Debate Do you think Bush was right to invade Iraq?

The prime objective was never to capture Saddam. It was to break his power structure and institute a new government in Iraq. I'm pretty sure they've accomplished the first, and the second will probably take a few years. Saddam's capture/death WAS a high priority, of course, but never the primary objective.

And Saddam doesn't have the kind of influece Bin Laden had, most of Saddam's works have been destroyed, while Bin Laden has a fully functional terrorist organization. Big difference.

- Ark

 

the US have lied before

take vietnam for example, USA lied about being fired on so they could get involved

Saddam still has the Republican Guard at his defence as from what ive heard coalition never encountered any in battle

 

actually first it was about WMD, it WAS NOT about regime change. .the nice friendly united states didn't want to come in guns blazing and overthrow the goverment, that would be BAD!.. but then they realised "hang on.. we can't find any wmd.. cos we made up all our proof", so suddenly it became a HUMANITARIAN mission, to save the nice and friendly people of iraq from the evil evil dictator (oooh, what a nasty word) Saddam (who, the us put in power.. and left the iraqi's too last time they (the us) told them to revolt..). now saddam as you know gassed a load of people and killed them all, now we knew about this at the time.. but we didn't press the issue because saddam was our friend back then! and we don't tattle tale on our friends!

then all of a sudden, it changed from a humaniatrian mission.. to (and here's the two magic words everyone loves) REGIME CHANGE..

that's right folks, 3 reasons for this war fed to the american public, each one more ridiculous than the last and they were lapped up over and over again by an uncaring and uninformed public.

and the amount of american citizens who believe that saddam was somehow behind the attacks on the towers... good christ

 

He still has his personal army (The Fetayeen, sorry about the spelling), but the republican guard was reported to have been encountered right before the encirclement of Al Bagdad. A division of the AH-64 gunships (as the story goes) was dispatched to take them on. They completed their mission, but almost every one of the gunships got horribly chewed up and had to be replaced. The only the Republican guard unit that escaped the first gulf war, the Hammurabi (again, sorry about the spelling), had the guts, training, experience and equipment to do sure a thing. I doubt that a guerrilla force would be able to damage all of the gunships (a few maybe, but all of them). I forget were my source is for this, so for the moment I have to say it is unsupported.

Can I ask were you heard this? Not even the illiterate bums who hang out infront of Jack in the Box think that Saddam was behind the attacks.

 

read it in a few newspapers here, survey results taken in new york and all over the country.

and I've heard it from a few americans themselves, here and elsewhere.

 

First, I don't know of any Americans who think Saddam was behind 9/11. He was a suspect when it happened, of course, but never more than that. Although I'm sure that people that dumb are out there, they're far from a majority, or even a respectable minority.

Second, the WMD's were the REASON for the Regime Change. They were not the main objective either. The main objective has always been to get Saddam Hussein out of power, insert reasons here.

Third, just because the US helped put Saddam in power doesn't mean that that was right. As you may or may not know, the US changes leadership every 4 years, leading to a variety of political views throughout it's history, many of which conflict. Some of the administrations have been pretty awful, some good, most just incompetent, as with all leaders.

- Ark

 

So you might say that one of the jobs of an american president is to clean up the mess of one of the previous ones.
On top of Mordeth's mention of people thinking that Saddam was link to the september 11th attack, aparently a disturbingly large percentage of americans think that WMDs have been found in Iraq.

But the thing is all these percentages are all just polls and their credibility is highly dubious(man I love saying that). But there is some truth in them I guess.

Personally I think regime change, WMDs all that crap seem pretty weak. Iraq was a crumbling power in the middle east, it has the potential for incredible wealth and the US government was looking for a long term investment in the middle east. It's obvious that they want to set up shop.

 

------------------------
OPINION ON US CENSORSHIP VS THE MEDIA

Say a lie enough times, and everyone will sooner or later take it as a fact.

I'm not just p!$$3d off because of the military actions in the US. What really drives me mad is the incredibly huge amount of censorship.

Living outside the CNN - er.. the US ... ive had the oportunity to watch decent news about the war in there.

There was this nice cartoon. There's a soldier asking a poor Iraqi woman. "Where are the massive destruction weapons?" he asks. The woman answers: "They fell under my house".

Anyway, a mexican news show about the war in Iraq was taken off from the air because it showed real war images and not just "we beat the bad guys" pro-nationalist clips.

About the big march against war, and other ppl protesting worldwide... what can i say? Oh yes, let's not forget the news reporters being killed "by accident" by an american tank.

Freedom of speech, heh?

---------------
OPINION ON INTERVENTION

The UN was created so that countries wouldn't attack other countries arbitrarily . To support the famous principle of non-intervention. The problem is when a country starts coercing others to give a favorable vote. Its not fair that the US, being so powerful both militarily and commercially, plays around with the UN as if it was just a dog.

This is about gobernability. If a country openly disobeys (with loopholes or not) what the UN states, its simply throwing overboard years of work for peace. Its going back to the jungle law: The strongest rules over the weakest.

If americans want to stop this, they have simply to choose right people to represent them in the senate, and NOT vote for people like Bush. I would rant here about the bipartite system...argh too many things in my head...*sigh* i better stop.

 

Did they show the US POWs in Iraq all tied up, stabbed, beaten and bloodied before being executed?

As gruesome and horrific as the operation is going, the public must remember that this is a war. It is a terrible thing and a lot of people are going to get hurt at the least. I hate to bring back the 9/11 attack, especially because some might think that it is irrelivant to whats going on right now, but the effect it had on everyone, everywhere is almost palpable. Thats what started Bush off, he's serious about terrorism and about doing something about it. He has reasons too, heck, all of NY has a reason. From my college I can see the airliners take off from LAX and fly over the campus. If you ever see one flying a few hundred feet off the ground, just imagine four of those monsterous, almost scary things doing what they did. You might be thinking that "this is all corny, why should I" and whatnot. But just imagine it, the sound at the very least. Goddamn, the morning that changed the world, I don't think anyone would dispute that.

 

9/11 was an awful tragedy. However, it doesn't relate to the war upon Iraq in any way at all. This one was coming since Bush got elected, and the 9/11 incident was just fuel for the fire. Yes, the media often does not portray the more awful images of war, from BOTH sides. Media corporations tend to be very quick to want the story, but the horrible images are usually better left unseen by most. If they say that 10 people got blown up, do most people really want to see the gore and splatter? No. It's in poor taste, and some would say disrespectful to those that died.

- Ark

 

The american media was the only one that didn't show the scene I mentioned, it was shown in many other countries tho. But i'd say your right, not many people want to see all the gore and mayhem that comes from this kind of stuff. Maybe the curious would, but if your like me, once is enough to burn an image in your mind.
I'm outta this thread, Laterz everyone. Happy debating.

 

http://workingforchange.speedera.net/www.workingforchange.com/webgraphics/wfc/TMW030630.gif

kinda fitting

 

Heheh, good one Mordeth.

Yeah the US did seem to go to extraordinary lengths to censor the media that wasn't on their side.
Like the aformentioned tank attack on a hotel that was full of reporters from around the world. None of them where "embeded" in US units, which was the only way they wanted reporters to see the war apparently.
Then of course there is the whole Al Jazeera thing. Despite telling the US forces exactly where their Iraqi HQ was over and over they still bombed it. Just like they did to it's HQ in Afganistan(an accident also).
Now I know in war there is colatoral damage, but that sounds too far fetched.

Showing the gore and splatter is maybe the only way to make it have an impact. We hear all the time about people being shot and blown up. But un accompanied by pictures they're just names and numbers. The pictures are supposed to affect you.
If you were right there when it happened would you be saying "ewww like why did they do that, that's so gross"
It just their way of showing you that everything isn't as peachy as you'd like it to be.

But really it's just that dead bodies make news.

 

I never believed the stories about Iraq harbouring weapons of mass destruction. It made me so angry to hear that propaganda over and over in the media. I bet my friends that none would be found, and I was right. Even if they did have WMD, so does the USA!!!

Anyway, on to the real reason for invading Iraq: We failed in Afghanistan and wanted to save face. One can't exactly say that in the media though, eh?

That doesn't mean that no good came out of the situation. Many Iraqi people seems genuinely glad that Saddam is no longer in power. But at what cost? Also, now that he has been deposed, there is no need for so-called "peace keeping efforts."
Once a country overthrows a government and keeps hanging about, it's called OCCUPATION.

 

I'm not going to disect all the points of VM1070's post. It's his opinion and he's entitled to it.
Maybe it wasn't your intention but the way you put it, it sounds like America invented free will and democracy.

And shutting out or the manipulation of the press is a repression of freedom.
It's rediculous to claim acts like this are defending freedom. It's like telling the people that matters like this don't concern you, now be a good population and be quiet.
You need the truth and all the facts to form an un biased opinion. But they don't want un biased opinions from the people, they wan't them to support the government 100%
In my opinion the manipulation and control of the press has been one of the worst and most sinister events of this war.

Don't beleive everything the government or the so called press tell you.
And whatever people say, Patriotism has killed more people than any WMD ever has.

 

You are right, I am not claiming that the US invented free will or democracy. But this country does its best to practice it and give its people the rights and freedoms to choose their own paths in life.

Everyone is quick to bash the President when he has to get the country involved in something to this big an effect. But 9 out of 10 times, those same people jump on him if he doesn't respond to such actions.

Maybe we should try to put ourselves in his shoes for a day. See if we have what it takes to order young men and women into battle against tyrants of the world. Can any of us honestly say that we wouold be able to do a better job???

You are also right in that this is just my opinion. As is everyone elses here in this forum. And that is also a testoment (sp) of what our freedom allows us to do and say.

Vic

 

Full Rebuttal

Ok, now I'm gonna have to rebate VM1070's arguments one by one.

That's NOT what i'm talking about. talking about US officers killing reporters ON PURPOSE. _AND_ making it look like it was an accident.

With censorship i'm not talking about removing gory scenes from media to make them g-rated. (c'mon, kids see even more gore in videogames). I'm talking about censorship as a way to shut up the opposition, and presenting only the government's exclusive (and not necessarily true) point of view.

===
Example 1: I remember reading in a non-us newspaper about soldiers being told to kill everyone, both military and civilians. If they were civilians, well, "it was their fault being there." How many of the american people have read this story?

Example 2: The US boasts on having intelligent weapons designed to hurt the least ppl possible, but they don't tell the citizens that "ïntelligent weapons" are a minority of the arsenal used in the war.

===

The soldiers kill civilians because they're ordered to, they can't help it. But if the government does this hiding of true facts from the american citizens (facts that would make them lose their favor), then that is INEXCUSABLE.

If the media make the soldiers look like the bad guys, then present your own arguments, but you do NOT shut them up because they present a negative point of view. Let the people decide. If the don't agree with you, EVEN IF YOU'RE RIGHT, you have to dimit. This excuse you're presenting is exactly the same excuse that Fidel Castro uses to maintain its dictatorship. What makes the US govt different from him? Sure, the americans can choose their president, but that doesn't give Bush the right to shut up his own people as if he was another Fidel.

THE END DOES NOT JUSTIFY THE MEANS. What I'm saying is that there is a secret agenda (i.e. OIL) that the govt has to fulfill, and they censor opposite views and bombard the us people with propaganda (and movies) to keep the citizens happy (i.e. we bashed down the big bad wolf, we rescued the iraqi ppl, we are the saviors of the universe etc etc etc etc).

This politically biased (not just cut out gory parts) censorship is what I'm talking about.

About WMD: Its a common tactic used in corrupt police like here in mexico, to plant evidence. i.e. capture a suspicious guy, putting a bag of cocaine in his pockets and tell the higher commands that the capture was justified because he had drugs in posession. And this is kinda the same thing that i see in Iraq.

They plant false evidence of WMD (we now know they were fake), and later justify the invasion just because they found banned items in Iraq. How do we know they weren't planted too? How can we trust the military on their statements about evidence if they keep threatening (with áccidental deaths') the reporters and censoring them, and not allowing us to see the other side of the coin?

Just because one believes he has the truth, does not justify shutting up people you believe acts against 'the truth'.

This is the problem of one country being judge, jury and executioner. Also it's no use following a set of rules if it was them who created those very same rules:

The US did not let the UN give enough time to Iraq to disarm its weapons, they practically broke every rule in intl. politics, bypassing the UN just because they 'felt like it'.

So now we're supposed to just sit in there and support the gvt decisions just because the soldiers were heroic? This is also propaganda. The heroism of the US soldiers does not make their head (George W Bush) a hero. Many Iraqi soldiers were heroes, too, and they gave their lives, even literally (kamikaze attacks), to fight against their enemy. Does that make Saddam a hero? OF COURSE NOT. And the same principle has to be applied to the US military and the US government.

It's not the US soldiers whom i'm judging, it's the brain above all the military operations: Bush, Collin Powell - did i spell it right? - and their subordinates.

CONCLUSION:

I think its just plain hipocricy to censor the media and at the same time promoting an image of the US as a free and democratic country. True democracy cannot exist without true access to information, and certainly less with deception, censorship and propaganda.

By acting against this freedom of access to information, the US govt, with its actions, is destroying the very same democracy it is claiming to protect.

 

Re: Full Rebuttal

Again, this is just my opinion--I am not speaking for the entire country, just a small group of tired soldiers who seem to take the heat for all this mess.

Vic

 

I support Bush all the way.Saddam is an evil scheming bastard.He kills his own people because he doesn't give a damn about anyone but himself.Sure,Bush is a bumbling idiot,but what he did would have had to be done sooner or later.I hate to use such an inappropriate saying for such a serious matter,but to make an omlet you gotta break a few eggs.War is not to be taken lightly.If we want the big picture(peace in Iraq),bad things may happen.Human casualties are to be expected in war.These people that are being killed by accident in this war would probably be killed by Saddam anyways.It better that we stop this ****head now,instead of letting him kill more innocent people.And war is safer for civilians now than it has ever been.Now we have missles that can be guided by satellites,and can choose which floor of a building to detonate in.I don't see why people are making a fuss about this war in particular.It's always been this way.