weapons CAN reach the U.S.
5) Also, Iran and Saudi Arabia HAVE ties with alqaeda.

Also, i'd like to add this:

Osama Bin Laden is in the mountain regions between Afghanistan and Pakistan. U.S. troops are searching for him there. However, they are only on the Afghan side of the border. Now wouldn't it help if we could search on the Pakistani side??, where there are many villages who support bin Laden, so theres a very good chance that he can be hiding there. So why don't we go onto the Pakistani side? Because Pakistani President Pervez Musharaff won't let the U.S. enter. First of all, the region where bin Laden could be hiding is not even under Musharaff's control, because of all the Radical Islamists that control it. So now the question is, why won't bush go into this region of Pakistan by using force?, if it's completely okay with him to go into Iraq, in which there was no evidence at all of bin-Laden/ties with al-qaeda, then why can't he go into a region of Pakistan, not controlled by it's President, AND in which there is a good chance of bin Laden being in??????????????

Spread this information to everyone, thanks.

VOTE KERRY/EDWARDS 2004
__________________

Infinity is offline  
Old 10-07-2004, 07:00 PM   #2
Blue Crack Addict
 
DaveC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: mar-a-lago delenda est
Posts: 20,786
Local Time: 09:40 PM
Read this!!

This thread is going to FYM.
__________________

DaveC is online now  
Old 10-07-2004, 07:08 PM   #3
The Fly
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 90
Local Time: 01:40 AM
Your telling us (in hindsight) why Bush shouldn't have gone into Iraq. We all know it was based on bad intelligence. The same intelligence which was shared by the rest of the free world. Your not telling me why I should vote for Kerry/Edwards. Because one person was wrong doesn't mean another person is right. This is especially true when that other person is on the record saying they would have done the same thing given the intelligence of the day.
Boston01 is offline  
Old 10-07-2004, 07:44 PM   #4
Blue Crack Addict
 
Liesje's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In the dog house
Posts: 19,563
Local Time: 09:40 PM
Sorry, I don't vote for someone based on what the OTHER guy says and does.
Liesje is offline  
Old 10-07-2004, 07:49 PM   #5
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Zoomerang96's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: canada
Posts: 13,462
Local Time: 08:40 PM
they both suck, but it's a matter of who sucks less.
Zoomerang96 is offline  
Old 10-07-2004, 07:52 PM   #6
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
cujo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Province
Posts: 5,820
Local Time: 07:40 PM
Is this the reasoning behind your return?

cujo is offline  
Old 10-07-2004, 08:05 PM   #7
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
BrownEyedBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: San Pedro Sula, Honduras
Posts: 3,510
Local Time: 07:40 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by DaveC
Read this!!

This thread is going to FYM.

FYM with large capital letters, large capital letters.
BrownEyedBoy is offline  
Old 10-07-2004, 08:07 PM   #8
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
popacrobat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: this house
Posts: 9,866
Local Time: 09:40 PM
i guess if i support bush im unintelligent. thanks.
popacrobat is offline  
Old 10-07-2004, 08:18 PM   #9
ONE
love, blood, life
 
indra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 12,689
Local Time: 09:40 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by StlElevation
i guess if i support bush im unintelligent. thanks.
Well, OK.
indra is offline  
Old 10-07-2004, 08:36 PM   #10
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 05:40 PM
Just as long as we understand you attitude.....
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 10-07-2004, 08:50 PM   #11
Refugee
 
FullonEdge2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,314
Local Time: 01:40 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by StlElevation
i guess if i support bush im unintelligent. thanks.

I'm just going to bring up something interesting...not to offend but...


As my mom learned in her Ethics class at an area liberal college, generally democrats operate under the utilitarian idea, which means they rely more on emotions to make their decisions (in a nutshell). Republicans operate mainly under the contractarian idea, which means their decisions are usually based on logic.

just wanted to bring that up even though it's a little off topic...

can anyone say they at least see where this generalization comes from?
FullonEdge2 is offline  
Old 10-07-2004, 11:00 PM   #12
War Child
 
Lisa71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Tampa
Posts: 678
Local Time: 09:40 PM
Blanket statements are always a bit off the mark for me. I think that's kinda saying that emotional people can't be logical and I don't agree with that. I think people that are very emotional and feel empathy for people etc can also be quite rational.

I can see where the generalization comes from and I don't think it's 100% wrong I just think it's hard to say ALL Democrates are one way and ALL Republicans are another.
Lisa71 is offline  
Old 10-08-2004, 01:01 AM   #13
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 11:40 AM
Read This then!
http://www.steynonline.com/index2.cfm?edit_id=35
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 10-08-2004, 01:07 AM   #14
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 02:40 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by FullonEdge2
generally democrats operate under the utilitarian idea, which means they rely more on emotions to make their decisions (in a nutshell). Republicans operate mainly under the contractarian idea, which means their decisions are usually based on logic.
Logic like calling the War in Iraq a crusade?

Huh if that's logic i don't want to be called rational ever again.

Not everything you can learn in college classes is true
Klaus is offline  
Old 10-08-2004, 02:29 AM   #15
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 11:40 AM
May I just say that "Saddam Hussein was a bad leader" does not even begin to account for the crimes of the regime. In barbarity, not magnitude, in barbarity they were on par with the Nazi's and the Soviet Union. A bad leader would be someone who runs an economy into the ground or messes up social policy, Saddam Hussein is an evil dictator responsible for the deaths of millions. To brush aside this element with a token statement of dislike is a very easy way to dismiss intervention as a pointless imperial excercise that only brings death upon people who were living peaceful and prosperous lives.

I find the concept of leaving a regime like that in power when the opportunity to remove it with substantially less casualties presents itself the right choice - regardless of WMD or Terror Links - and I stood by it before the war and after. How many innocent lives are worth paying to uphold the status quo of having a dictator murdering tens of thousands and the international community at best sitting on their hands and at worst being complicit in the crimes?

Never
Ever
Forget

http://massgraves.info/
Visit this site and look over it well, war is horror - sometimes peace is too.
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 10-08-2004, 05:38 AM   #16
Refugee
 
FullonEdge2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,314
Local Time: 01:40 AM
I know, it is quite a blanket statement. And I'm not trying to depict anti-war people as being illogical. But sometimes you have to look at the reasons behind your statements.

Klaus'es statement is a good example. That said, I don't think many Democrats would argue this. The "liberal" teacher for this class isn't offended that he's basically calling himself illogical, he just doesn't know why anyone would think like a Republican. That's all.
FullonEdge2 is offline  
Old 10-08-2004, 05:46 AM   #17
pax
ONE
love, blood, life
 
pax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Ewen's new American home
Posts: 11,412
Local Time: 09:40 PM
Classical utilitarianism actually has nothing to do with emotion. Utilitarianism came out of Britain during the Enlightenment, formed largely by the political thinkers and philosophers Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill.

Both Bentham and Mill, despite some differences between them, both believed that the calculus behind ethical decisions should be based on seeking the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Both Mill and Bentham, if you ever take the time to actually read their work, were incredibly rigorous and logical philosophers whose work is still studied and argued today. I don't think that Democrats or Republicans have franchise on logical or illogical decisions, on utilitarianism or contractarianism (Rousseau, "social contract," if this means anything to anyone). While utilitarianism is sometimes associated with liberalism, classical liberalism has little do with the Democratic Party as we know it today (just as classical conservatism has little do with today's Republicans). Utilitarianism can be just as well used to justify decisions made by conservatives as liberals.

I was a philosophy major in college, so you can't b.s. philosophy in this forum.
__________________
and you hunger for the time
time to heal, desire, time


Join Amnesty.
pax is offline  
Old 10-08-2004, 07:36 AM   #18
Refugee
 
Infinity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,188
Local Time: 06:40 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
May I just say that "Saddam Hussein was a bad leader" does not even begin to account for the crimes of the regime. In barbarity, not magnitude, in barbarity they were on par with the Nazi's and the Soviet Union. A bad leader would be someone who runs an economy into the ground or messes up social policy, Saddam Hussein is an evil dictator responsible for the deaths of millions. To brush aside this element with a token statement of dislike is a very easy way to dismiss intervention as a pointless imperial excercise that only brings death upon people who were living peaceful and prosperous lives.

I find the concept of leaving a regime like that in power when the opportunity to remove it with substantially less casualties presents itself the right choice - regardless of WMD or Terror Links - and I stood by it before the war and after. How many innocent lives are worth paying to uphold the status quo of having a dictator murdering tens of thousands and the international community at best sitting on their hands and at worst being complicit in the crimes?

Never
Ever
Forget

http://massgraves.info/
Visit this site and look over it well, war is horror - sometimes peace is too.

Arite I agree, Saddam did kill thousands of his own people. However, before we went to war, Bush never stated that this was the reason, he said we went because of WMD's and terror links. So we can't have a president who lied to us before going to war, regardless of what he lied about. I mean the capture of Saddam Hussein was a good thing. But was it worth going into Iraq at the time? NO! Because right now the two biggest threats to the United States are terrorists and nuclear weapons, NEITHER of which Saddam had. So what was more important was to attack those countries that did have nukes and terror links (North Korea, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan maybe). Because the terrorists and nukes and these countries DO threaten the U.S. unlike Iraq. So ask yourself this: What is more important? To attack a country that has a dictatorship, OR to take out a country that can cause harm to millions of Americans? I'd go with the latter.

(Each nuke in North Korea can destroy big cities in the west such as L.A., San Francisco, or Seattle. If attacked by a Nuke, the city will instantly vaporize and everyone in a surrounding 40 mile radius will be killed, let alone the damage a nuke can cause to the earth's atmosphere. North Korea has 8 nuclear weapons, and wants more)
Infinity is offline  
Old 10-08-2004, 07:55 AM   #19
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 11:40 AM
Not thousands, hundreds of thousands pushing into millions, and many more would be added to that list if Saddam had been left in power for another decade or two. I am not talking about Bush's reasons for the war; but you say that it was the total wrong thing to do, and as such you must accept that there is a severe cost to inaction. As must I accept that there are costs to taking action. There is no magic wand happy fun-time solution; either way people die and the situation is unstable - the important part is managing competing risks and ensuring long term security.

N-Korea and Iran are working to get nuclear weapons the existence is by no means guaranteed (yet), Saudi Arabia doesn't and Pakistan certainly does. Al Qaeda wants to topple the regimes in place in SA and Pakistan and replace them with Islamist ones - so these governments share a common foe, Iran is facing the fact that its younger generation demands reform and N-Korea is motivated by pure self preservation, Nuclear weapons guarantee that nobody would make a move against them.

After the fact we know that Saddam was using the oil for food program to prop up his regime. The UN was directly involved in this scam where 11 billion dollars would up in the hands of Saddam. Directly assisting this proud effort were some of the very respectable members of the security council. The entire WMD issue was a diversion from the real game, Saddam being shit scared of Iran - he poured so much effort into bluffing the Iranians he convinced the entire world that he was hiding WMD, he still retained the expertise and the programs - production could be restarted if he gave the order and that was the danger. If inspections continued and they found nothing then sanctions would have to be removed. The regime would be free to restart its weapons programs (the intention which his chief WMD scientist made clear) and the entire situation would be a whole lot worse - that would be the course of the UN solution; would you agree with it.

Iraq under Saddam was not a haven for Islamist terrorists however right now in the country you have these groups fighting. A second front has been established in the War on Terror which not only eliminated the persistent threat posed by Iraq but also enables the elimination of the Islamist ideology by providing an alternative to those suffering under despotism. Realpolitik at its best, truly.


Secondly, do you advocate now or would you support in future preemptive war with North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan or Iran?
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 10-08-2004, 10:54 AM   #20
Blue Crack Addict
 
U2girl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: slovenija
Posts: 21,033
Local Time: 03:40 AM
1) UN inspectors said he did not have WMD's (you know, what US/British claimed in front of the world in Security Council)

2) David Kay said the same and resigned

3) Just now, I read the person who was in charge after Kay left gave out a report that, again, says, there were no WMDs (since 1991, even) and I think also dismissed any Iraq ties with Al Qaeda

4) I read Rumsfeld said a few days ago Iraq had no connections with Al Qaeda or WMDs

5) Any Iraq connection with 9/11 was dismissed by Bush himself

I'd say that pretty much blows away any "arguments" on Iraq being a part of anti-terrorism war.
__________________

U2girl is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:40 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com
×