Archive for gamerhang.myfreeforum.org A place where like-minded individuals who are into all types of mediums, and not just video games, can come to communicate and create!
 

The free forums are now under new ownership, a full announcement will be made shortly

       gamerhang.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> Off-Topic
firemastrr

First Political Discussion Thread: Iraq War

So, what do you all think of the war in Iraq? Do you hate it, love it, or whatever?

Personally, I think that it was the thing to do. I mean, yes, many have died, and it's very slow progress. Still, America has been a world leader and liberator for the past century. It was the lesser of two evils to enter, the second evil being to just sit here and watch as the people suffer under Hussein's rule.
Also, we must stay there and can't pull out until stability is reached. If we just up and leave, it will be complete and total chaos there, with it being like a huge gang war. We must finish what we started. That's why I'm awaiting the 2008 elections with great anticipation. What will happen in Iraq with the new President?
Chocolate Ninja

Uhh...

...hate to break it to you, but America is not the rock upon which the world was built. <_< We only just started to become something of a world power after WWI, and solidified it with the end of the Cold War. Even now, we may not hold that title of "Most Dominant World Superpower" for very long.

So, I don't think the war in Iraq was quite justified. To this day, I don't know what the real reason behind us going in was (Politicians doing things out of the goodness of their own heart?), but I suspect there was a bit more to it than we'd like to think. For instance, even if we're shepherds of the world, why not intervene in Saudi Arabia? Or Israel? Or Cuba? Because we have a political alliance with them, that's why.

Now that we're in there, I guess that we have a duty to stay, though I can't see any way that we could make things better now. Things were bad in Iraq, but you have to admit that there were other countries that we've conveniently overlooked. But I guess that the U.S. is doing slightly better thus far than Britain was when it was a superpower.
Konoko

Wasn't Saddam around for a good long time, even getting some support from america...? And by some I mean one of the largest displays of financial support they've ever done, in the tone of over 40 billion dollers on credit on top of a long term series of loans as well?
That whole, it was the lesser of 2 evils, our solomn duty to protect the world from his evil, our only option for our safety and all the various other things that have been heard coming from that side of the pond....yeah, thats the general gist I've been getting over here and it doesn't seem to be sounding quite right.

Its just political, far as I see. And in political stuff, the morality of something is really only used to sway support, not the motivation for the decision.

Quote:
But I guess that the U.S. is doing slightly better thus far than Britain was when it was a superpower.

Bah! I take offence at that! I'm busy having a drink, but I shall send my manservent off to give your army a jolly good seeing to, right after he's finished lunch.
But yeah....world war 1 left us depleted and financially unstable, then all the dominions decided to jump ship. I blame Canada. Damn them, being the first ones to ease the governer out of contact with administrive stuff...its the little things like that that started the slippery slope towards them ALL deciding they wanted to be independant. That and World War 2 didn't help much, depleting us till the outlyers were more supporting us and the US looked all promising and military, what with its nukes and all....

Could have been worse though.
firemastrr

Woah. We invaded Iraq to stop Hussein. Saying we shouldn't have tried to stop him is like saying we shouldn't have entered WWII to get Hitler. Hussein was a butcher. He had to be put down sometime, the sooner the better. How many people were happy when they found out he was dead? The problem is, it's turning into a desert Vietnam with all the insurgents. So if we leave now, we are basically condemning the Iraqis to one huge gang war.

Now, about the reason for invasion, I believe it was to stop Hussein. Maybe Bush lied about the WMDs, maybe he genuinely believed what he said. I don't know. And maybe we never will. But thee is almost always more, and you are probably correct.

Oh, and about America as a superpower, WWI was the war that showed the world what we could do. That was when we emerged as a superpower. It was solidified after WWII. When the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, they damned themselves and the other Axis Powers. If it weren't for the U. S., WWII is lost. Now, you can't say that we were "just emerging" at the end when we played such a huge role through the whole thing.
Konoko

Quote:
He had to be put down sometime, the sooner the better.

If that was true, why all the support to him?

Part of me just wants to consider all the huge number of wars, rebellions and invasions and...well, generally they just happen and there isn't much reason for outside forces to get involved. Except that Americas administration had their own motives and goals. Sure, Saddam was bad. But I'm pretty sure thats not why the war happened, thats just how the war was rationalized to the public.

And for WW2...the Germans turning on Russia was also pretty damn pivotal, to say the least. Far as what I'm seeing in the history books, America did not play a huge role for the whole thing. o.o Embargoing (along with UK and others) over Japans attempts to unify Asia via invasion, till Pearl Harbour.
Chocolate Ninja

You didn't read the rest of what I said, firemastrr. What about Saudi Arabia? What about Cuba? What about Israel and Palestine? I'm not saying Iraq wasn't a problem, though as Konoko pointed out, we were once alarmingly indifferent to the problems there. And if by showing the world what we could do means that we showed the world a weapon that we even didn't know the consequences of, then yes, we did show the world what we can do. We showed off the first catastrophic WMD.

Do you truly think that politicians don't act out of self-interest? They do. We all do. But there's a difference in scale. When most people are self-interested, they do things like take money from wallets dropped on the ground and then returning them to their owners for a cash reward. When politicians are self-interested, they do things that actually have a sizeable impact on the rest of the world.
firemastrr

Konoko wrote:
Quote:
He had to be put down sometime, the sooner the better.

If that was true, why all the support to him?


By the U.S.? He was a strong ruler, what the country needed. We didn't do our homework. BIG mistake.
By Iraqis? All those who didn't "support" him were dead.

Chocolate Ninja wrote:
Do you truly think that politicians don't act out of self-interest?


I didn't say that. Of course they acty out of self-intrest. Like you said, everyone does. But what would Bush get out of Iraq war? Some private company who has a vendetta against Iraq that will pay him a billion dollars to destroy Iraq? Unlikely. The same goes for Saudi Arabia, Cuba, Israel, and Palestine. I think he was finishing what his dad started.

Chocolate Ninja wrote:
And if by showing the world what we could do means that we showed the world a weapon that we even didn't know the consequences of, then yes, we did show the world what we can do. We showed off the first catastrophic WMD.


Well, someone had to. I agree that it was unnecessary. The war was, by all practical standards, over. But its consequenses could not be forseen. It's one of those things that you just have to try. Does that justify it? No.

What I mean by showing the world what we could do:

Okay, 1941. France: Captured. Soviet Union: About to fall.

Britain was the only thing standing between the Axis and victory. They were doomed. Then, December 7. In order to expand, the Japanese deside that they should give the U.S. a warning blow to keep us away. Pearl Harbor.

Now, the U.S., after formally declaring war on December 8, send thousands of troops over both oceans to combat the Axis. After more defeats than victories, it's looking grim, but Allied luck and Axis stupidity give the Allies one chance, the biggest invasion ever waged: D-Day. British, American, and Canadian troops land on the shores of Normandy Beach across a 10-mile stretch. After pushing inland for several months, Berlin fell. V-E Day.

In the Pacific, the we are island-hopping, slowly liberating one tiny isle after another. The Japanese do not believe in surrender; they fight to the death. Finally, the Manhattan Project is coming to a close. We try out the new weapons. Hiroshima and Nagisaki.

Weeks later, aboard the U.S.S. Missouri, the Japanese leaders formally surrender. V-J Day.

That's what we could do.
Chocolate Ninja

Hmm, WWII-wise, you do have a compelling point. Albeit the war could have been won without using such weapons by then, but hindsight is always 20-20. We most likely would have ended up using it later on anyways.

However, in the case of the Iraq War, just because an alterior motive isn't immediately apparent doesn't mean there isn't one. In fact, it wouldn't be very alterior if it was readily apparent. <_< A private company may not have a vendetta against Iraq, but several parties may have something to gain from the invasion of Iraq. I don't know enough to say, but it's not entirely implausible that since we can't exactly out and invade Saudi Arabia right now, we try for another oil hotspot. It sounds like a stretch for the cause of a war, but our oil supplies here are stretched a little thin right now. One of the oldest and time-honored reasons for war is for territory or resources.

Then again, it's difficult to tell. We don't exactly know the full extent of what's going on there, and CNN seems more concerned with reality tv shows and puppies that can walk on their hind legs. Also, you would think that if we were secretly drilling oil wells over there we'd catch on by now. So "no blood for oil" may be a statement with faulty backing at best.

Nevertheless, I'm impressed. Razz When I was your age I was completely apathetic towards politics and history.
firemastrr

Chocolate Ninja wrote:
However, in the case of the Iraq War, just because an alterior motive isn't immediately apparent doesn't mean there isn't one. In fact, it wouldn't be very alterior if it was readily apparent. <_< A private company may not have a vendetta against Iraq, but several parties may have something to gain from the invasion of Iraq. I don't know enough to say, but it's not entirely implausible that since we can't exactly out and invade Saudi Arabia right now, we try for another oil hotspot. It sounds like a stretch for the cause of a war, but our oil supplies here are stretched a little thin right now. One of the oldest and time-honored reasons for war is for territory or resources.

Then again, it's difficult to tell. We don't exactly know the full extent of what's going on there, and CNN seems more concerned with reality tv shows and puppies that can walk on their hind legs. Also, you would think that if we were secretly drilling oil wells over there we'd catch on by now. So "no blood for oil" may be a statement with faulty backing at best.


Nicely put. Ultimately, what goes on in the President's head, stays in his head. We were told it was because it was because of WMDs. There were none there. But we had nothing else to believe. What could we do? We can't be totally untrusting, but we shouldn't believe everything unconditionally either. We just have to take everything with a grain of salt. Again, we may never know the real reason. That's how life works.

Chocolate Ninja wrote:
Nevertheless, I'm impressed. Razz When I was your age I was completely apathetic towards politics and history.


Politics are good to know so you can debate with people. Those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it. Besides, it's really interesting. WWII is probably the war I know most about. Interesting story:

Hitler's troops were pressing forward toward Moscow. They were almost 10 miles away. Nothing stood between them and the capital. Noting, that is, but bitter, bitter cold. Their progress was so slow that they went barely a mile every day. Finally, they had to turn back and return to Germany. They could go no further. Nature had saved Russia. That and stupidity. The Germans were so overconfident that they marched into Russia in their summer uniforms. They had none blanket for ever 10 people.

If Hitler had read his history books, that would never have happened.

Napoleon Bonaparte did the exact same thing: summer uniforms, dead of winter, froze to death miles from Moscow, had to turn back.

That could have been the difference in WWII.

Case in point.
Anomaly

There is a reason why the first rule of war is "know your enemy".
Before anyone chews me out for making such a short and irrelevant post, it's because I frankly know nothing about what's being spoken about here. I'm no good at history, and I've not really been keeping up with the Iraq war or W's reasoning for it. I'd say it's better to wait until the story's over before trying to read it.
I'd also say that this thread would be much better off if not subjected by my uninformed opinions about the issues presented.
Konoko

I rather disagree with
Quote:
Britain was the only thing standing between the Axis and victory. They were doomed.
, but I guess thats because despite all general evidence and past affirmations, I'm actually kinda patriotic, since I want to disagree with that, and check up on the facts because of that. Rather than the other way round. So, basically, I'm admitting ahead of time that I may be a little biased, but then thats true of most people. Razz
But regardless...we maintained control over the channel and we ended up winning the air war too, pretty much stopping their invasions plans dead for an indefinate period of time. Cracking Engima was also a pretty good step forward too, so all around, I really wouldn't say we were doomed.

Operation Mincemeat (One of my favourites. Lucky corpse even got opera tickets.) also strongly paved the way for D-day, so I wouldn't say luck and stupidity were the foremost things that helped. Poor communication, perhaps, since they had become so convinced that the false information that had been so painstakingly fed, that they actually disbelieved the reports that were to the contrary for quite some time, letting various places get established before the main enemy armour came along.

Just to argue a small point, so it sounds less like heroic America rushing to save helpless Britain. Rolling Eyes
Equally, I'm not sure if you skipped the bit about the US blockading Japans attempt to unify Asia, and Japan deciding that the US was weak. Not so much a warning blow to keep you away. You guys really did have a rough time getting past them, if only for the sheer patriotism and morale they had going, so the bombs really were a bit of a boon, since otherwise I think it might have gone a lot longer.


As a further sidenote, before I likely stop chiming in, my grandad worked in the fire service (volunteer) during the blitz and my grandma was a nurse. =D
firemastrr

Yes, I did sound like it was heroic America coming in to save Helpless Britain, and it was nothing like that. Neither could have done it without the other.

Konoko wrote:
Operation Mincemeat (One of my favourites. Lucky corpse even got opera tickets.) also strongly paved the way for D-day, so I wouldn't say luck and stupidity were the foremost things that helped. Poor communication, perhaps, since they had become so convinced that the false information that had been so painstakingly fed, that they actually disbelieved the reports that were to the contrary for quite some time, letting various places get established before the main enemy armour came along.


I didn't mean just for D-Day. All through the war, Allied luck and Axis stupidity helped greatly. I agree that D-Day had a lot more to do with planning and care than luck, and it was executed brilliantly. Other times, earlier in the war, the Axis screwed up big-time, though. Like that story I told you previously.

Konoko wrote:
Equally, I'm not sure if you skipped the bit about the US blockading Japans attempt to unify Asia, and Japan deciding that the US was weak. Not so much a warning blow to keep you away. You guys really did have a rough time getting past them, if only for the sheer patriotism and morale they had going, so the bombs really were a bit of a boon, since otherwise I think it might have gone a lot longer.


I did skip and paraphrase that part a little, and that was in the intrest of time. I didn't want to spend forever talking about WWII. But to complete:

Pre-Pearl Harbor, Japan was running out of resources. They could not expand their glorious empire without more, especially oil. The obvious solution was to invade the Middle East. But, surely, the United States would not stand for it and would enter the war to defend the innocent people of the Middle East (kinda ironic, isn't it?). At that time, a navy was measured by how many battleships it had. Battleships were the queen of the seas. The U.S. had 9 battleships and was building a tenth; Japan had 7. So they decided to launch a sneak attack on Pearl Harbor to hopefully sink enough U.S. battleships and cripple the navy enough to keep the U.S. away. So, after much careful planning, the bombed Pearl Harbor, without formally declaring war. That's breaking the rules (or at least it was then). We entered WWII the next day.

Better?

       gamerhang.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> Off-Topic
Page 1 of 1
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum