Bring it on you anti-war wannabe hippies!

Most of you anti-war people are wannabe hippies and you know who you are.

I'm glad you said most are wannabe hippies. A better statement. However even in this you're wrong. I'm not a hippy. I'm liable to be the more violent person, should you call me such. But Yes, i'm against this War. Not all war, just this one, at the moment.

Saddam is depending on all of you to keep his reign of dictatorship going. The war is against Saddam. The people of Iraq all know he's a dictator and they suffer his cruelty. Then, when these armies come in to stop him, as if they will finally get freedom, War protestors come along and intend to stop the war.

Saddam is not depending on us to keep his regime going. He's not a complete idiot. He's depending on his people to keep him in power. The loyalty to his regime, the terror, and his gangs keep him in power. This war is not about regime change. Think back, to when the US/UK proposed this war. Regime change only became a reason a number of weeks later, Just like links for Saddam & terrorism is offically being made lately.

Because there are so many people dying in Iraq, killing Saddam is probably the most passive option to ending their suffering, ironic though it is.

Thats pathetic. You want to know the easiest way to stop their suffering? Remove those sanctions. Let Saddam sell his oil, and Iraq would go back to being one of the richest countries in the Middle East. Not going to happen though.

I agree that Bush is probably in Iraq for the wrong reasons, but even if by chance, he is doing the right thing for the people of Iraq.

Nice of you to be able to decide for them. Just as Bush, and the UK are doing.

Regardless this war has begun, it just remains how its going to end.

Zukustious, i think you need to have a proper look at most of the arguments people here have against this war. Not all wars, we're not idiots to argue against that. But this war, is crinimal.

I'll make one point, which is at the core of my belief that this war is unjust & which is a large part of the allies, reason for war. Iraqs apparent WMDs. Ok, Iraq is supposed to have WMD's, which we know they had, 13 years ago. Chemical & biological weapons, that the US helped them develop, which is why we know they existed at one stage. However, this is the crux of the matter. If Saddam has had WMD's for the last 13 years, and even being soundly beaten in his last war, by the US, then why hasn't he sold these WMD's to some terrorist, or used them themselves against the US? (other point to consider, which is that these chemical weapons have a use by date, of 11 years, apparently)

So if Saddam hasn't attacked the US, or sold weapons to these terrorists, then why is he such a threat now? He's had plenty of opportunity to give chemical weapons to the Palestinians for use against Israel, at any time, and yet this hasn't happened. Simply put, Saddam is not a threat.

Paranoia is contagious. Looks like the US, have it. I wonder who will get it next.

Éomer of Rohan

Paranoia is contagious. Looks like the US, have it. I wonder who will get it next.

Well hell, if I was the leader of Syria, Jordan, Libya, Iran, North Korea, Cuba, Russia or China - and maybe France for good measure - I would be a little jittery. In fact I would be arming myself to the teeth and training armies furiously LOL.

Zukustious

If Saddam sells his oil he'll use the money to fund his armies. That's all he's been doing. Spending too much money on arms and not on food. I'm happy for Iraq to sell all it's oil, just not under his rule.

I'm not trying to decide what the people of Iraq want. I would like to know what they want. They can't say anything other than "Go Saddam our savior" while he's in power. He most definately will have them killed if they say otherwise.

I admit I was wrong saying most of you are wannabe hippies. The people who have posted here are not posers. Probably because the posers don't know how to post.

I want to be a pacifist. I really do and I am aware that everyone is going to call me the wannabe hippie for that statement. I don't really care hippies are cool. But I have yet to be given a proper alternative to war. Please, tell me how you think Saddam should be removed without the aid of military attack.

DadaKopf

Why don't you just drop your preoccupation with whether you're a hippy or not and decide for yourself, based on evidence alone, whether you're for or against war? That's what most people here are doing.

Saddam should have spent more on food and medical supplies in Iraq but maybe Bush should do the same in the US. That said, maybe America could also have used their influence in 1996 to ensure that the Oil for Food programme was administered by the UN and not by the Iraqi government.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Zukustious
I'm not trying to decide what the people of Iraq want.

Yes you are - If you have not decided that people of Iraq want to remove Saddam, then why do you support this war? Or perhaps that they would be better off without him regardless, even if they don’t know it yet? Or is the reason you support this war independent of the wishes of the Iraqi people?

Have you thought this out properly yet?

goo

Pro war people are getting such a bad name from all these things.

I always understand that people have different views to me, but when they act all argumentative and stupid then who is going to give them any respect???

DadaKopf

This is the first time, to my memory, when an anti-war argument is much more forceful than the pro-war argument. It's no wonder that the people arguing for the war get such a bad name, they haven't hardly a leg to stand on. This is what is causing frustration on both sides.

If Saddam sells his oil he'll use the money to fund his armies. That's all he's been doing. Spending too much money on arms and not on food. I'm happy for Iraq to sell all it's oil, just not under his rule

as things stood prior to this invasion he already was spending his money on building up his military. However also consider he was also spending on feeding the people. Letting him have use of the natural resources of the country wouldn't have changed that position, except he could have provided the same things he provided before the kuwait war... like education, food, and medical facilities.

This was an alternative to this war, simply because regime change was not the reason for this war. It came as an after-thought.

I'm not trying to decide what the people of Iraq want. I would like to know what they want. They can't say anything other than "Go Saddam our savior" while he's in power. He most definately will have them killed if they say otherwise.

you're never going to get the complete answer you obviously want. Look at our own country. we have complete freedom, and we still can't decide on a proper government. (when was the last time we had an effective government?) Theres going to be people that are pro-saddam, and anti-saddam. Just as the majority don't really care, as long as they're left alone.

I want to be a pacifist. I really do and I am aware that everyone is going to call me the wannabe hippie for that statement.

thats nice. But don't advocate a war, if you want to be a pacifist.

I don't really care hippies are cool

Thats nice. Personally i don't care too much for em, but thats just me.

Other point to consider. There are myrid forms of hippie cultures out there. Not all are peace loving creatures, nor are all anti-war. Say you're anti-war, if want. But using the term hippy, just brings to mind some unwashed people, siting by a fire, singing songs
& getting very very stoned.

But I have yet to be given a proper alternative to war. Please, tell me how you think Saddam should be removed without the aid of military attack

let him die of old age. Let his sons remove him. Let the people stage a rebellion. Regardless its an internal matter. Otherwise why aren't you calling for war, for hundreds of other nations, like Cuba, N.Korea, or many african countries...?

Woden

"That said, maybe America could also have used their influence in 1996 to ensure that the Oil for Food programme was administered by the UN and not by the Iraqi government"

i thought the oil for food programme was run by the un with the money generated from the oil being controlled by un and the food distribution? i though saddam's personnal wealth come from more the "smuggling" of oil.

DadaKopf

In place of war, an alternative scheme

Many proposals have been put forward by members of the Iraqi opposition. Earlier United Nations (UN) resolutions dealing with the repression of the Iraqi population have tackled such issues as the return of refugees, or rights to free speech and association.

A new UN resolution aimed at opening up the regime and providing instruments that could be exploited by courageous opposition groups might call for:

• A permanent monitoring system on WMD.
• The establishment of an ad hoc international court to try some 300 or so war criminals. Saddam Hussein and his immediate entourage should be indicted. The foreign bank accounts of these people will be frozen and they will be unable to travel.

It should be made clear that there will be amnesty for others, perhaps under a South African style Truth and Reconciliation Commission. (It is sometimes argued that it is better to offer an exit strategy for Saddam Hussein. But quite apart from the fact that he is unlikely to accept an exit strategy, this approach offers hope to those who are not immediately implicated in the regime.)

• Iraq should accept a monitoring system regarding human rights violations. This has already been agreed in Security Council Resolution 689. There should be demands for the return of refugees, the right of opposition parties to open offices inside Iraq and develop their activities, or for scheduling democratic elections under international supervision.
• Oil for Food Programme should be governed by the UN and not the government, as in northern Iraq. Also, the continuation of the Oil for Food Programme might be conditional on reductions in military spending and increases in health and education spending.

Where would this leave military pressure? Military pressure has been important in bringing about the return of the weapons inspectors. Does that mean that the threat of war has to be sustained? I do believe that troops should continue to be deployed around the borders to be available to protect Iraqi citizens. But the protection of civilians, in my view, is very different from outright invasion.

The current moment is very dangerous. There is a risk that the split in the international community means that the US will go to war with the support of Britain and right-wing regimes like those of Italy, Spain and Denmark, not to mention some of the east and central European countries.

Instead, the approach outlined above could be put forward by Britain and others to reunite Europe in a way that just might contain the other rogue state, the United States.

- from OpenDemocracy.net

colinsky

Originally posted by DadaKopf
"And any time you got the Pope and the Dixie Chicks against you, your time is up."

You know, the Vatican released lexicon today calling homosexuality a condition "without any social value." ( http://www.canoe.ca/LondonNews/lf.lf-04-01-0050.html )

Although I'm not sure how the Dixie Chicks feel about homosexuals, can we now safely assume that for homosexuals, their "time is up", in Michael Moore's eyes?

It's just a stupid comment to make. There are plenty of good reason's to oppose war -- in Iraq, or ever. "The pope says it is bad," though, is not one of them.

Kell

Zukustious was originally, and again recently, looking for an alternative to the war, so without going into the political and humanitarian whys and wherefores of why I oppose the war, heres MY alternative:

1) Leave Hussein in place for the time being,

2) Resume UN weapons inspections and continue Iraqi disarmament programme

3) Remove all trade sanctions

4) Let the UN start an aid and education programme for the masses

5) Set up a Northern Ireland of the past style border patrol system with searches of all modes of transport for potential smuggling of weapons or materials that could be used to build WMD

6) Encourage more oil producers to embrace the Euro as the fiat oil currency and in the process fúck the wild card US up the ass because the rest of the world has had enough of the hypocritical bully tactics (Off topic I know, I just loath the American dollar hegemony)

7) Use the UN to slowly introduce a true democracy as opposed to the current situation where it is envisaged that someone in a few weeks time is going to say to the Iraqi's "Hey you're all free. Go do and say what you like". The removal of the regime in Iraq will result in chaos and unless administered correctly by the UN it could likely turn into another Beirut.

Bottom line. Leave Hussein where he is but in the meantime educate the masses as to what their missing out on so by the time a popular revolt is really READY to happen, the Iraqi people will have come round to the idea of what things should look like in a democratic and free society, rather than fighting like dogs over whats left in the wake of Saddam which I can garauntee you is going to happen at the end of this war.

also consider that Saddam has armed the population to resist the US/Uk. Sgould the people decide to have their rebellion, they'll certainly have the weapons & the training to do so.

Éomer of Rohan

But it is almost certain they won't and haven't hitherto. Not for reasons of fear - this time it is certain that they would be welcomed by the 'coalition of the willing' (CoW) from with open arms and a detachment of soldiers to defend them. They don't rebel because they either like Saddam or they would rather have Saddam than a foreign dictatorship and Americans in their country - remember even the Iraqi people hold America to be the 'Great Satan.' In what country did people burn flags and sing and dance on September the 11th 2001? Iraq. I didn't see it in any other country.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

They don't rebel because they either like Saddam or they would rather have Saddam than a foreign dictatorship and Americans in their country - remember even the Iraqi people hold America to be the 'Great Satan.' In what country did people burn flags and sing and dance on September the 11th 2001? Iraq. I didn't see it in any other country.

well also consider that the west hasn't provided them much reason to trust them. They've got history from the British Empire, they saw what happened the last time they revolted, and they also see western nations placing sanctions on them. I doubt they have much reason to believe that the US is any different than Saddam. In their eyes, the US, has caused more trouble to Arab nations than any other nation.

DadaKopf

Yeah, they should learn to love themelves.

The Surgeon

I believe there should be equal rights for women and children there.

What people have to realise is that compared to other Arab nations in the region, Iraq is actually one of the most socially progressive. By and large, women have equal rights to men which is a lot more than many of their neighbours have. Iraq is one of the most secular Arab nations in the region which means that many of the more repressive social norms you find in more fundamental Islamic regimes are absent there.

Again, Saddam's regime is brutal and oppressive but we have to remember it's not like that because of Islam. It's not the same as the Taliban who had acid thrown in women's faces for trying to go to work or school. I wanted to see those gits removed long before 911 because of the kind of brutal fundamentalism they injected into society and politics. But this war should not be viewed as an example of western powers taking down a radical Islamic regime because the regime simply isn't one.

By the way, here's another army recruitment poster you might be interested in!

The Corinthian

Originally posted by The Surgeon
Iraq is one of the most secular Arab nations in the region which means that many of the more repressive social norms you find in more fundamental Islamic regimes are absent there.

On a related note, which may also explain Syria's current predicament to a degree, an interesting piece on the Ba'ath party movement:

Ba'ath party, Arab political party, in Syria and in Iraq. Its main ideological objectives are secularism, socialism, and pan-Arab unionism. Founded in Damascus in 1941 and reformed, with the name Ba'ath, in the early 1950s, it rapidly achieved political power in Syria.

http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0805601.html

Slutmonkey57b

Originally posted by Kell
Zukustious was originally, and again recently, looking for an alternative to the war, so without going into the political and humanitarian whys and wherefores of why I oppose the war, heres MY alternative:

1) Leave Hussein in place for the time being,

2) Resume UN weapons inspections and continue Iraqi disarmament programme

3) Remove all trade sanctions

4) Let the UN start an aid and education programme for the masses

What on EARTH makes you think the UN is technically competant enough to run a programme like that on such a scale? And do you know how long it would take the UN to set up such a scheme? Or how much it would cost?

5) Set up a Northern Ireland of the past style border patrol system with searches of all modes of transport for potential smuggling of weapons or materials that could be used to build WMD

Northern Ireland has a TINY border. Miniscule. And it still wasn't secure. Look at a map and see the size of Iraq and tell me how you'd "secure" its border and exactly how many men it would take. A ridiculous idea.

6) Encourage more oil producers to embrace the Euro as the fiat oil currency and in the process fúck the wild card US up the ass because the rest of the world has had enough of the hypocritical bully tactics (Off topic I know, I just loath the American dollar hegemony)

7) Use the UN to slowly introduce a true democracy as opposed to the current situation where it is envisaged that someone in a few weeks time is going to say to the Iraqi's "Hey you're all free. Go do and say what you like". The removal of the regime in Iraq will result in chaos and unless administered correctly by the UN it could likely turn into another Beirut.

Again, the idea that the UN is in a position to run such a scheme is an absolute hoot. It can barely run itself. And in case you didn't notice, Lebanon is the UN's longest running project. Nice job there lads...

Bottom line. Leave Hussein where he is but in the meantime educate the masses as to what their missing out on so by the time a popular revolt is really READY to happen, the Iraqi people will have come round to the idea of what things should look like in a democratic and free society, rather than fighting like dogs over whats left in the wake of Saddam which I can garauntee you is going to happen at the end of this war.

That's what happens at the end of all despotic regimes. The only yardstick is the measure of control at which the society degenerates before it starts to rebuild. A popular revolt has been ready to happen in Iraq for years - that, I think you'll find is why Saddam has been spending so much of his time gassing people, massacring people, and running secret police units.

What on EARTH makes you think the UN is technically competant enough to run a programme like that on such a scale? And do you know how long it would take the UN to set up such a scheme? Or how much it would cost?

I have to back him a little on this. There is simply nobody else to do the job. The US? Hardly. Their attention span is shorter than most children. At the end of the day, theres nobody else that can even make the attempt. Remember, the US have in the end asked for the UN to shoulder the humanitarian aid to Iraq once the war is finished.

DadaKopf

Originally posted by klaz
I have to back him a little on this. There is simply nobody else to do the job. The US? Hardly. Their attention span is shorter than most children. At the end of the day, theres nobody else that can even make the attempt. Remember, the US have in the end asked for the UN to shoulder the humanitarian aid to Iraq once the war is finished.

The only people who are competent enough to run a scheme on that size is the Iraqi people themselves. Who else knows the needs and wants of the Iraqi people better than themselves. Both the US and, consequently through their actions, the UN end up repeating the patterns of colonialism in which an 'enlightened' group of people (in this case, the developed world) assume they know what's best for a population and expect that their solution will either naturally be accepted or learn to be accepted by that population.

We've seen how Saddam plays the UN but the US does to greater effect than any other country in the world. This crisis is also making abundantly clear how (as is the entire history of human rights) high minded moral-speak is there only to conceal various countries' true ambitions. So, if we're to compare the process of rebuilding Iraq to any historic time and place, the colonisation of Africa is apt. Here was a number of European states justifying ambition, greed and racism by subverting Christian ethics and bastardising Darwin's theory - it wasn't OK to just conquer these people, no, they were moving in to help them help themselves. Compare this to the way Bush talks about America, or talked about Afghanistan.

The danger of all this talk about rebuilding Iraq is that it may cause yet another spiralling pattern of (self)abuse. The assumption that a people are unable to rule themselves in they way that best fits their world view is inherently racist and the very action of helping, say in the case of Iraq, a people to construct a vibrant country once again is actually secretly debilitating. Essentially it says: "we, the patriarchs of the world, don't think you're mature enough to look after yourselves so we'll do it for you." The reaction that often ensues is anger and resentment, outwardly focused on a perceived cause (the US most likely). However, this is more a reflection of the anger and resentment focused inwardly - feelings of helplessness create patterns of self-abuse and power conflicts such as political extremism and civil war. If you're told you're too incompetent to look after yourself, why should you bother? It's not that the arab nations need more Western and UN intervention, it's that they need less.

Being Irish, we should understand the meaning and enormous benefits of fighting for independence and the damage having someone fight your fights for you causes. We're lucky, Our ancestors fought for our freedom and won. That story has become part of our identity, our national consciousness. We helped ourselves and succeeded. Irish people still fall into patterns of self-abuse, such as drinking, but we're not at war with ourselves or anyone.

Let the Iraqi people struggle for the kind of government they want, that develops out of their sense of national identity (and yes, Saddam is also guilty of attempting what America is suggesting). Let them work out their solutions, who to go into business with and who to avoid. If they ask for advice, we should gladly give it.

The tragedy of all of this is that whatever 'good' work any agency or country does to rebuild Iraq, it's going to be structured in such a way that Western ambitions are met and the problems it causes will be contained and managed but not treated.

TBH, i never thought of letting the Iraqi people rule their country themselves... Seemed a bit far removed after all thats happened. You're right, they are the only ones capable of doing so. However, they will still need help from organisations external to themselves, simply because they don't have the experience, knowledge or resources to perform the task at hand. And the UN are the only ones equipped to help in this.

bonkey

Originally posted by klaz
Remember, the US have in the end asked for the UN to shoulder the humanitarian aid to Iraq once the war is finished.

Call me a cynic, but that reads more as a ploy to get the international community to help pay for the cost of the post-war humanitarian aid, as the US is quite insistent on keeping a tight rein on the post-war rebuilding which will be a source of revenue.

jc

shotamoose

Originally posted by bonkey
the US is quite insistent on keeping a tight rein on the post-war rebuilding which will be a source of revenue.

Important point at the end there, bonkey. The US seems unlikely to want to pay for the full costs of reconstruction - the United Nations Development Programme estimated the total cost as up to $30bn over three years, and that was before the wide-scale asset-stripping of schools, government buildings and even hospitals that we've seen in the last couple of days. More likely they'll pay for it with the proceeds of Iraqi oil sales and restrict the contracts to their own companies.

As for the UN not having the capacity to handle the administration and reconstruction of Iraq, well of course it doesn't right now. It would require a commitment by members (possibly a new Security Council resolution) with extra funding. But the UN does possess the institutional experience, organisation and knowledge to do the job better than the US military, imo. Agencies like the UNDP, World Health Organisation, UNICEF and Food and Agriculture Organisation have a vast store of international experience.

And it was the United Nations which oversaw the transition of East Timor to becoming a fully democratic country. East Timor's a lot smaller than Iraq, of course, but the example shows that the UN can do the job if given the resources by its members. It remains to be seen how the US-imposed administration compares.

Plus a UN administration would have the international legitimacy that is somewhat lacking in a conquering army.

Originally posted by bonkey
Call me a cynic, but that reads more as a ploy to get the international community to help pay for the cost of the post-war humanitarian aid, as the US is quite insistent on keeping a tight rein on the post-war rebuilding which will be a source of revenue.

jc

Indeed, You'd want to get a load of the Fox news channel right now....
theres a nice lady with long flowing blond hair, asking why, when they so opposed "us" * should they benefit from the re construction, they had their chance:eek:
mm
* "us" meaning the coalition , and not any group I'm involved in.

bonkey

Heh. Wasnt there some reporter during the Afghan activity who wrote an excellent piece which effectively said that when a reporter uses terms such as "us" and "them", they effectively sacrifice any claim to objectivity they ever had, and effectively just become issuers of propaganda??

jc

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

ferdi

Originally posted by Zukustious
I'm pro-war. There it is. Barely anyone else is, because it's "unpopular" to be.

so what? this makes you cool and different? are you the new hip? yeah you are, ye mad b@stard:rolleyes:

Originally posted by ferdi
so what? this makes you cool and different? are you the new hip? yeah you are, ye mad b@stard:rolleyes:

lol... gotta laugh at this.