I find it funny

The fact that my thread was deleted. I thought this was a free speech forum. Maybe i was wrong, seeing that there are so many freedom hating communists here.

So let me start again, with no venom included.

How is the war in iraq and the war on terror unjustified and wrong?
Give me a solid reason(s) why this war is not worth fighting for, and why cheney, bush, and rumsfeld deserve to be treated as criminals.

 

It was neither approved and supported by the United Nations, nor was it a priority for NATO nations. It was pure self-interest on the part of an American-lead initiative that included the United Kingdom, Australia and a few dozen other standing armies.

 

the un is a joke

 

If it is, it's not a very funny one.

 

The US goes to war to fulfill UN resolutions. These are undeclared wars, and that's why all undeclared wars have turned out pretty much the same way. Just look at Vietnam. So the fact that the US is fighting an undeclared war in Iraq is itself unconstitutional, and thus, illegal.

 

The IRAN war was a voluntary war. The US was not attacked. Iraq did not instigate 9/11. Saying "Hurrah!" after 9-11 is not attacking the US.

Invading a country and replacing its government is not allowed under international law, no matter how the citizens of that country may be suffering.

Compare this war with Gulf War I.
In Gulf War I, the US was responding to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait.
In this war, Iraq was not invading any country.

The best intelligence at the time showed that Iraq did not have the capability to harm us. The Bush administration used its political appointees in to override and edit the reports of our intelligence agencies experienced operatives. Aggression in the name of self-defense is allowable only if the threat is real. It was not. Force used for self-defense must be reasonable. "He looked at me and growled" does not justify knifing someone.

I'm not addressing if or why Bush/Cheny should be tried, because the first thing we should do is get out. Whether they were motivated by a desire to increase the US's power and influance or whether they were motivated by their (and their friends) personal ambition, the war was contrary to international law. Events have shown that the war has harmed the US, both in prestige and by bankrupting the treasury.

I've tried to present the case without addressing the personalities of Bush and Cheny. Too many discussions of the war end up in speculation about the morality of the present adminstration. Regardless of their motivations, regardless of the wisdom of the conservative approach to forgein policy, this was an ill-concieved war, contrary to international laws that the US was instrumental in setting up. As more evidence becomes available, it is clear that the US, lead by its president, ignored the facts, fabricated lies and started a war of aggression against Iraq.

If asked why they would do this, I would ask "Who put our oil under their sand?" One doesn't need to believe that Bush acted to give the control of that oil to the oil companies (i.e. not for the benefit of the general citizenry of this country). Even if the motivation was the benefit of the US as a whole rather than his oil buisness buddies, its clear that the war was to gain control of Iraq's largest natural resource. (Again, a violation of international laws that the US agreed to.)

 

lol

 

Yesterday, the OP posted a very aggressive form of the same question. When I read it, I decided not to feed the troll. It sounds like he was chastised for the aggressive tone of that post and has reposted the question in a more neutral tone.

He's not a troll, he wants an answer. I'll try to show him why this war is wrong for the country.

Disregarding those who oppose you, belittling someone for their beliefs (even wrong beliefs) is an attitude of separation and superiority. (Bush Co. uses that tactic frequently.)

If people are to get along with each other in a non-violent way, people can't be dismissed because they disagree with you. Explaining one's self to the opposition is a step towards comradeship or at least respect. Listening to them is another. (Listening to understand, not listening to reload.) I give the OP the respect that I want to receive from those who disagree with me.

 

The reality is that the US -- in particular then US ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie -- told Saddam that it was all right for him to invade Kuwait (which was unjustly carved out of Iraq by the British in the first place).

 

He called me a slutty cumguzzler and said I had no opinion because I was a woman yesterday and he told me to make food. He's a troll who demands answers, in my opinion.

 

His polite re-posting is evidence that he is something other than a troll. Exactly what, we will see.

I'm sorry he insulted you. I hope he PMed an apology.
(Or I could be a starry eyed optimist. Its always been my goal to have hippies regard me as excessively idealistic.)

 

*hugs you*

S'okay. I have no animosity towards the OP, regardless.

 

the war in Afganistan IS the war on terror, bush created the debacle in Iraq which was not and is not part of the overall war on terror. Correcting this, bush illegal invasion of a sovergn nation, which removed it's leader by force or by assassination (the US's policy was to NEVER assassinate a foreign leader).

Iraq, under Saddam had electric 24 hours a day, now it is, at best, 8. Today most water in Baghdad's water distribuion sysem is not fit to drink, it was under Saddam. How many IED's occured under Saddam ?

do we or should we (USA) stay in Iraq ? I guess we should to fix the screw up from our illegal invasion. Either way it goes, we are screwed. we shouldn't stay and we shouldn't leave

if the actions of the US were another country, the american administration would be demanding pull out and those leaders held accountable. bush has thumbed his nose at not only our constitution, but also international law and therefor should be held accountable

 

It is too bad more people do not have your attitude. There are some here whos first reaction is to flame. I think we all know who those people are and I think we all know how quickly that can infect a thead. I agree that respect should be given to all, as long as that respect is deserved. I happened to read the OP's original thread last night and question his motive. He said some very vulgar and disrespectful comments toward Arisartle. While he may be asking a sincere question, his uncalled for flaming makes him no better than the people who flame in response to "unpopular" beliefs. One cannot expect us all to agree all the time, but it would be nice if we could at least agree to disagree most of the time. It is hard to not respect somebody when they respond the way you have.

 

I agree. Finishing Afghanistan should have been priority #1.

 

You sir have my respect. My vulgar and disrespectful responses torwards Aristartle, Pressed Rat, and the others was uncalled for, and i do apologize. But i was not going to take that flamming, even if that sets me low. Ive been a joke to people long enough, and have grown tired of it.

Now, believe it, or not, but my original aggressive tone to my original post was intentional. I wanted to start a fire, so yes, that was like the action of a troll. But i also wanted to get a heated conversation to see why you guys think this war is not justified.

 

Thank you.

Back on topic, I'm a pacifist so I don't agree with the war in Afghanistan, but I recognize that the pacifists lost the last election (and all the preceeding ones). If the country is going to have a military, it should use it for legitimate purposes, not conquest for resources. There is a difference between Afghanistan and Iraq.

 

It seems that we are caught in a quagmire with Iraq. As mentioned earlier.

Surely we cannot just leave and pull out of Iraq quickly, even though that would be nice. However, i do think that the people themselves should reform their own government, doing otherwise would only generate animosity torwards the US occupation.

Using force to combat terrorists only strengthens their cause and increases recruits regardless of how many you kill. Imagine being a Iraqi, you have two major influences, on one side, you have a band of local extremists who stike fear into your neighborhood, promising benefits for your people. On the other, you have a military of some western country far beyond your known territory, who also promises change, and benefits for your country. However, the foreign army has used force that kills and mames your neighbors and/or family, decemated the quality of life you once had before, even under a horrible dictator, and a lingering state of terror. Who do you think they would join? The local extremists, or a foreign military that ends up causing just as much, if more terror than the extremists?

 

Staggered withdrawal is probably best. Allowing UN troops to take over gradually.

 

That famous mass-murderer named Dick Cheney (Sunday, March 16, 2003, appearing live on NBC) said that Iraq already had nukes and planned to use them against the US by flying them over on model airplanes. As a result, literally hundreds of thousands of people have died.

He should be made to pay with his life for that, after a "fair trial" of course.