Are you Pro-War or Anti-War?

[Verto]

Originally posted by Asher

Yes, the coalition has a grand conspiracy and direct control over the Associated Press, Reuters, CNN, BBC, CBC, etc.

Thanks alot Asher. Last time we let you in on a secret.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Glonkie, Hussein is a nasty bastard. In fact, he has been one all along. Being one didn't stop the US from being friendly to him, and it certainly didn't stop Cheney from shaking hands with him. If you somehow think that's the real cause, you are either naive or deluded.

When did I say anything about the cause of the war?

I think Saddam needs to be put out of office, for the sake of the Iraqi people and the world.

The arguments against the war are nonexistant, they're all bunk -- every last one of them that I've heard.

Some people just don't think the US should mess with other countries, period, and they can think it. I think it's wrong in cases where the leader does **** like torture a soccer team when they do badly or use chemical weapons on their own people, etc.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Are you seeing the whole picture, or are you just seeing what they want you to see?

You're the one that lives in China, and you ask me this?

[Asher]

To be sure, I have seen the protests in Baghdad and the like too. But I'm pretty sure that most of the people there are protesting because they believe Saddam will still be around, and Saddam isn't someone you show opposition to if you care for your life.

[Dominikos]

Yes, the coalition has a grand conspiracy and direct control over the Associated Press, Reuters, CNN, BBC, CBC, etc.

Asher, so far you have not stated anything that may remotely be your opinion.

I think Saddam needs to be put out of office, for the sake of the Iraqi people and the world.

The arguments against the war are nonexistant, they're all bunk -- every last one of them that I've heard.

I don't mind someone being pro-war. I myself am no friend of Saddam, but in all honesty, you sound like George Bush repeating the same sentences over and over again.

------------------
~Dominik - Lord of the Putumayo~

[Asher]

Originally posted by Dominikos
Asher, so far you have not stated anything that may remotely be your opinion.

I disagree, I would think that my opinions would be my opinions.

I think you meant to say I haven't backed up my opinions. Which is true, and I'm not going to. It'd be a waste of my time.

I don't mind someone being pro-war. I myself am no friend of Saddam, but in all honesty, you sound like George Bush repeating the same sentences over and over again.

I didn't realize I've been repeating the same sentences over and over again, seeing as this is basically the first thread I even said I was pro-war.

I'm not surprised you have nothing to say other than this stuff, though.

I can say, however, I was absolutely floored by the stupidity of the anti-war demonstrators I've seen interviewed. The one that stays with me is the woman who said that this war is going to be far worse than any other war in history, because the weapons are so much deadlier now than they were before!

Great stuff, God bless America.

[Dominikos]

I didn't realize I've been repeating the same sentences over and over again, seeing as this is basically the first thread I even said I was pro-war.

Read the words carefully. I stated that George Bush repeats the same sentences over and over again, not you.

you sound like George Bush repeating the same sentences over and over again.

I do, however, understand that it can be taken both ways.

------------------
~Dominik - Lord of the Putumayo~

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Asher
Yes, the coalition has a grand conspiracy and direct control over the Associated Press, Reuters, CNN, BBC, CBC, etc.

The news networks must talk almost all day on the war in Iraq. They have much and much blah blah (sorry, lack of vocabulary) to produce each day. They also have to show new images to keep the public interested. Lastly, they have to be on the spot, and to give te information at the very moment they get it.

The military astonishingly eases their jobs : they hand their images, their reports and such to the networks, who are too happy of having a news material to comment on. The only sources other than the military to get news material would be to inquire on the field. They do this too (hence the raw of corpses shown on BBC, you bet the military wouldn't have boasted about them), but these inquiries produce blah blah much more slowly, and much less often than the materian handed by the army. Especially because it is difficult to do your job as a journalist in a country at war.

Hence, the army has the upper hand on the information sources the media rely upon. It is not false to say the media report military propaganda most of the day.
I think it'll be in order to read the newspapers tomorrow, for more in depth analysis, which will escape the hype of instant information.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Asher
I sincerely doubt that other countries would beef up military spending on the sole basis that the US kicked ass in Iraq.

They can beef it up all they want, they won't be able to beat it. I'd think they'd know that. The US is content on beefing up to match any opposition, and will probably invade you if you start to build up your army noticably.

The American decision to attack a country which is weaker now then it was 10 years ago sends a message to other governments that it doesn't matter what they do, they will be attacked.

Look at Iran. They know they're on the US hit list, part of the "axis of evil". The message being delivered to them from this war is that they can either wait to be attacked, or they can prepare themselves for the invasion that will come. They have nothing to lose.

So the Iranians will prepare themselves for war with the US. So will the North Koreans. So will the Syrians.

Anti-American dictators around the world will be trying to figure out how to defend themselves and the only way to do that is by getting nuclear weapons or other "weapons of mass desctruction." After all, the US won't attack Pakistan even though it is a major base for terrorism because Pakistan has the bomb.

[Drake Tungsten]

Anti-American dictators around the world will be trying to figure out how to defend themselves and the only way to do that is by getting nuclear weapons or other "weapons of mass desctruction." After all, the US won't attack Pakistan even though it is a major base for terrorism because Pakistan has the bomb.

Dictators learned this a long time ago, after the first Gulf War. The Axis of Evil was a response to ongoing nuclear programmes, not the other way around...

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Asher
Yes, the coalition has a grand conspiracy and direct control over the Associated Press, Reuters, CNN, BBC, CBC, etc.

First of all, my response was to your post, quoted as follows:

Why are the citizens ripping down posters of Saddam while cheering if they liked him?
Why are they shaking US soldier's hands and smiling?
Why hasn't the US taken out the power grid?
Why has the US made it so easy to surrender, while even letting Iraqi officers keep their sidearms?

People are making the US out to be a monster, and that's proven not to be the case. What happened?

I haven't seen anything about [1], [2], or [4] on Reuters or BBC. If you have links to these on either of them, please do post them.

As to [3], the easiest way to take out power is to bomb the generator plants, but, guess who are there? Civilians, foreign civilians nevertheless. They seem to give Uncle Sam second thoughts.

Now, I am sure some Iraqis don't like Saddam. So what? How many of them don't like him, and how many of them do? This is the important question, and the one which answer you can't find in those nice pictures of Iraqi soldiers surrendering or Iraqi citizens tearing down posters of Saddam Hussein.

Have you visited any Islamic or Arabic news websites?

EDIT: added links

Lebanon Daily Star
Arabic News
Islamic Republic News Agency
People's Daily

[Skanky Burns]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Anti-war before the invasion, and still against the war on principle. I hope now that the dye is cast that there are minimal casualties all-round and our soldiers come home ASAP.

[Tingkai]

Does Iran have a nuke programme?

The North Koreans had shut their programme down. Now they're starting it again in response to American policies.

The first Gulf War was a UN sanctioned response to one nation invading another nation.

This time it is simply the US deciding it is time to get rid of Saddam, despite opposition against its methods from the rest of the world.

The tin-pot dictators know that world politics has now drastically changed. The US is flexing its muscle and there is no other superpower to constrain it.

MINOR EDITS

[Chilean President™]

ANTI-WAR... but where is the Banana option?

[Drake Tungsten]

Does Iran have a nuke programme?

http://www.iranexpert.com/2003/iranplays14march.htm

[Verto]

Originally posted by Tingkai
The North Koreans had shut their programme down. Now they're starting it again in response to American policies.

Please, do elaborate.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
First of all, my response was to your post, quoted as follows:

That post was not directed at you...

I haven't seen anything about [1], [2], or [4] on Reuters or BBC. If you have links to these on either of them, please do post them.

I've no links to them, I've been watching them idly on the TV most of the day (CBC, NBC, CNN)

Edit: As for [4]: http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew...hub=TopStories

White flags must be displayed on vehicles and only officers may retain pistols or other sidearms, the notes advised. Artillery and air defense systems must be parked in travel formation and no shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles can be displayed.

The US dropped 2M copies of instructions over Iraq with detailed instructions on how to surrender. Hell, they even get a "basket of food" if they surrender, and in most cases the troops are taken back to their own (Iraqi) barracks, and US troops guard the facility incase of backlash from citizens.

And [1] and [2]...
http://www.heraldnet.com/Stories/03/3/21/16696030.cfm

Iraqi townspeople happy to see U.S. forces


By Ellen Knickmeyer
Associated Press

SAFWAN, Iraq - U.S. Marines tore down Saddam Hussein in a screeching pop of metal and bolts today, rigging winch chains to the giant street portraits in newly taken southern Iraq.

Crowds of men and boys watched, briefly joining Maj. David "Bull" Gurfein in a new cheer. "Iraqis, Iraqis, Iraqis!" Gurfein yelled, pumping his fist in the air.

"We wanted to send a message that Saddam is done," said Gurfein, a New York native in the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force.

"People are scared to show a lot of emotion. That's why we wanted to show them this time we're here, and Saddam is done," he said.

Marines next to him attached metal ropes on the front of their Jeeps to one metal portrait of Hussein, backing up to peel the Iraqi leader's black and white image off the metal frame.

The Marines arrived in Safwan, just across the Kuwait border, after Cobra attack helicopters, attack jets, tanks, 155 mm howitzers and sharpshooters cleared the way along Route 80, the main road into Iraq.

Safwan, 375 miles south of Baghdad, is a poor, dirty, wrecked town pocked by shrapnel from the last Gulf War. Reminders of the first war abound, among them a leftover missile that detonated inside a soccer field a year ago, killing eight children.

Iraqi forces in the area sporadically fired mortars and guns for hours Thursday and today. Most townspeople hid, although residents brought forth a wounded little girl, her palm bleeding after the new fighting. Another man said his wife was shot in the leg by the Americans.

A few men and boys ventured out, putting makeshift white flags on their pickup trucks or waving white T-shirts out truck windows.

"Americans very good," Ali Khemy said. "Iraq wants to be free."

Some chanted, "Ameriki! Ameriki!"

Many others in the starving town just patted their stomachs and raised their hands, begging for food.

A man identifying himself only as Abdullah welcomed the arrival of the U.S. troops: "Saddam Hussein is no good. Saddam Hussein a butcher."

An old woman shrouded in black - one of the few women outside - knelt toward the feet of Americans, embracing an American woman. A younger man with her pulled her away, giving her a warning sign by sliding his finger across his throat.

In 1991, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis died after prematurely celebrating what they believed was their liberation from Hussein after the Gulf War. Some even pulled down a few pictures of Hussein then - only to be killed by Iraqi forces.

Gurfein playfully traded pats with a disabled man and turned down a dinner invitation from townspeople.

"Friend, friend," he told them in Arabic learned in the first Gulf War.

"We stopped in Kuwait that time," he said. "We were all ready to come up there then, and we never did."

The townspeople seemed grateful this time.

"No Saddam Hussein!" one young man in headscarf told Gurfein. "Bush!"

[notyoueither]

Mildly pro.

I want to see Saddam gone.

I am concerned about potential effects of getting him gone.

Still, I am not a fan of doing nothing for fear of what might happen if you do something. I just wish the US administration were slightly better at diplomacy than the Great Khans.

[Adam Smith]

Anti-war

1. Saddam is no immediate threat to anybody.
2. We in the US have bigger fish to fry (Al Qeda, Israel - Pal, maybe NK)
3. The diplomatic end would have been easy if we waited a year.

[XarXo]

No banana option?

I want Freedom Bananas !

[Jaguar]

Originally posted by Tingkai
I'm opposed to this war because it creates more problems in the long-run.

For the first time in history, one country has the power to invade any country, anywhere in the world, and the only ones who can defend themselves are those with nuclear weapons.

Now this nation has decided to go to war unilaterally, a war that a majority of the world opposes, but is powerless to stop.

The message is clear to the countries that are on the US hit list. They're next. So they will beef up their military spending. They will race to obtain nuclear weapons and any other weapon to defend themselves. They've got nothing to lose because they know the US is out to get them.

End result, a much more dangerous world.

Meanwhile, the US has alienated most of its former allies. This creates political tensions that will have long lasting effects.

The US will win a victory in Iraq, but it will be a pyrrhic victory.

Pretty good post, except for the "unilaterally" part. We have UK, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Estonia, Bulgaria, Israel, Kuwait, etc. on board. Since when does "unilaterally" mean "without France?"

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by Asher

People tend to hate you less when you're less likely to kick their ass.

Too true... childish and sad, but true...

[Jon Shafer]

Pro war. And hoping that neither of my cousins over there has anything happen to them.

[TheBirdMan]

Originally posted by Tingkai
I'm opposed to this war because it creates more problems in the long-run.

For the first time in history, one country has the power to invade any country, anywhere in the world, and the only ones who can defend themselves are those with nuclear weapons.

Now this nation has decided to go to war unilaterally, a war that a majority of the world opposes, but is powerless to stop.

The message is clear to the countries that are on the US hit list. They're next. So they will beef up their military spending. They will race to obtain nuclear weapons and any other weapon to defend themselves. They've got nothing to lose because they know the US is out to get them.

End result, a much more dangerous world.

Meanwhile, the US has alienated most of its former allies. This creates political tensions that will have long lasting effects.

The US will win a victory in Iraq, but it will be a pyrrhic victory.

Agree in every word written.

And what's more. This might speed up the EUs efforts to make their "own" army as a REAL and TRUSTWORTHY alternative to what's left of the old NATO.

In a few years, we might see two blocks, the US and the EU fighting against each others, not only in word using laywers and traderestrictions, but also with ...........(continue yourself).

UK, Spain and Denmark could be forced to choose side.

[DarthVeda]

Does it really matter if anybody not in the USA or Britain is anti-war?

[Drake Tungsten]

Does it really matter if anybody not in the USA or Britain is anti-war?

It matters what the Iraqi people think. The opinions in Australia matter too, as they've sent combat troops. The opinion of people in countries not involved in this war, however, doesn't mean ****...

[DarthVeda]

You know CNN and Fox don't nearly give enough attention to the smaller contigents of the coalition, it's easy to forget contributions like Australia's. I bet you wouldn't even know that Bulgaria sent 150 troops...

[Jaguar]

BTW, I forgot to post my opinion.

Pro-War, with a two concerns:

1. Will the Iraqi people be happier after our "liberation?"

2. Will they just end up with an ******* again once we leave?

Fortunately, I think the answers are "yes" and "no," but you can't be sure.

[Kramerman]

pro

[BeBro]

"What is your position in regards to the War in Iraq?"

I think it is damn hard to decide. I can at least understand some reasons for it, and I have no problem at all with removing Saddam. OTOH there are also some good reasons to be against it....

So "undecided" for me.