Rain Dog

Opposed to war in Iraq
Atheist, left leaning, hawkish

As a US citizen, I am opposed to war in Iraq for the simple reason that I beleive it to be contrary to the national interests of the United States.


There is no plausible endgame scenario that results in any of the following:

1. Enhancement of US or allies security
2. Advancement of US policy goals in the region (other than removal of Hussein)
3. Enhancement of US standing with allies
4. Reduction of tensions in other areas of US concern (e.g. PRK)
5. Curtailment of the Pan-Islamic movement
6 Enhancement of regional stability
7 Improvement of US relations with ambivalent or hostile powers (e.g. China)

There are also several dangers in going to war at this time and place, in this manner:

1. Broader regional war in the Middle East, involving Syria and Isreal at least.
2. Increased unrest in the Palestinian territories, primarily the West Bank
3. Intensified global terrorism directed against US interests and allies, especially overseas.

In summary, an actual war with Iraq poses substantial risks to US policy goals and interests, at an astronomical cost in blood and treasure, for virtually no benefit. That said, we should hope that Saddaam doesn't figure this out, because there is no question that the credible threat of war is the only thing that has engendered the minimal level of cooperation we now see from Iraq. Think how ludicrous the suggestion to "give the inspections time to work" would have sounded just a year ago.

RD

edited to improve my counting skills

Nira

Opposed to war
Atheist

Want an independent instance guided by a rule of law in order to control political interests, not this might is right approach.

Believe in the sovereignty of a country and the ‘no first strike’ rule.

Believe that Saddam is not a threat to my interests politically or military. Believe that the US under the current regime is a threat politically.

Hope: The price will be just high enough to warrant an end to this approach in the future.

Kinross

Opposed Athiest Libertarian

I fully believe that Iraq has WMD. I oppose the war because Iraq poses absolutly no threat to the US. This administrations policy of pre-emptive strike is wrong headed and will permantly scar the US's credibility in the world.

I also believe that France, Germany, and Russia are all equally guilty as the US in thier policy. They are not being firm enough with Iraq because they have vested interest in the current regime. Neither country had any intention of of adhearing to the UN resolution and only voted on it to buy time. If they had no intention to follow through they shouldn't have voted for it.

The only possible positive outcome of a war is that it would force Europe to form a military coalition to balance the power of the US but I fear that this will not happen due to France's beligerance towards the post communist states, and the the europians unwillingness to give up their lush social benefits to pay for military build up.

Marduk

agnostic democrat, oppose attacking/invading a country that has not threatened or attacked us first, and posses no real threat.

and I agree with everything Theo said.

(I never thought I'd be saying that in this lifetime)

Hi Theo, long time no post!

wdog

atheist, independent,

In this war, if all ends well (according to plan) then it will be justified. Chances of that are about 40% i believe.

I know i am weaseling here, but there are no good choices at this point.

braces_for_impact

Atheist, political leanings in flux.

I am in support of the war in Iraq. Many of the reasons already stated here in support of the war I am in agreement with. I think the evidence that Iraq has WMD's is pretty clear. I do not feel that a link between Iraq and Al Queda has been proven to my satisfaction. Iraq under this regime has been shown to be the agressor many times in the past, and I see now no reason to think things will be handled differently. Though Iraq may not be able to reach my country with his weapons, I have compassion for those that can be targeted.

As for the rest of the middle east, it seems very clear that they would never be satisfied with us politically unless we were to close our borders and stay within them, which is not a possibility in this modern age of globalization. We will be the targets of terror whether we invade or not.

Sabine Grant

Christian. I am opposed to this war.
I believe diplomacy would accomplish more. If Sept 11th had not occured, would GWB undertake this war? what is the actual purpose of this war? we hear all sorts of different reasons : liberation of the Iraki people, forcing Saddam to disarm, forcing him in exile,neutralizing his possible ties with islamic fundamentalist terrorist groups, protecting Israel, etc etc...but what is to be achieved? am I the only one confused?
Also that " anointed by God" attitude from the GWB administration makes me very uncomfortable as a christian. Deciet is a powerful tool to misguide believers under the name of God. What is GWB's real agenda past what the mass media feed us? any suggestions?

Loren Pechtel

Sure, he can reach us with prepositioned stuff.

Ion

I am an atheist.

Politically, I am a liberal, a socialist.

I am against the war on Iraq now.

My reasoning for this is following these steps:

1) Saddam Hussein is a local Iraqi murderous despot, who is cheating UN for 12 years;

2) Saddam doesn't threaten US; maybe he has a hand in the unsolved anthrax murders in US in 2001, but this is not sure;

3) US used fabricated evidence against Saddam in order to sway UN and US opinions: a plagiarized in UK account about the Iraqi ills, a document that is a forgery regarding alleged Iraqi nuclear contracts, a wishful link between Saddam and Al Qaeda, and surveillance pictures of trucks -allegedly moving unseen weapons- taken two weeks apart but officially presented as consecutive pictures;

4) Saddam funds Palestinian suicide bombers against Israel;

5) religious US President George W. Bush is under the influence of US religious Jewish politicians;

see:
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...threadid=47604

and see:
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...threadid=47706
(in this last one, a US Democrate named Jim Moran from Virginia had to resign his governmental position after he spoke out against the Jewish governmental lobby in US);

it took a UN influence on Bush in 2001 and 2002 in order to have Bush starting in 2003 to address the idea of a Palestinian state;

Bush called the Israeli criminal Ariel Sharon (labeled 'criminal' by UN and by myself), a "...man of peace...";

I believe that this is the main motivation for Bush's war;

6) a secondary motivation for Bush's war, is control of the oil from the Middle East by the US oil companies that invested in Bush's presidential election; a company named Halliburton, that was run by CEO Dick Cheney -who is now the US Vice-President- between 1996 and 2000, has now contract promises worth heavy money for rebuilding Iraq after this war;

7) a secondary motivation in French's opposing Bush's war, is the oil interests of Elf Aquitaine (Fra) in the Middle East;

8) the main motivation that I and others do have in opposing Bush's war, is that removing Saddam-who is a murderous dictator and a UN cheater (and Israel is a murderous UN cheater too)-, doesn't need a war that kills Iraqi people;

9) Bush needed to display leadership skills in making an international alliance against Saddam, not an unilateral US bully war;

10) the US economy is draining now by the effort for this war and by a recession that Bush doesn't address much by studying taxes and economic incentives, but that he foolishly underestimates instead;

11) I guess as a former C-student who got into positions beyond his skills (in universities Yale and Harvard based on legacy from his father's money, in corporate boardrooms based on legacy from his father's money, but who is hypocritically opposing affirmative action), Bush is now a C-US President;

Bush has fanatical religious motivations influenced by Jewish agenda, but disregards many people (like the two UN experts on weapon investigations Blix (Den) and El Baradei (Egypt), like specialists scrutinizing his governament's fabrications, like demonstrators across the world) and disregards the situation of whole chunks of populations.

emphryio

Atheist, liberal, Green, and opposed to war because Martin Buber is right.

And completely true.
Incomplete summary of US imperialism
Mainly the US funds "factions" to overthrow any governments that don't do business the way they would prefer.

Currently Venezeula comes to mind. The trade agreements (NAFTA, etc) also accomplish through stopping "protectionism".
(Where protectionism is defined as anything that reduces corporate profits.)
And the IMF, World Bank, etc, where a corrupt leader can agree to the loans and their "conditions" concerning fiscal conservatism and later elected leaders are forced to continue to follow these policies, democracy be dammed. (And the fact that these "economic conditions" never work except to increase wealth inequality is ignored or "spun" by the ruling elite / US interests / IMF representatives / etc and business as usual will continue until.....)

Until people actually get aware that US imperialism most certainly does exist.