Jabbersnacky

Me
- Atheist
- extremely opposed to the war
- anarchist
- and damn glad I'm not and American or Iraqi

although being a Canadian at this point isn't much better, may as well be an American, as I sit here eating my Washington grown apples drinking my Florida orange juice, watching all my hydro shipped south of the boarder, knowing my prime minister is talking shit out of his lopsided mouth, and has every intention of having our moronic soldiers participate in this sham, and knowing if the yanks don't come north this summer my little town will crash and burn.

Iceland sounds like a nice place to be a citizen right about now

Hedwig

Atheist.
Liberal.
Against the war for the reasons others have already given.

Also I grew up in a college town that has a large international student population. I have friends who were born in Iraq and other mid-east countries. I'm scared for their safety as well as the safety of their families.

fiddler

fiddler

Independent realist

War with Iraq? I thought this was a War on Terrorism! I read lots of comments that portray “feelings”, but very few that issue any salient facts or hints of reality.

First, why should we go to war against terrorism? Is it not clear that the United States has been attacked numerous times? Is it not clear that attacks against property and citizens provides the necessary justification for war? The world is not the same place it was 50 years ago. Physical travel has in a sense decreased the size of the world we live in. If someone or something attempts to destroy a positive force in the world is that not worth protecting? I have been to over 65 countries in the world and I can say without equivocation or hesitation that the United States is the best place to kick up my heels. In case you haven’t noticed there are several ideological factions hell bent on the Western world’s destruction, either physically or by taking the system over. If you support the concept of a democratic republic you should be concerned about Islamic ideologies that promote terrorism. It is high time to get your heads out of the sand!

So why Iraq? Since 1992 Al qaida has been moving in and out of Iraq. They have utilized training camps, including a plane hijacking training school utilizing knives. They had been in Afghanistan when the U.S. bombed it. [We’ll discount Chinese Muslims and other non-native Arabs that were present. As I’m writing this Chinese regulars, high tech weaponry are moving to deal with the Chinese Muslim Uygurs... but you won’t hear about that in the NY Times or on CNN] The interesting fact that was so blatantly dismissed by the media was the meeting in Prague between Al qaida members and Iraqi intelligence officers. We also know that there were numerous Al qaida operatives in Europe, specifically Hamburg, Madrid, London and various parts of France. France by the way is infested with terrorist groups. [20% of its population is Muslim] Now the meeting in Prague wasn’t about the weather or some other mundane issue. More than likely it was the transfer of anthrax, intelligence or monetary support. [Though money doesn’t require a face to face meeting to change hands in today’s modern world.] But that issue is conjecture. But there are several indirect events that point to that conclusion.

Since 1976 the French have been in bed with the Iraqi government. The French stand to profit in the trillions of dollars from oil. Add to that the transfer of weaponry, technology and trade pipelines to line the French pockets. Russia, Germany and China also have vital economic interests that amount to billions of dollars and influence. While this isn’t why the U.S. is heading for war with Iraq, I just had to bring it up as the media has been ignoring these issues. Yet all the signs say, “No blood for oil.” [Research which groups are supporting all these protests, most are socialist, communist, or anarchist groups]

Iraq went into Kuwait. Through the U.N. [Useless Ninnies] a coalition including the U.S. rid Kuwait of Iraqi presence. At the end of that conflict [war] the Iraqi government agreed to disarm. [Not the “truce” most people are incorrectly claiming!] Twelve years later, 17 resolutions of wasted paper and debate, Saddam is still in material breach of all 17 resolutions. The war was ended on the precise language that Iraq would disarm. Yet even today the inspectors, as the media incorrectly calls them, are still finding the banned weapons! The “verifiers” are still receiving information 12 years after the fact about technology, physical weapons, sites where weapons were supposedly destroyed, etc. The final deadline for disclosure, as authorized by 1441, was December 8, 2002. So Iraq is still in material breach. To what extent exists various items of material breach, we won’t know till we go into Iraq! The almighty “verifiers” have gone out a whopping 60 miles from Bagdad. We’re talking about a country the size of the state I reside in. [California] Add to that, the “verifiers” have no authorization to inspect the military forces. Now I ask any intelligent and logical person to please tell me where these weapons might be residing? Try in the hands of the military! [Oh, let us ignore the Iraqi government threats to utilize these same “nonexistent” WMDs.] So we have cause, due to 17 resolutions and Saddam’s continued reluctance to comply with these requirements. Meanwhile, the U.N. sits on its thumbs and does the only thing it seems to be capable of, create alot of hot air. Meanwhile, Saddam continues trading with Russia, France, Germany and China, all of which is strictly forbidden under U.N. sanctions, except as permitted under the ‘oil for food” gambit. Since terror is supported by Saddam and his henchmen, it alone is reason enough. [This is the War on Terrorism that is ongoing...the same one that 92 nations agreed to take part in various ways.]

Another issue? Have you ever considered the citizens of Iraq that want this Hitleresque leadership removed? I suggest you go onto the websites and read the absolutely disgusting and vile things these people have to endure daily. It’s time to turn the spigot off for the support of terrorism and pull the plug on Saddam’s tyranny.

Saddam and his government must face reality and justice for their actions. Anything less would be like the world concern for 42 million Christians and 6 million Jews slaughtered during Hitler’s romp through history. These terrorists don’t care who you are, what your religion is, what your politics are or anything else. It’s Allah or the cosmic highway! By the way I have survived a number of terrorist attacks. [In Israel, Germany, Belgium and the Phillipines] So, I understand fully what is at stake and the issues. I’m also a combat veteran, so I know what war is all about. Terrorism is one of the vilest forms of war imaginable. There are no innocent bystanders to a terrorist. Peace doesn’t come from appeasement or “containment”, only through compliance of what is required of the offending party. Read about history or you’ll be doomed to repeat it! [Oh, that’s right they don’t teach history is U.S. schools anymore.]

Preemptive strike? Now that is a hot one! Where were all you critics when Clinton bombed the bridges spanning the Danube and over 2,000 innocent civilians were vaporized? The history of many nations is replete with examples of preemptive strikes. This is technically not a preemptive strike if you had a scintilla of understanding about how the cessation of fighting was implemented.
It was not, repeat was not a truce or cease fire agreement. A material breach is cause for resumption of the war. What is so difficult to understand about such a simplistic mechanism to ensure disarming the Iraqi military? How black and white must the issue be before people understand this is not a personal issue, a war for oil, or some other concocted fantasy to create emotional turmoil for political exploitation?

But by this time everybody has already made up their minds! So, it will be up to history to decide if war in Iraq was the correct solution or some other “politically correct” alternative deemed more appropriate.

seanie

The 'ethnic' Muslim population of France is estimated at between 3-5 million which is 5-8% of the population. Only about a quarter of those are estimated to be practicing Muslims.

variable

skeptic, agnostic, independant...

i oppose war given the information i currently have.

why? well, because i don't feel the threat of iraq is proven.


but here's briefly why i disagree with the pitches made in the campaign:

1. the wmd pitch - since none have been found, it is difficult to make the case that they have the means to attack. they might have the will to attack and the will to create these wmd's, but it's all smoke & mirrors without the evidence of the means.

2. the pro army pitch - that basically if you support the people who are willing to risk their lives for us, you should support this war. luckily, it's the other way around.

3. the war on terror pitch - after 9/11, the war on terror tag stuck when transferring the focus over to iraq. we've been handed the sentiment that battling iraq is somehow equivalent to battling fear itself. claims of links to al quaeda and other terrorist groups are often implied in this pitch but never really have much substance to them. i think for the most part the tag is slowly coming off, but you do still hear it every once in awhile.

4. the anti-saddam pitch - commercials now display saddam as this war-mongering, super evil bad guy on television. now while that may be, it still doesn't mean he has the means to attack. nor in fact does it ensure that the next dictator in the region is any less likely to do something volatile if they were given the capacity (especially considering the us's history with installed governments).

5. the-stepping-stone-to-anti-terrorism-in-the-middle-east pitch - basically that by invading iraq, this allows the us to get a handle on any terrorist groups that could be forming within iraq and linking themselves with al quaeda. and i suppose i haven't bought this arguement due to the fact that i have yet to play into the hands of the bottomless "you just never know" scenario. that basically once again there is little proof that this direction of anti-terrorism in the form of invasion a) would in fact dissuade terrorism or b) couldn't be attempted through brokering a non-militaristic method.

6. the anti-inspector pro-lied-to-us pitch - in some ways, much more subtle than the other pitches, this one has basically involved giving blix much less press and much more criticism than i feel is deserved. comments from the president calling them "so-called inspectors" and overall contempt for the fact finding process (stratfor, "detectives' game") are just some of the indicators. we then are supposed to believe that because iraq was found to be witholding wmd's in the past - prior to passing the strict resolution - that it is somehow justified in attacking. but how does that make the threat real or not by today's standards?

RED DAVE

Good summary, variable.

RED DAVE

excreationist

About war:
I guess I support it - under certain conditions.

I'm an atheist and only acknowledge the existence of the physical world at this moment in time.

From what I hear, many Iraqi's seem to want to get rid of Saddam. It seems possible that Iraq could be invaded relatively easily and that the government would keep a majority of the people happy - assuming that it is a genuine democracy where other countries don't interfere with the decision making process much. If the democratic government - elected by the people decides that the troops should go, and the UN doesn't insist that there should be foreign troops in Iraq then the democratic Iraqi government should have their way. Well I guess some should be there to ensure the government doesn't become corrupt and a dictatorship. The U.S. should try and obey the U.N. and if they're going to defy it they should do so very politely.

My thoughts about war in general:
I think a war that involves defending your land from an invading force is quite justified. I think retaliation for attacks (attacking their land and invading) can work out ok - if you can manage to defeat the enemy (like in WW2) but it can be a bad idea (Israel-Palestinian fighting). Pre-emptive wars, especially those where the country isn't likely to conquer you, are perhaps a bad idea.
Overthrowing dictators to set up democracies might be ok... if it is handled well. (e.g. if you are going to defy the UN, you could do it very politely)

wdog

It is equally dubious to assume that since 100 inspectors can't find them in an area the size of california, then they don't exist. Many previous inspectors believe the Iraqis have gotten good at hiding them after 12 years of experience in that department, and the lack of cooperation by the Iraqis is most telling. Back in the 90s, a massive Uranium enrichment program was found to exist right under the noses of the inspectors and the IAEA. It wasn't found by inspection, it was found because a defector (or traitor depending on your point of view) exposed it.

A poster on another thread was right, inspections are now worthless. It is equally clear that hussein wants WMD and nukes, and many experts believe you will no longer be able to find them.

If the war is abandoned, the future is pretty clear. Saddam may be no threat today, but tomorrow? Let's say the US pulls out. The very next thing will be far less then the unsatisfactory cooperation that now exists by the Iraqis. An emboldened saddam will simply make it impossible again for the inspectors to do an already impossible job, and eventually they will leave as happened before. Sometime after that the sanctions and no-fly zones will be declared inhumane and they will end, all in the meatime the world will sit and hope saddam dies before he gets nukes, he already has chem and bio. If he doesn't, then tell why the hell is everyone so worried about he will do with them when war breaks out?

Primordial Groove

Atheist

Independant

I see the need, but abhore the possible outcome.

Do the means justify the end? I'll let history decide that.

Mediancat

Against the war.
Atheist.

I am opposed because I believe that the reasons we've been given are insufficient; if this is because Iraq may have terrorist links and give weaspons to the enemies of the US, so do and can dozens of other countries; if this is because Iraq poses a clear and present danger, they don't; and if this is because Saddam is a bad, bad man, well, again, so are dozens of other leaders of nations and we're not going after them.

While I am no fan of Saddam Hussein's and would love to see him out of his position, I don't believe we've reached the point where we need to get him out BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY.

Rob aka Mediancat