17 reasons why US should not invade Iraq

by back2dafront 30 Replies latest jw experiences

• 

  Zep

  I would like to know what the US is going to do once they get into Iraq. Just impose democracy with the click of finger, just like that. We had a documentary down here in Australia recently. On it was a highly respected former CIA agent. I forget his name, but I think it was Bauer (not related to the 24 dude). He said that it would crazy and next to impossible to impose democracy on Iraq at the moment. You have the sunni, and kurds, and the shi-ites all struggling for power. A recipe for disaster and civil unrest.

  Thomas Friedman, of the NY post(correct me if I'm wrong), in 91 argued the case that the US should NOT go all the way to Bagdad and depose Saddam because of the potential fracturing and destabilisation it could result in. I'd like to know what has changed since then.

  A former prime minister down here in Australia was few months ago citing CIA reports that anticipated casualties as high as 300,000. I dont know if the Iraqi people will be too willing to jump on the US band wagon with that much death going on. Lets not buy into this smart weapons nonsense some likes us to swallow either. There is going to be a lot of death over there.

  The country is going to be potentially wrecked. With much death and civil unrest there is very real possibility that peace keepers are going to be needed for quite some time. Thats the down side. Of course the up side is that Saddams WMD capabilty is going to be gone for sure.

  But there is a question as to how much of a threat Iraq really is. Yes, Saddam is a nasty piece of work. But UNSCOM did remove a large degree of his capabilities, far more than the Gulf war ever did. This seems to be forgotten.

  I honestly dont know. Saddam has to go. He is an evil SOB, but so are a lot of other world leaders. How much of threat he really poses I am uncertain, but I think the Bush camp is over stating the threat somewhat. I am certainly worried about the potential fallout a conflict with Iraq could bring, it doesn't look all rosy to me.

  But lets talk about WMD and the bigger picture. A lot is said of how dangerous Iraq is. What about the US. They have more nukes than anyone. The non proliferation treaty says that nations, like Iraq, who dont have nukes should never get them. It further says that nations that do have them should get rid of them. I dont see the US doing much on the disarmament front. They have about 7000 plus nukes...(about 7000 more than Saddam) and they want to FURTHER inspire the arms race with a reagan like star wars program. Yes, Saddam is dangerous, he shouldn't have nukes. But I think the bigger picture is being lost a little.

  I also think that a lot of really important issues are being relegated to the backburner. Things like GLOBAL disarmament. Things like Green house, of which Bush is also dragging his heals on. These are real problems and not much seems to be happening.

  A lot of people seem to think its ok that the US has all these nukes. Of course lets not forget what causes other nations wanting nukes: its the fact that other nations have them. Oh, people say, the US wont launch an attack, we trust them. Well dont forget about what the US did to japan. Now you may be able to justify to me one one nuke being dropped on Japan, but not the second one. Apparently very good people can do very evil things, people shouldn't forget this little lesson. People shouldn't forget Chernonbyl (sorry for the spelling) either. A nuke crisis doesn't have to be caused deliberately.

  A lot of people like to chastise Saddam for keeping his people in poverty while he builds all those mansions. Of course Saddam is a tyrrant. But lets look in our own backyard. How many people in the west live an opulent lifestyle while millions, hell, billions live destitute lives both within and outside the country. Are we that much better than Saddam on this front.

  Heres a little stat we humans shouldn't be too proud of. We are all amazed at the extent of scientific development that humans have accomplished. Just remember that 60% of scientists work in the military, they are in the job of killing people. About another 30+% work for private firms, they are in the profit game. A handful of scientists are actually doing research for its own sake...for the sake of learning. I dont know, 60% of science is devoted to bomb making,,,,,hmmmm.

  Edited by - Zep on 4 January 2003 5:20:19
• 

  Farkel

  : The question is NOT whether I think he should go, it is whether any nation has the right to unprovoked war.

  What do you suggest, then? We sit down and have a nice cup of tea with him and kindly ask him to "PLEASE resign?"

  He needs to be dealt with in the same way he's dealt with any who oppose him. If the Iraqis had any freedom of speech with impunity, I'd bet the vast majority would applaud his execution and the freedoms to enjoy as we do.

  King George was a Sovereign, too, and we had to kick his government's ass TWICE so we could have the same freedoms the Iraqis must also long to have.

  You cannot negotiate with a terrorist, and Sadaam is a terrorist. If the rest of those or so fanatical ragheads around the world who hate our way of life want to retaliate against us for that, then we'll take care of them also. We'll send them to hell or at least back to the Dark Ages. Wait a minute! They're already IN the Dark Ages!

  Farkel
• 

  cruzanheart

  King George was a Sovereign, too, and we had to kick his government's ass TWICE so we could have the same freedoms the Iraqis must also long to have.

  Well technically the second time we had to kick his son's ass (although I guess since you said "government" that's splitting hairs). By 1812, King George had relapsed into the effects of porphyia (it was referenced in the movie, 'The Madness of King George') and was completely insane. He had been institutionalized and his son, George IV was named Regent. There is an excellent article (it's brief) below if you're interested.

  http://www.victorianstation.com/kinggeorge.htm

  King George III ( known as the king who lost America ) , was born in 1738. King George III's father, the Prince of Wales died when he was young. When George III was 22, in 1760, his grandfather, George II, died. On September 8th, 1761 he married Princess Charlotte Sophia from Mecklenburg-Strelitz, in Germany and on September 22nd, 1761, George III became the King of England. George himself was of partial German ancestry. George and Charlotte had 15 children, one of whom, George IV would be the next king.

  King George III sat upon the throne of England from 1760-1820. It was on his watch that the American colonies were lost. King George III, after the French and Indian War, had large debts to pay, and thought he could extract the necessary money from the colonies. King George was incensed when the insolent American colonists objected to the taxes being levied, particularly the Stamp Act. When the Stamp Act was repealed, King George flew into a rage. King George thought the colonists should be dealt with harshly for their disobedience and insolence. Using his profound influence, he pushed through the Townshend Acts, in 1766, taxing many commodity items including tea resulting in the infamous Boston Tea Party. King George was eventually humbled as the American colonies successfully became the United States Of America. Other colonies began to rebel after America's success and King George remained embroiled in one conflict or another for many years.

  George III inherited more than just the throne. He also had the royal hereditary disease porphyria which had afflicted Mary Queen of Scots. She passed it to her son, King James I of England. Porphyria is caused by the insufficient production of hemoglobin. The symptoms are photosensitivity, strong abdominal pain, port wine colored urine and paralysis in the arms and legs. The interruption of nerve impulses to the brain causes the development of psychiatric symptoms. Finally, epileptic convulsions occur and the patient sinks into a coma. George III's first attack occurred in 1765, four years after his marriage to Queen Charlotte. From 1811 to the time of his death in 1820 he became progressively insane and blind. He spent his time in isolation, and was often kept in straight jackets and behind bars in his private apartments at Windsor Castle.

  King George III died in 1820, at the age of 82, and his son, George IV, succeeded him. Other members of the far-flung royal family who suffered from this hereditary disease were Queen Anne of Great Britain; Frederic the Great of Germany; George IV of Great Britain--son of George III; and George IV's daughter, Princess Charlotte, who died of the disease at childbirth.
• 

  expatbrit

  LOLOL!

  Since when does invading Canada, getting your asses kicked out and your capital city burnt down count as "kicking King George's ass?"

  Expatbrit
• 

  Farkel

  : Since when does invading Canada, getting your asses kicked out and your capital city burnt down count as "kicking King George's ass?"

  I don't recall our entire CapitOl city being burned down. I do recall the White House burning in that War, though.

  With regards to kicking then Colonial Britain's ass: Um, since Britain quit messing with us and our independence and we later became the ONLY Superpower in the entire WORLD? Somewhere between 1812 and now, then. That 1812 war was about about the ONLY thing France did for us that was nice. And they still claim most of the credit for it. Twits. If it wasn't for dear sweet Celia I would hate the French as much as my fellow Americans hate the French who've been subjected to French Hospitality ("you're American and you can't speak our language. Go fornicate yourself, but spend all your money in our lovely and hospitable Country first. Then get the hell out of here. And don't come back.")

  Celia will likely disagree with me, but I never said ALL French people were dickheads. There are always the exceptions that prove the rule. The French (generally speaking) don't take kindly to those not of their own, and they (generally speaking) are rude and arrogant about it. I don't know this from personal experience, except with a few experiences with French people here in the USA. They were mostly, but not all and certainly not Celia arrogant assholes who wrongly criticized my Country and its people.

  They were probably too young and/or too stupid to realize that having to right to freely criticize my Country and its people was because countless Americans DIED to make sure they had the right to talk like that because in WWII and we and our Allies made all those sacrifices to bring freedom to the French in that war so they could freely become assholes and ingrates and bash the very people who saved their sorry asses.

  (Sorry Celia. I'm pretty passionate about this one.)

  Farkel

  Edited by - Farkel on 4 January 2003 23:28:9
• 

  expatbrit

  Farkel:

  Thank you for your spelling lesson. In fact the White House was not the only building that burned, all government buildings in Washington were also fired. The reason for this was that the flag of truce being carried by the British soldiers entering the city was fired upon.

  As for the War of 1812 ensuring American independence, that is I understand how America claims a victory in this conflict. It is based upon a narrow view of the causes of the war, focussing mainly on the searching of US merchant vessels for British traitors by the British Navy, and supposed British aid to "the Indian menace", great exaggerated by Madison and the War Hawks.

  What is usually downplayed by American accounts of the war are the other causes and the reality that the War of 1812 was a small part of the much greater conflict of the Napoleonic Wars.

  Other causes included the damage to American trade caused by the trade embargos of both the British and the French. It should not be forgotten that Napoleon was the greatest dictator of the time, and yet America was perfectly willing to trade with him. Indeed the American government twisted and turned its way through The Embargo and Non-Intercourse Acts in futile and clumsy attempts to preserve its trade.

  Another cause was more simple: the desire of the Hawks to annex more territory; the Southerners wanted Spanish Florida, the Northerners British North America. Hence the attempted invasions, quickly repelled, of future Canadian territory.

  As to who "won" Mr. Madison's war, this is a fairly effective summary:

  In the end we ask who won and who lost the War of 1812. The clear loser in this conflict without any doubt is the Native People of North America. In the summer of 1815, the United States signed fifteen treaties with the tribes, guaranteeing their status as of 1811. But it did not return an acre of land. The dream of the Indian state never came true.

  If any one could claim victory it was Canada. The United States declared war on Great Britain and set out to make Canada states in the union. Ten American armies crossed into Canada and all were driven out.

  There are even court martial charges laid against some of the American Generals after the SecondBattle of La Colle. Madison tried to put a lid on it, and intervened, but too late. The American public quickly becomes disillusioned, and support for the war started to fall away after the burning of Washington. The war should never have been fought. It was motivated by merchants and greed. It had little to do with patriotism, or national pride. The US gained nothing in territory that had not been surrendered to it by the Treaty of Paris.

  By the end of the century, many American children have never heard of the War of 1812. By the 1960's, it is reduced to a folk song. The song is entitled "The Battle of New Orleans" it was written by Jimmy Driftwood. The song was recorded and made famous by Johnny Horton in 1959.

  When America did look back at the War of 1812 they thought first of the interference with their maritime rights which had caused them to fight, then of the successful exploits of their own privateersmen. Since the signing of the peace treaty in Ghent convenienty coincided with the end of England's interference in American affairs, they imagined it as a second successful end of the War of Independence.

  America's new freedom depended not on the Treaty of Ghent, but on the Treaty of Paris. It was not the little war against England that won America the blessing of being left alone but the much larger war in Europe against Napoleon. With Napoleon defeated and Britain supreme at sea the world was to see peace for one hundered years. And during this peace America was safe and grew strong.

  Expatbrit

  Edited by - expatbrit on 4 January 2003 23:59:54

  Edited by - expatbrit on 5 January 2003 0:0:36
• 

  Farkel

  Expatbrit,

  Thanks for that most enlightening history lesson. In my tour of Boston I learned a LOT about how my Country's history was re-written or at least sanitized.

  Politicians and historians have no problem with white-washing the facts. As a dumb dub kid, I was only spoon fed what my schools wanted me to hear. I've read and learned a lot since then, but absent research on a particular issue (like the War of 1812) and without researching further, I only have what they fed me in school and accepted as truth.

  Again, I thank you for that lesson!

  Farkel
• 

  expatbrit

  Farkel:

  LOLOL! Are we trying to out-polite each other?

  Thank you for your most excellent thanks in response to my thanks!

  Oh, and it seems that your tour of Boston was a lot like my tours of London. Damn the PC liberals.

  Expatbrit
• 

  peacefulpete

  Farkel...In New York few years ago the police arrested a man suspected of gang related murder and who had a record of violence. The officers searched the man and found no weapons, he was then handcuffed and locked in the squad car. One of the officers was alone with this man and decided to execute him there in the car. What would you have done if you were on the jury in the officers murder trial? How is this case different then the present situation?
• 

  funkyderek

  IslandWoman,

  All warmongers must go, ours and theirs.

  How do you propose getting rid of them?