Annoying things about the war

[Humus]

There are a couple of things that keeps annoying me which I must speak out of before I go nuts.

First, I do think the war is the right thing to do, but have a good deal of understanding for those who don't support the war. However, when anti-war protests go as far as to be violent, cause problems for people, attack McDonalds, then they loose all credibility. I feel sad for those who oppose the war but does it with peaceful demostrations, their voices will probably not be heard because of the destructive ones.

Then I get incredibly annoyed by those who are extremely much on the other side. People who say they don't care how many Iraqies die (which I have not only heard from just one but several people unfortunately).

Then I get annoyed at those who's opposed to the war for very weak reasons, like "we believe in peace" as the only argument. Then I get annoyed at those who support the war for equally weak reasons, like 15% (or so) of the US population that does it "to support our troops". At least believe the war is the right thing to do!

Then I get annoyed at those in the US who point fingers at France for their minimal (0.3% of GDP or so) business deals with Iraq. Given that Saddam was a close ally to the US for decades before the first gulf war despite contineously ongoinging humanitarian crimes I can't see how the US can point fingers at anyone. Plus that the claims against France are hardly substancial. 0.3% is not much, especially given that their tourism industry which depends a lot on good relations with the US is one of their largest sources of revenue. I can't see how France could be doing it for the money.

Also annoying is the incredible amount of misinformation spreading all over. First we had those who claimed that Iraqies would welcome the troops and there would be zero resistance and loads of surrendering, and continue to make these claims despite every news channels telling otherwise. Lots of Iraqies see this as just an invasion, not a liberation. With time this might change, but the truth is that it will probably take years since the presence of the coalition will most likely be required for years too.

Then it's quite annoying the media coverage of the war. We don't need to know what bomb hit where, the exact number of explosions heard in baghdad and we certainly don't need to download 3d models of the latest weapons from cnn.com.

Finally, the most annoying thing is that this war is needed at all. Why wasn't Saddam removed in the Gulf war? With his track record I see no reason to give him another chance, or trust that he would do what he claimed. If I was an Iraqie Kurd, I would be very sceptical.

Comments? And have a nice weekend!

 

[epicstruggle]

I agree with almost everything you said. Maybe your changing your views since your so close to the US. just kidding. Anyways some comments after reading your post.

I believe (memory not to good about events that happened 12 years ago) the US did not have approval from the UN to go and take out Saddam. If im not mistaken I believe france was not going along for that particular ride.

About france and its business dealings with Iraq. Yes .3% is small but do you disaggree that that is alot of money. Billions of dollars is alot of money and some company could influence the french politicians to get to that money.

I hate all the talk about "no blood for oil" I cannot see Pres. Bush ordering the deaths of our military because he wants to drop the price of oil by a couple of cents (or whatever it turns out to be)

Im tired of seeing the same shot of bhagdad.

well i think thats enough for this post.

later,

 

[Himself]

Erm, the US doesn't have UN approval to do that now, but it is anyway. I think the main problem is thinking of the US like a single person, when it's really whoever is behind the wheel. It's not the US, it's George W. Bush.

 

[Sxotty]

I agree with what you said.

I think Bush would kill troops for oil.

I think that the war is right because Saddam is such a bad person, and I think it is a thing that should be done.

I find it ironic that liberals who want the government to deal with so much, never want to go to war and let a government deal with problems. Vietnam was started by optimistic liberal people to a large extent who thought that they could actually make things better, perhaps forever after liberals will oppose wars even if they seem justified.

Saddam supposedly killed like 220,000 people over his residency, I realize that is not on par with stalin or hitler, but still a bad man

 

[epicstruggle]

I think Bush would kill troops for oil.

i think you meant: "I think Bush would not kill troops for oil"

I agree with everything you said Sxotty. Liberals want alot done, but somehow someone else must pay the bill.

later,

 

[jvd]

Heh all those protesters just have nothing else to do with thier lives...

 

[pax]

I agree with almost everything you said. Maybe your changing your views since your so close to the US. just kidding. Anyways some comments after reading your post.

I believe (memory not to good about events that happened 12 years ago) the US did not have approval from the UN to go and take out Saddam. If im not mistaken I believe france was not going along for that particular ride.

About france and its business dealings with Iraq. Yes .3% is small but do you disaggree that that is alot of money. Billions of dollars is alot of money and some company could influence the french politicians to get to that money.

I hate all the talk about "no blood for oil" I cannot see Pres. Bush ordering the deaths of our military because he wants to drop the price of oil by a couple of cents (or whatever it turns out to be)

Im tired of seeing the same shot of bhagdad.

well i think thats enough for this post.

later,

You cant keep regurgitating this argument about France and not implicate the US in the same situation. If you agree France is partly motivated by money then you have to admit the US is partly as well... This is a bad argument that is used by both sides to avoid the real issues that concern pro and anti-war positions of the nations involved.

Most fo the world expeciallly the arab world opposed a follow up invasion of Iraq after Kuwait. They also feared that for the same reason they fear it today. Clash of civilisations(WW3), serious bio-terrorist attacks as reprisals, and up until recently a serious attack on Israel meant to get it involved in a larger conflict (WW3). We got lucky with that one. I hope our luck holds out.

 

[epicstruggle]

most people in the middle east dont care for saddam, but they do care about the position the us has taken in the israeli/palestian issue. Glad to see the Pres taking a stand to get a viable state for the palestinians. Thats what people there care about.

later,

 

[BNA!]

most people in the middle east dont care for saddam, but they do care about the position the us has taken in the israeli/palestian issue. Glad to see the Pres taking a stand to get a viable state for the palestinians. Thats what people there care about.

later,

Most people in the middle east care about Saddam Hussein.
For them he's still the lesser evil (sorry if this formulation isn't correct - second language).

The standing about the Israel / Palestine issue of the US is certainly a good thing, but in Palestine people are celebrating Saddam Hussein almost as the second coming.

In my opinion Saddam Hussein still is looking for a peace agreement with the US led coalition. He certainly hopes that the "world" will force the coalition to agree to such a proposal sooner or later.
This he hopes to achieve by creating horrible pictures about civilian casualties. If the war will take a rather long time, he'll become more and more successful with pushing the "world" to such a proposal.

Of course we all know that it's highly unlikely that the coalition will let Saddam Hussein slip for another time.

His next step may be rename this war as the "Palestine liberation war" and one or another surrounding country will hear it.
Now, that the neighbours can see, that the coalition forces eventually could get overthrown by a mass of troops floating into the country from all sides, there's a high risk that some of his neighbours may try to grab Iraq, remove Hussein and break the country apart like a cake as they wish.

Israel will be in heavy heavy trouble in such a case, eventually forcing them to guard their borders with nuclear weapons.
This of course would force the US to take action again...

Sorry, but I obviously talk in circles...

 

[Barnabas]

Then I get annoyed at those in the US who point fingers at France for their minimal (0.3% of GDP or so) business deals with Iraq.

France and Russia both have drilling rights for some large oil fields in Iraq. AFAIK germany was also included in the group of states having economic interests in this area although i don't know what those could be.

 

[horvendile]

most people in the middle east (...) do care about the position the us has taken in the israeli/palestian issue. Glad to see the Pres taking a stand to get a viable state for the palestinians. Thats what people there care about.

Precisely on spot!
I think several investigations have shown that among the general population in middle east, as far as US is hated, it is not the political freedom or lifestyle of its citizens they hate. On the contrary, most of them would want to live like that. What US is hated for is its foreign politics, and above all the poitics vis-à-vis Israel.

I'm not surprised. Israel has WMDs and almost routinely breaks UN regulations, but yet USA almost always stand behind them no matter what they do. But when Iraq breaks UN regulations, they shall be punished. I don't say Israel and Iraq are the same, but there are parallels enough that one shouldn't be surprised when people see the state of affairs as hypocritical.

Anyway, if USA could help solve the Israel / Palestine conflict, I think that would be a far more effective long-term anti-terrorist action than any disarming of Iraq.

 

[BNA!]

AFAIK germany was also included in the group of states having economic interests in this area although i don't know what those could be.

Electronic infrastructure and maintainance maschinery.
Just what it delivers to the rest of the world also.

Almost every country has economic interests in Iraq, but usually only the Oil or Warfare related get under the eye of the general public.
From an economical point of view Iraq is a trading partner like any other. Just keep a close eye at the list of things you're not allowed to deliver.

UN has made it almost impossible to deliver machinery to Iraq in the last years. Every standard switch that could get used to switch the lights on in a bunker was considered as blacklisted.

Isn't it crazy that almost everybody tries to link things in a way that they end up as a conspiracy theory? (This is not related to your post)

 

[Vince]

Erm, the US doesn't have UN approval to do that now, but it is anyway.

Yes we do. I wish people would stop saying this as it's been gone over to no end.

According to the terms of the cease-fire agreement (UNSC 671 IIRC), Iraq must fully disarm it's WMD programs. Iraq has, clearly, failed to do so. Thus, Iraq has violated the ceasefire and we are at a de facto state of war.

This is 100% justified and legally binding. I realize many a people think we need new UNSC resolutions for everything we undertake on a subject, effectivly piling resolution on resolution, all referring back to one core idea thats become irrelevent and abscure - but I don't. If the UNSC passed it in '91, then they agreed on it for a reason, and that should be upheld.

 

[Himself]

Key word is approval, do you really think the UN approves of the US going on it's own? Approval means just that, not legal interpretation.

 

[epicstruggle]

technically the un right now does not approve or disapprove of the current situation. I guess if france can use its veto power so can we. So we need to look at previous resolutions/treaties. and according to most of them, we have a right to go in.

later,

 

[zidane1strife]

Interesting as long as it goes for the improvement of humankind, and stability, the human lives that might be lost(although, I personally would not like to see a single live lost, not even that of the most hateful person on the earth.) will not have been in vain.

 

[epicstruggle]

im not liking the video interviews of military in iraq with their loved ones in the US and the reporter trying to get either party to cry. seems sad to go so low for ratings.

later,

 

[Humus]

Maybe your changing your views since your so close to the US. just kidding.

Well, I as everyone else is affected be the media I'm exposed to. I've been doubtful about this war for a long time, for good reasons I might add. The war is not a simple issue as many people on both sides try to insinuate. It's more than just "saddam is bad" or "about oil". These are two relevant aspects out of dozens of things that need to be taken into consideration. What in the end swayed me over into supporting the war was that in the end no other solution was ever presented. We could very well disarm Saddam by continuing the UN route with inspections and so on, but that still wouldn't have liberated the people, Saddam would still be around.
While I do hope that this will finally liberate the Iraqi people, I am somewhat doubtful about the rest of the package. I'm not sure it will help against terrorism at all, at least not in the short term, it may indeed increase it. Nor do I think we will see democracy automatically spread into the region. There are no democratic tradition there and the people doesn't exactly look to Israel and Turkey as good examples, which are the only democracies in the region. To get democracy there, the US must use whatever influence they have to turn Isreal into a good example the other countries would want to follow. The EU must do the same for Turkey as a potential future EU member. Today neighter of Isreal or Turkey respect human rights anywhere close to western standards. Changing that will most likely take years, or decades even.

 

[PurplePigeon]

There are a couple of things that keeps annoying me which I must speak out of before I go nuts.

....

Comments? And have a nice weekend!

All I can say is, "Hear Hear!". That was the most rational forum post regarding the war that I have read in a long time. Your followup message was a close second

 

[BNA!]

To get democracy there, the US must use whatever influence they have to turn Isreal into a good example the other countries would want to follow.

There's no way that any Arabic country would want to follow Israel in the foreseeable future.

If Palestine would turn into a showcase democracy and Israel would stop to spread bulldozers and settlers, things may be much different.

The EU must do the same for Turkey as a potential future EU member. Today neighter of Isreal or Turkey respect human rights anywhere close to western standards. Changing that will most likely take years, or decades even.

The US is pressing us Europeans very hard to declare Turkey a member of the European Union. I really hope this does not happen soon and the politicians withstand the pressure.
I can see this pressure to decrease when the US does not need Turkey any longer to liberate the Gulf region.