VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: [1], 2, 3, 4 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 01:12:07 01/22/03 Wed
Author: Goktimus Prime
Subject: responses to responses (eseses)
In reply to: Perceptor II 's message, "Some responses" on 19:34:38 01/21/03 Tue

Well, that's the entire thing that everyone's criticising the US government on atm -- their seemingly unnecessary push for war on Iraq.

Bush can't find Bin Laden so he's mad and he wants to attack someone he doesn't like. Elements within his administration, such as Defence Minister Donald Rumsfeld, have been vying for an attack on Iraq since long before 11-9. There's no evidence to link Hussein to the Taliban. In fact, there is reason to believe that attacking Iraq may actually be counter productive to the US as opposed to conditions during the Gulf War.

First of all, during the Gulf War the US enjoyed international support and reinforcements -- not only from other Allied Western nations, but also from other Arab nations. After all, Saddam had just invaded another Arab nation, Kuwait, and other Arab nations were keen on helping the US to liberate it. A war on Iraq now - especially one not sanctioned by the United Nations, would NOT see the US enjoy such benefits. They would get support from a few nations like the UK and Australia who would commit forces, but that's it. They would not have the backing of UN troops or troops from other Arab allies. Secondly, the US could easily make more enemies for itself. Aside from other Arab nations possibly turning against the US against what they might see as an act of war against the Middle East, there's also a chance that they might have to face the combined might of Middle East states and terrorist factions. Atm, Middle East terrorist networks and nations are enemies. There is little love between the Taliban and the nation of Iraq. However, a US assault may see these factions unite against a common foe. What would this mean other than more troops for American, British and Australian soldiers to fight against? It would also mean increased terrorism in the US and possibly in the UK and Australia. While the Arab nations rally behind Iraq against the US led assault, the terrorists networks would work on assaulting the American people -- including through chemical and biological means... and there is virtually nothing that the US government can do to prevent that from happening. Also, a US assault would increase anti-American sentiments, which would bolster the number of frightened youths joining terrorist networks such as the Taliban (since terrorism is the tool of the oppressed).

Yes, the Hussein regime is indeed a cruel dictatorship... however, consider this:
(1) The US does not have the right to crush any form of government it doesn't like unless that state has declared war on them. American interference in Middle East politics is a significant cause of US hatred among Arabs. I'm sure most Americans would be irritated too if a foreign power decided to depose a US government -- I mean, could the UN call for an attack on the US because the Bush administration was not properly elected into office? Of course not... you cannot interfere with another nation's politics and not expect the people to really get pissed off at you.
(2) Has the US government formed any plans on replacing the dictatorship? From what I've heard, Bush is primarily interested in disabling Saddam's ability to commit acts of mass destruction -- NOT to topple his dictatorship. And for what? Iraq has made NO indication of aiming any of their weapons at the US anyway... and a lot of people feel that it is rather superficial for a nation like the US -- a big owner of nuclear arms -- to call for another nation to relieve itself of weapons of mass destruction.

Needless to say that war is something so horrific that it should only be considered if the benefits outweigh the risks (and here the risks are human lives). From what I can see, the risks far outweigh the benefits... a US led war on Iraq would only lead to the loss of more lives.

Let the United Nations play itself out. All alternative options to war must be tried. Because while the US may attack Iraqi soldiers, the terrorists will attack against US civilians.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT+0
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.