Thread: How to deal with the peacenick ignoramuses

"Removing Saddam by force is our only option." said the president.

"Removing Saddam by force is our only option." - chant his drones.


Thanks, but Id rather not read US war propoganda when I visit here.

The thing that I don't get is that a lot of people are "Think of the innocents that will be killed!" And its a true sad fact of war, but our policy for quite some time has been to minimze civilian loss, but what about all the people that have died as a dirrect result of Sadam (hint hint: the Kurdish "cleansing" that he performed after Desert Storm, because they tried to oppose him, which would have been a sucessful coup if we had supported them). Im not blindly pro war or blindly anti war, but the thing is, Sadams been pushing the terms of the peace TREATY for how long now? If he really didn't want war, he would have held steadfast to the treaty (which, as he has not abided by, we have every right to strike null and void, thus resuming the war). I don't doubt that oil and big corporations factor into the whole war, ie government contracts to rebuild, better oil leverage, etc, but its not the only reason. But then, thats just my 2 cents.

Just to make sure everyone hates me, I think both extremes of the debate are blind here. If you think that there will be any progress in that area by trying to talk things out with Sadam, you are clueless. If you think that this has nothing to do with oil, you are letting yourself be blinded by a thin veil of morality.

The problem with media is.. they need to sensationalize things in order to keep people interested. The "peacenick" news media blindly turns their eye to the fact that there is bad things going on there, and that these people cannot be reasoned with. The "warmonger" news media likes to through this veil of superficial morality over everything: yes, something needs to be done, but to claim that the US has no other motives in this is pretty much a lie.

FACT: Sadam has been a murder and a tyrant. He will not let go his grip even the slightest bit no matter how many treaties he "signs."
FACT: The leaders of the US published a 92 page document outlining their plan to achieve strategic dominance in the world, and to attain new resources abroad.

That being said, something needs to be done.. but to what end.. I just don't konw. To think there won't be ramifications if we go to war with them is utter ignorance. To think that there won't be ramifications if we DON'T some plan of action is also equally ignorant.

I've got friends and family on both sides of this debate. I know people from the area in question. I have friends in the US military, and those who hang banners stating their opposition to any military action.

In this situation, there will be no winners. Even if we oust Sadam what does that accomplish? That area of the world is forever in disarray. Unless they can find a true leader to raise them from the ashes then they will not progress. A UN inserted leader will not get support. An imposed election wil be criticized and the people will still claim the UN inserted a leader. If they could under go a revolution of their own, it would be ideal. The problem with that, however, is that Sadam has done a fine job of ensuring that doesn't happen anytime soon.

When I try to look into the future I'm not sure what I see. All we can do is hope, wish, and pray that things work out for the better, and that every day there will be another tomorrow to look forward to.

I'm just going to add my 2 cents to the pot... Gutter, those are some great questions, and that's the problem with anyone who is against using force, they don't have the answers or want us to take a stand on the sidelines approach. I wish people would learn from history, everytime we have just sat back and let the dictators run free, they run free right into the country next to them. I still for the life of me can't understand France's postion, they should have learned from the last two times!!

I do know why their government is against it, it's all about oil and money, the contracts they have with Iraq, are worth billions, if the sanctions are lifted.

I'm not totally for war, I'm in the reserves and am waiting for the call up, but I'll go if called. I personally feel that a two man crew, one with the 50 cal. sniper rifle, and his spotter, be let loose in Iraq with one mission, remove the idiot!!! After we bring democracy to the people of Iraq and they become self governing, only if they vote for it, we leave a small force there and pull the rest of our forces back. Then all of the countries that had a problem with us trying to protect the world from this lunatic, we close our bases in those contries and look for other countries that would love to house our bases and receive the billions of dollars we shell out to support them. Take a look at Turkey, they denied us the use of there airspace and bases and we said fine, we'll pull our bases and money back, their economy collapsed almost completely.

Well enough of my ramblings, I guess my 2 cents just became a nickel!! One last thing, for all of those people that are against this possible war, once the shots start you better support our soldiers, their defending your freedom to oppose what our government does without being exacuted for your views!!

I thought this was an mp3car forum?

here is a column I wrote about this:

http://www.cavalierdaily.com/CVArtic...=15112&pid=977

Originally posted by smashr2k
here is a column I wrote about this:

http://www.cavalierdaily.com/CVArtic...=15112&pid=977

I'll admit that I didn't finish reading the article.. hey.. I am at work I appologize if I missed the point.

One thing I'd like to point out.. the reason that these nations aren't taking action has nothing to do with being "left leaning" it has to do with financial ties with that region. They won't take action in Iraq because they have a large financial interest in their agreements with the current regime.

Basically, to me, all this left =vs= right **** is a load of crap. It's too sides with their own selfish agendas. I could speak at length on this, but that's really another topic all together. left and right might have more meaning for the working man, but as far as the government goes, it's grey and gray. The "left" doesn't want to go to war because war is expensive. The "right" wants to go to war because there are financial interests in going to war. They are both right, and they are both blind to the opposite side. Of course there are moral issues as well. But the financial issues are equal concerns for both sides. Yes, we know that killing people is not the nicest of things, but the left faction of our government is also deeply concerned about the financial ramifications at home. Yes, we know that this man is a tyrant, but the right faction is also concerned with gaining new assets in the global economy and obtaining new and cheap sources of energy.

It would be very nice to solve this peacefully. I don't know if that is really an option though. I wish we could all live in civil world of peace, but we don't. Just like we wish nobody died of cancer, but they do. Tough, deal with it, this is the world we live in. On the other hand, simply going in and whiping out the "bad guys" solves very little with out a plan on how to rebuild the social structure there.

All of this partisan agenda crap really ****es me off. There is an ultimate truth at play here, and no ammount of propaganda is going to change that.