Forums dot lukpac.org

Okay so everyone seems have very differing opinions on the current situation in Iraq.

So what do you think?

I'm sure I'll cause some conflict here by posting, but here goes anyway.

I certainly wish the war hadn't happened, though war has a funny way of ending recessions. There certainly comes a point when war may be the only option left. Some would say nobody ever got anything by being nice. But that being said, I'm not sure all the other options were fully explored.

Now that we're committed, though, we may as well go in there and do it the right way. Yes, there will be casualties, and yes, there'll be "collateral damage." It's a war, and these things happen. But when it's all said and done, Saddam had better be dead, and there had better be some weapons of mass destruction laying around somewhere, because anything less is going to make George W. Bush, and the rest of the U.S., look like fools.

balthazar wrote:
But when it's all said and done, Saddam had better be dead, and there had better be some weapons of mass destruction laying around somewhere, because anything less is going to make George W. Bush, and the rest of the U.S., look like fools.

I agree with you on this statment. My biggest fear is that there won't be any weapons of mass destruction laying around.

I also think that in the worlds eyes Bush looks like a fool, because he NEVER sold the case as to why we need this war.

Check out some Anti-Bush material if you're curious... http://www.voxfux.com

Personally, I've been keeping up with Irregular Times. They seem to have a lot of interesting things to say about the war and Dubbya and other topics.

I too was very much against this war. But now that it's started I don't know exactly what to think. The pacifist in me wants it to stop. But we can't have a repeat of what happened in the 90s when the Iraqis who were rebelling got left out in the cold to be hunted down by Saddam after we left. I think we all know that Sadaam is an ass who needs to go. I just wish there was a better way to do it.

I think the thing that's bothering me the most now is what I hear people saying. Things like the people in the Iraqi military are "evil". Yeah and there's that word "evil". It's been thrown around so much in the last couple years. I'm sure that Dubbya would love it if everyone subscribed to his idea that there are good (us) and evil (those against us) people in this world. And all we have to do is remove the evil people and everything will magically be okay. I just don't think it's that easy.

Oh and one last thing I'm gonna mention. There's a poll on our company's internal website:



If you add it up, the 3% for "Patriotic" comes down to 1 vote. That would be me. This poll is pretty small in the number of votes, but I've heard similar ideas on radio and tv. I just don't understand how in a country where we have the right of free speech, that so many people think that those who think differently are "un-patriotic" or "just not right". To me, not voicing your opposition to the government and just accepting whatever they decide is what would be considered un-patriotic.

Okay, I'll stop ranting now.

BillyBuerger wrote:I think the thing that's bothering me the most now is what I hear people saying. Things like the people in the Iraqi military are "evil". Yeah and there's that word "evil". It's been thrown around so much in the last couple years. I'm sure that Dubbya would love it if everyone subsribed to his idea that there are good (us) and evil (those against us) people in this world. And all we have to do is remove the evil people and everything will magicially be okay. I just don't think it's that easy.

Of course it isn't, although a lot of people would like to believe that. The same goes for setting up a new government in Iraq after the current regime collapses. Many people seem to think that we'll just be able to go in and say "here, you're now a democracy" and they'll be happy. What they don't realize that this is a *totally* different culture. Like it or not, religion dictates a lot over there, and that's not something we're going to be able to change overnight.

If you add it up, the 3% for "Patriotic" comes down to 1 vote. That would be me. This poll is pretty small in the number of votes, but I've heard similar ideas on radio and tv. I just don't understand how in a country where we have the right of free speech, that so many people think that those who think differently are "un-patriotic" or "just not right". To me, not voicing your opposition to the government and just accepting whatever they decide is what would be considered un-patriotic.

I totally agree. Think about this: how many people who say it's wrong to protest/disagree would say that Germans did the right thing by standing behind Hitler? Probably not too many.

Ok, I really need to get a spell checker here for Billy...

BillyBuerger wrote:
I think the thing that's bothering me the most now is what I hear people saying. Things like the people in the Iraqi military are "evil".

Evil.. when did that become such a popular phrase to use as a generailzation for a group of people?

People who are in the Iraqi military are not evil by any means. They are now fighting for there country, and the love of one's country always is always greater then whomever the leader is.

When we kicked Iraq out of Kuwait the troops in Iraq surrended by the thousands. Why? It wasn't because they wern't loyal to Iraq, it's because they weren't loyal to invading Kuwait, they wern't willing to die for that cause. Unfortunaly now, the military in Iraq may not be loyal to Saddam, BUT they are loyal to Iraq this is their home. And when your home is invaded you fight tooth and nail. Even if you really don't like your home. Especially when those invaders look nothing like you and think nothing like you.

lukpac wrote:Ok, I really need to get a spell checker here for Billy...

My bad. I fixed it.

BillyBuerger wrote:I think the thing that's bothering me the most now is what I hear people saying. Things like the people in the Iraqi military are "evil". Yeah and there's that word "evil". It's been thrown around so much in the last couple years.

I have to agree.

When you're a kid, it's easier to think of things as good and evil, or at least as good and bad. As you get older, though, you realize (hopefully) that 99%, or better, of people live somewhere in the gray area in between.

It's convenient to say Iraq is evil, or Saddam Hussein is evil, or that guy's evil. But when you come down to it, Saddam, and even someone like Hitler, probably thinks he's doing what's right for his people. Does it make it less wrong? In some cases, no. I think we could agree that Saddam and Hitler had some strange ideas about how to make things better for their own people, and then it takes someone to stand up to them. Unfortunately, George W. Bush tries to fire us up by saying we're good and Saddam's evil.


OT: I hope I did this quote thing right!

I'm still torn myself: between the concept of making a part of the world safer for everyone, even while knowing vanquishing one foe doesn't eliminate the rest; and having to endure day after day of deaths of fellow americans for a cause that still seems, to some degree, not quite as cut and dry as I'd have hoped. But, the US is stuck being the world's cop, a curse it's had since 12/7/41. Not fair, but maybe the world would be the worse off since that time if we hadn't stuck our noses in. The key is to find the right place to go, and as Viet Nam proved, we sometimes choose the wrong place.

I just want it all to end, wimpy as that sounds.

ED

I'm not sure I quite understand your post, Ed. "Making a part of the world safer for everyone" refers to Iraq, right? "Everyone" must refer to both Iraq's immediate neighbors and those living within Iraq's borders. But the ostensible original purpose of this war was to destroy weapons of mass destruction that could be used against the United States, NOT make that area of the world a safer place.

Ron wrote:I'm not sure I quite understand your post, Ed. "Making a part of the world safer for everyone" refers to Iraq, right? "Everyone" must refer to both Iraq's immediate neighbors and those living within Iraq's borders. But the ostensible original purpose of this war was to destroy weapons of mass destruction that could be used against the United States, NOT make that area of the world a safer place.

Mr. Bush didn't go to Iraq for just *one purpose*; that was his excuse. His mission was to get a truly loose cannon over there removed, and that he seems to have done. Yet, with some luck, one peripheral effect of a new Iraq--such as that may be, and I can't confess loads of optimism--will be to stabilize that part of the Middle East, understanding you still have terrorist cels and Palestine to deal with. If nothing else, the swift takeover of the country(with a long road of who knows what ahead)will have the effect of putting every other nation in the region on notice: this could also happen to you. It's instructive that these nations have made a point of not getting involved, or even show a hint of being so much as interested. Their silence and inaction speaks volumes.

As for the WMD's, some have been found; not enough to satisfy this citizen about Bush's intentions, however. But then I don't trust most politicans' motives about much of anything; just my cynical nature, I guess.

ED

Ed Bishop wrote:His mission was to get a truly loose cannon over there removed, and that he seems to have done.

"Loose cannon?" What aggression had Saddam shown subsequent to Gulf War I and its immediate aftermath (ie, trying to take out Bush Sr)? He was surely no more a loose cannon than Bush Jr, who decided to go to war with a country that hasn't shown any real provocation towards the US.

Yet, with some luck, one peripheral effect of a new Iraq--such as that may be, and I can't confess loads of optimism--will be to stabilize that part of the Middle East, understanding you still have terrorist cels and Palestine to deal with.

I'm not so sure about that. In particular, I know Turkey is *very* wary of things falling into Kurdish hands. The Kurds have aspirations of statehood, which would include a lot of Southeast Turkey, which is also a Kurdish area.

And of course, all of this really isn't doing a lot for anti-US sentiment in that part of the world.

Ed Bishop wrote:Mr. Bush didn't go to Iraq for just *one purpose*; that was his excuse. His mission was to get a truly loose cannon over there removed . . .

I'm still confused. You use words like"purpose," "excuse" and "mission" in rapid succession. The original stated purpose of this war was to destroy weapons of mass destruction that could be used against the U.S. When it appeared that that purpose wasn't winning world-wide support, the purpose shifted to regime change. One excuse given for the necessity of regime change was to save/free the Iraqui people. So in that sense that part of the world would be safer for those living in that area. This still doesn't explain what you meant by making that part of the world safer for "everyone." But as this is, by your own admission [and I agree, BTW] merely an "excuse," then why are you "torn"?

I'm still torn myself: between the concept of making a part of the world safer for everyone . . . and having to endure day after day of deaths of fellow americans . . .

I am apalled that American and Iraqui lives have been lost for an "excuse"--an excuse that is, in all honesty, closer to a lie than it is truthful.

You go on to mention Bush's "mission" as being the removal of Saddam. I disagree. The removal of Saddam was the second "stated purpose" of the war. Bush's "mission" would appear to be providing America with a foothold in one very oil-rich region of the world. Regime change was only necessary to achieve that end. Destroying weapons of mass destruction, while the original stated purpose, was also really nothing but an excuse.

But it's your subsequent statement that has frightening ramifications:

If nothing else, the swift takeover of the country will have the effect of putting every other nation in the region on notice: this could also happen to you.

"This could happen to you." Why should any country in the region be worried about this? Is Syria months away from having the bomb? Are the Saudi's selling biological weapons to Al Qaeda [funny how that's the first mention of Al Qaeda--the "war" I thought we were supposed to be fighting]? Or would harboring/aiding terrorists be enough to warrent American incursion into a sovereign country and overthrow the government? If that's true, then where will this madness end?

I agree with you to a point--other countries in the region have been put on notice, but I think the message is a little different: Any attempt to disrupt the stable free flow of oil will be dealt with in the same way we "dealt with" Iraq. [Kind of makes one proud to be an American, doesn't it?]

But then I don't trust most politicans' motives about much of anything; just my cynical nature, I guess.

I'm afraid I have to disagree with you again, Ed. You don't appear to be cynical at all. And as regards not trusting politicians' motives, you seem to have swallowed those of the current American president hook, line and sinker.

The visions of sheer hatred the Iraqi people seem to have of Saddam and his Ba'ath party regime in light of the appearance of coalition troops tells me all I need to know that we did the right thing in carrying out this military action.

I just hope this doesn't spill into Syria, like they are speculating...