Opposed To The War In Iraq (NRR)

RockadelicRockadelic Out Digging 13,993 Posts
edited January 2006 in Strut Central
Many of you have stated that the War and it's complex issues can't be boiled down to simple black & white/right or wrong. Here are three simple, Yes or No questions that I would love to know where those who oppose the war stand on. These are not trick or complicated questions so if you feel the need to go into great detail or cut and paste articles from the Internet, don't bother. Yes or No answers will suffice. 1) If WMD's had been found in Iraq would you then support the decision to go to War in Iraq? (Just the decision to go, not the tactics used once we were there)2) Do you believe that it's possible WMD's will be used against Western/Democratic civilization during your lifetime?3) Has any war that the U.S. has been involved in over the last 100 years been warranted and justified?
«134

  Comments


  • Many of you have stated that the War and it's complex issues can't be boiled down to simple black & white/right or wrong. Here are three simple, Yes or No questions that I would love to know where those who oppose the war stand on. These are not trick or complicated questions so if you feel the need to go into great detail or cut and paste articles from the Internet, don't bother. Yes or No answers will suffice.

    1) If WMD's had been found in Iraq would you then support the decision to go to War in Iraq? (Just the decision to go, not the tactics used once we were there)

    2) Do you believe that it's possible WMD's will be used against Western/Democratic civilization during your lifetime?

    3) Has any war that the U.S. has been involved in over the last 100 years been warranted and justified?



    1. NO

    2. ABSOLUTELY

    3. WW1/WW2

  • hammertimehammertime 2,389 Posts
    1) That's a tough question, but I have to say no, just because the Bush administration was so heavily pushing the idea that Iraq was somehow involved in 9/11 which is just total BS.

    2) Absolutely.

    3) Yes I believe WW2 was justified, and actually I believe the last Gulf War was justified.

  • this looks like fun.

    1) [hans blix] NO [/hans blix]

    2) no. i have to err on the side of optimism, even though we stand a chance of getting hit. we dont stand as good chance at getting hit as indian subcontinent, israel, europe IMO. but isnt this what the "liberals" were whining about for decades while US war corporations proliferated weapons and nukes THROUGHOUT The world?(along with their coldwar Soviet butt buddies)

    3) phillipines, panama, cuba, puerto rico, honduras, turkey, greece, iran, korea, nicaragua, guatemala, dominican republic, granada, el salvador, chile....
    oh wait, do military "interventions" and "occupations" count or does it have to be a formally declared war? oh shit, double wait, i dont support none of those invasions...although granada did probably pose an "imminent threat" by cheyney standards.







    rock, i think american military has been used in large part to protect american business interests, to the general detriment of workers and civilians and democratic governments at home and abroad. interventions, CIA tacit support, arms shipments...not all that many noble endeavors.

  • Birdman9Birdman9 5,417 Posts
    1) That's a tough question, but I have to say no, just because the Bush administration was so heavily pushing the idea that Iraq was somehow involved in 9/11 which is just total BS.

    2) Absolutely.

    3) Yes I believe WW2 was justified, and actually I believe the last Gulf War was justified.

    Cosign.


  • motown67motown67 4,513 Posts
    1) The original claim was that Iraq only had leftover WMD from the Iran-Iraq war. This was a small stockpile. Early reports by the CIA weren't even sure whether any of it was still usuable because it had a limited shelf life and might have expired. Not to mention Iraq was completley contained by two no fly zones enforced by the U.S. and the U.K. A couple times a year they would go blow shit up in the country. Iraq wasn't going to do shit against other countries without the U.S. knowing and reacting. Therefore Iraq wasn't really a threat to anyone even if it did have some WMD.

    2) Yes, anything is possible.

    3) WWII (Spanish-American war - excuse for overseas empire, WWI - no, Korea - went from protecting S. Korea to trying to take over the entire peninsula, Vietnam - proping up dictators and then sticking around because we had to save face aren't good reasons. There are a ton of smaller military interventions as well Grenada, Dominican Republic, Philippines, etc. etc. etc.)

  • BigSpliffBigSpliff 3,266 Posts

    rock, i think american military has been used in large part to protect american business interests, to the general detriment of workers and civilians and democratic governments at home and abroad. interventions, CIA tacit support, arms shipments...not all that many noble endeavors.

    Bingo! It's called opening markets with aircraft carriers.

    Read any book by any ex-CIA agent and this will be spelled out loud and clear. Why is there a revolving door between the CIA and Wall Street?

    Remember when Republicans said things like "beware the military-industrial complex"? Now most can't even write their own speeches or draft their own legislation - it's spoon fed to them by lobbyists with buckets of cash. Money that was often privatized at the cost of the taxpayer.

    The only thing that has been keeping the stock market somewhat level are the sectors that are directly connected with the current cabinet: Big Oil, Big Guns, and Big Pharma. If it wasn't for Bush's war machine the DJIA would look like the Nasdaq.

    Bush needs this war because it's his last chance to not be the worst president in the history of the Republic. But some of us, including most of the rest of the world can see this because they have not been indoctrinated like many in this country.





  • CosmoCosmo 9,767 Posts
    Many of you have stated that the War and it's complex issues can't be boiled down to simple black & white/right or wrong. Here are three simple, Yes or No questions that I would love to know where those who oppose the war stand on. These are not trick or complicated questions so if you feel the need to go into great detail or cut and paste articles from the Internet, don't bother. Yes or No answers will suffice.



    1) If WMD's had been found in Iraq would you then support the decision to go to War in Iraq? (Just the decision to go, not the tactics used once we were there)



    2) Do you believe that it's possible WMD's will be used against Western/Democratic civilization during your lifetime?



    3) Has any war that the U.S. has been involved in over the last 100 years been warranted and justified?






    NO.



    YES.



    WW2

  • GuzzoGuzzo 8,611 Posts


    NO.

    YES

    WW2

  • canonicalcanonical 2,100 Posts

    1) If WMD's had been found in Iraq would you then support the decision to go to War in Iraq? (Just the decision to go, not the tactics used once we were there)
    No. It's a double standard. Anyone who answers yes to this is condoning aggression against North America for having stockpiled WMD's.


    2) Do you believe that it's possible WMD's will be used against Western/Democratic civilization during your lifetime?
    Yes.


    3) Has any war that the U.S. has been involved in over the last 100 years been warranted and justified?
    No. I don't even think WWII was justified. Hitler was supported as a means of suppresing the communists. This is a historical commonality. The world will always prefer a fascist than socialism. Just look at Chile, 1973.

    WWI was a war for markets. Most of these wars are a product of globalisation and imperialism. This is not the place to argue these points though, but they're part of my answer to the question. I don't want to waste Rockadelic's thread arguing these points

  • DelayDelay 4,530 Posts
    No. I don't even think WWII was justified. Hitler was supported as a means of suppresing the communists. This is a historical commonality. The world will always prefer a fascist than socialism. Just look at Chile, 1973.

    *pearl harbor, doggee

    1. NO

    2. Fuck. I hope not. NO

    3. WWII*

  • canonicalcanonical 2,100 Posts
    Quick clarification. It was necessary to defeat Hitler to stop fascism. However, that kind of analysis doesn't question what gave rise to fascism in germany at that time, who supported the Nazi's, etcetera. I don't want to Hi-Jack rock's thread.

  • BigSpliffBigSpliff 3,266 Posts
    No. I don't even think WWII was justified. Hitler was supported as a means of suppresing the communists. This is a historical commonality. The world will always prefer a fascist than socialism. Just look at Chile, 1973.

    *pearl harbor, doggee


    The sensei has spoken! I think canonical is referring to the realpolitik of entering into world wars. Sad but true, there was not enough public support within the US to fight Germany based its imperial and genocidal actions. So war with Japan was pretty much pre-ordained... certainly before Pearl Harbor the US had plans to go to war with Japan. WWII was the best thing that ever happened to the US economy... well, apart from slavery.

    There are usually quite a few years of political, economic and diplomatic warfare between nations before they line up their tanks and start shooting. If you get your history from the History Channel, with its exciting battles, and charismatic generals, you will miss 99% of this context.

  • CosmoCosmo 9,767 Posts
    No. I don't even think WWII was justified. Hitler was supported as a means of suppresing the communists. This is a historical commonality. The world will always prefer a fascist than socialism. Just look at Chile, 1973.

    *pearl harbor, doggee


    The sensei has spoken! I think canonical is referring to the realpolitik of entering into world wars. Sad but true, there was not enough public support within the US to fight Germany based its imperial and genocidal actions. So war with Japan was pretty much pre-ordained... certainly before Pearl Harbor the US had plans to go to war with Japan. WWII was the best thing that ever happened to the US economy... well, apart from slavery.

    There are usually quite a few years of political, economic and diplomatic warfare between nations before they line up their tanks and start shooting. If you get your history from the History Channel, with its exciting battles, and charismatic generals, you will miss 99% of this context.

    Spliffy is speaking the truth right here, holmes.

  • DORDOR Two Ron Toe 9,802 Posts
    No. I don't even think WWII was justified. Hitler was supported as a means of suppresing the communists. This is a historical commonality. The world will always prefer a fascist than socialism. Just look at Chile, 1973.



    *pearl harbor, doggee




    Sad but true, there was not enough public support within the US to fight Germany based its imperial and genocidal actions.



    It wasn't about support. There was an act at the time (Can't for the life of me remember the name) which didn't allow the US to join the war. Eventhough, behind the scene, the US was supporting things with money and arms through other countries (IE: Canada). Damn... I'm forgetting everthing as I get older.





    Edit: I believe it was called the neutrality act. And the act which allowed the US to support Britian (And other countries) was called the lend lease act.

  • BigSpliffBigSpliff 3,266 Posts
    No. I don't even think WWII was justified. Hitler was supported as a means of suppresing the communists. This is a historical commonality. The world will always prefer a fascist than socialism. Just look at Chile, 1973.

    *pearl harbor, doggee

    Sad but true, there was not enough public support within the US to fight Germany based its imperial and genocidal actions.

    It wasn't about support. There was an act at the time (Can't for the life of me remember the name) which didn't allow the US to join the war. Eventhough, behind the scene, the US was supporting things with money and arms through other countries (IE: Canada). Damn... I'm forgetting everthing as I get older.

    OK, this sounds right. But there were definitely still a lot of ethnic germans in the US at the time, so the whole anti-Hitler thing was not so black and white as it seems today.

  • DORDOR Two Ron Toe 9,802 Posts


    OK, this sounds right. But there were definitely still a lot of ethnic germans in the US at the time, so the whole anti-Hitler thing was not so black and white as it seems today.

    There were germans everywhere... All were called back to "the motherland" by the Nazis. My guess is that some fools believed and went. My family has been in Canada since the 1800's and during WWII, many joined the fight and went off to fight the Nazis. That didn't stop people from calling me a nazis a shit load of times growing up tho...

    I hate to talk about WWII tho... Since it's my belief that if people would have listened to the likes of people like Churchill. WWII might never have happened.

    "Peace in our Time" people...

  • DJ_EnkiDJ_Enki 6,471 Posts


    NO.

    YES

    WW2

    As for question #2, sad to say that Bush is practically daring the rest of the world to nuke us. Which is a big reason why I want him out of the White House. He allows the biggest terrorist attack in American history, in response, he flails about like an idiot and invades a country that had nothing to do with it, he tells the rest of the world, "my way or the highway; you're either with me or against me" (which is incredibly stupid as the US, contrary to what many Bush shills seem to believe, is in no way a self-sustaining country), and he seems to go out of his way to piss off as many people as possible while those same shills cheer him for being "tough on terror" when in fact he's a gigantic pussy and an idiot.

  • DrWuDrWu 4,021 Posts
    1) No, because we had plenty of expeience with enemies holding large stockpiles of WMDs. It was called the cold war. check into it.

    2) Anything is possible.

    3) WWII was certainly justified. Unlike most of my peers here, I am willing to admit that the cold war probably made sense. That includes a long list of very shady dealings in other countries where most of the hot fighting was done in that era. However, there was a very clear enemy that had major firepower and the willingmess to use it. We had to deal with it.

    Now ROCK sack up and detail your answers to your own questions.



  • 2) Do you believe that it's possible WMD's will be used against Western/ Democratic[/b] civilization during your lifetime?

    not to fall off track here, but our country has long lost the title of a democratic state. More like a Capitalist state.


    my answers....


    1. No

    2. It's undeniable, but moreso it's our Middle Eastern interests that we are worried about getting attacked, i.e. Israel, Saudia Arabia and so on...

    3. WWII


  • SwayzeSwayze 14,705 Posts
    Many of you have stated that the War and it's complex issues can't be boiled down to simple black & white/right or wrong. Here are three simple, Yes or No questions that I would love to know where those who oppose the war stand on. These are not trick or complicated questions so if you feel the need to go into great detail or cut and paste articles from the Internet, don't bother. Yes or No answers will suffice.

    1) If WMD's had been found in Iraq would you then support the decision to go to War in Iraq? (Just the decision to go, not the tactics used once we were there)

    2) Do you believe that it's possible WMD's will be used against Western/Democratic civilization during your lifetime?

    3) Has any war that the U.S. has been involved in over the last 100 years been warranted and justified?


    hooray for reasonable dialogue.

    1) no (because it was sold on the back of 9/11)

    2) yes but it's more likely to happen overseas than in the US.

    3) WW2. and I was more or less in favor of invading afghanistan.

  • DJ_EnkiDJ_Enki 6,471 Posts
    3) WW2. and I was more or less in favor of invading afghanistan.

    Actually, I cosign with this. I was in favor of going into Afghanistan because that would be seeking out the people behind 9/11. As soon as the word "Iraq" entered the picture, though...forget it.

  • motown67motown67 4,513 Posts
    I supported the invasion of Afghanistan as well. We got attacked. Al Qaeda was based in Afghanistan. Strategic attacks weren't going to stop them from being based there because the government would protect them. How the war was conducted however got screwed upm, and we really haven't done much for the country since then except in Kabul. But hey, they've become the #1 opium producer in the world!

  • RockadelicRockadelic Out Digging 13,993 Posts
    1)
    Now ROCK sack up and detail your answers to your own questions.

    Yes

    Yes

    Yes

    I should leave it at that as I asked for simple Y or N answers but since I know I'll be attacked for not giving the SS "correct answer" on #1 I'll give my reasoning.

    1) For me, this is a slam dunk....If I knew 100% for sure that Saddam, one of the most evil men on the face of the planet, a man who killed 100,000+ of his own people as confirmed by the many mass graves in Iraq. A man who has directly and indirectly supported and praised terrorist attacks across the earth. A man who at least on the surface appears psychologically capable of using WMD's. A man who would not cooperate with the U.N. on 18 occasions had WMD's, I would feel that he would have to be stopped at any cost, even War. But only after we asked him pretty please with sugar on top to turn over these weapons. If you're going to argue that even if he had these weapons he couldn't effectively use them, then I change my answer to declaring war 15 minutes after he attains this ability.

    2) Not only do I agree with most of you that WMD's will be used in the future, my biggest fear is that these types of weapons will evolve into simplistic, easy to afford/use devices to the point where ONE maniacal person could cause the death and destruction of the entire planet. Look at how these weapons have evolved in the last 50 years and imagine what they might be like 50 years from now. Scary shit.

    3) WWI, WWII, and most of the others excluding Viet Nam.


    What this thread has acheived for me is to understand where alot of you stand on basic, to the point issues and quite frankly it scares the shit out of me.

    Almost everyone thinks that WMD's will be used at some point, yet all of you would not take military action against a guy who DEFINITELY has and is a good candidate to use such weapons against Jews/Christians/Western Civilization/Democracy.

    Be assured of one thing....when these weapons that everyone agrees WILL be used, are used against the West, they will make no distinction between Liberals, Conservatives or Independents...they will kill us all....and at that point the "blame game" will be moot.

    Since these questions were hypothetical I really don't see any point in telling me how stupid or incorrect my opinion is or 23 page Internet articles proving that Saddam is just a misunderstood, peace loving, Dorito eating nice guy.. I respect your right to see things the way you do...it just scares me that so many appear unwilling to rid the planet of such obvious evil. Could it be that your blind hatred for George Bush just makes it impossible to suggest that even under hypothetical circumstances, you might agree with something/anything he does??

    Saddam with WMD's scares me alot more than Hitler and his limited forces.

  • motown67motown67 4,513 Posts
    Saddam had used WMDs on his own people. His capabilities were for battlefield WMD that had to be used in massed rocket or artillery attacks. He didn't even have close to the capability nor the experties to make anything more sophisticated. The only people who can do that are the U.S., Russia, basically the highly advanced countries.

    Saying Saddam had WMD and that he could use them against the U.S. is a big jump. It's an even bigger jump when you say that he could've given them to terrorists.

    That's where sanctions and inspectors actually worked.They stripped Iraq of the ability to make even these battlefield level WMDs.

  • RockadelicRockadelic Out Digging 13,993 Posts
    Saddam had used WMDs on his own people. His capabilities were for battlefield WMD that had to be used in massed rocket or artillery attacks. He didn't even have close to the capability nor the experties to make anything more sophisticated. The only people who can do that are the U.S., Russia, basically the highly advanced countries.

    Saying Saddam had WMD and that he could use them against the U.S. is a big jump. It's an even bigger jump when you say that he could've given them to terrorists.

    That's where sanctions and inspectors actually worked.They stripped Iraq of the ability to make even these battlefield level WMDs.

    Ummm....you need to step back and take a breath....

    1) My question was hypothetical and stated that if Saddam HAD the WMD's that you claim GWB lied about, would you support the War in Iraq....

    2) You won't find ANYWHERE a statement made by me that says anything about Saddam giving WMD's to terrorists.

    3) You are SO predictable with your line of thinking that I had the foresight to put in the caveat about you claiming that he couldn't have actually used the hypothetical WMD's...and you did it anyway!!!


  • motown67motown67 4,513 Posts
    Saddam had used WMDs on his own people. His capabilities were for battlefield WMD that had to be used in massed rocket or artillery attacks. He didn't even have close to the capability nor the experties to make anything more sophisticated. The only people who can do that are the U.S., Russia, basically the highly advanced countries.

    Saying Saddam had WMD and that he could use them against the U.S. is a big jump. It's an even bigger jump when you say that he could've given them to terrorists.

    That's where sanctions and inspectors actually worked.They stripped Iraq of the ability to make even these battlefield level WMDs.

    Ummm....you need to step back and take a breath....

    1) My question was hypothetical and stated that if Saddam HAD the WMD's that you claim GWB lied about, would you support the War in Iraq....

    2) You won't find ANYWHERE a statement made by me that says anything about Saddam giving WMD's to terrorists.

    3) You are SO predictable with your line of thinking that I had the foresight to put in the caveat about you claiming that he couldn't have actually used the hypothetical WMD's...and you did it anyway!!!


    The answer would still be no, because Bush was still talking about battlefield WMD. The administration went on to make the claim that it could be given to terrorists. So whether it was "hypothetical" in your statement, or in "real life" as Bush did, Iraq's WMD still wasn't a threat to the U.S.

    Sorry, I'm not caught up in your hypothetical world. I'm just a simple man who sees things in black and white, right and wrong.

  • bull_oxbull_ox 5,056 Posts
    Rock, dog, you must be feeling REALLY safe right now... the one guy who you think was really interested in bombing the shit out of us is safely behind bars...



    I for one don't think for a moment that our country is ANY safer from ANY form of attack as a result of the Iraq takeover...



    In fact we've galvanized a whole lot of the world against us as a result...

  • motown67motown67 4,513 Posts
    P.S. - I supported the invasion of Afghanistan and going after Al Qaeda so how does that rock your world about how everyone against Iraq is a Bush hater and can't agree with anything he does?

  • motown67motown67 4,513 Posts
    Rock, dog, you must be feeling REALLY safe right now... the one guy who you think was really interested in bombing the shit out of us is safely behind bars...

    I for one don't think for a moment that our country is ANY safer from ANY form of attack as a result of the Iraq takeover...

    In fact we've galvanized a whole lot of the world against us as a result...

    Watch it, according to some you are coming very close to excusing mass murder by terrorists.

  • RockadelicRockadelic Out Digging 13,993 Posts
    [quote
    Sorry, I'm not caught up in your hypothetical world.
    Then you shouldn't have entered it
Sign In or Register to comment.