War on Iraq

This section is specifically for serious non-footbag debate and discussion.
Post Reply

Should the US go to war with Iraq

Absolutly, the lives of civillian Iraqs are less important than cheap petrol
Yes, Saddam is evil and the US has the self imposed duty to remove him
Yes, Saddam is evil and the US has the self imposed duty to remove him
Yes, but only with Security Council support
No, war is evil
Total votes: 58

Hack Fiend
Posts: 26
Joined: 09 Feb 2003 15:37

Post by nei-tan » 22 Feb 2003 19:48

War is NEVER the answer.
War is NOT justified.
Anyone who thinks differently has alot to learn.

Posts: 606
Joined: 22 Nov 2002 18:57

Post by wicked » 22 Feb 2003 21:47

LinoSphere wrote:Dear Eric Windsor, once again you have proven yourself as lacking intelligence, political insight and humanity. I have a strong feeling of dislike towards you now.
Linosphere, if you would have stopped for a second to think you may have realized i was joking for the most part.. What the hell?? Even if i was serious, cant someone express their opinion without being personally attacked on this?? I dont even know you!...
I dont like alot of views that people have on this forum, but i dont hold a grudge over it, or get personal..
Last edited by wicked on 26 Apr 2003 21:06, edited 4 times in total.

Posts: 606
Joined: 22 Nov 2002 18:57

Post by wicked » 22 Feb 2003 22:14

Its a very sad day when political and social views get in the way of footbaggers being friends and strong as a community. :( ......i think this thread should end. Whats next? religion, abortion? North Korea? WHO CARES???? JUST SHRED.

P.S. To Forum, and Linoshpere especially... Im sorry if i offended you. I dont think the U.S. should turn the middle east into an amusement park. Sorry I made light of the fact that the US nuked japan and they are now our ali. For what its worth, I appologize. Hope to still kick someday.

User avatar
100-Watt Warlock
Posts: 5092
Joined: 22 Apr 2002 14:24
Location: fractal tyedye nebulae

Post by QuantumBalance » 22 Feb 2003 23:50

hahah! eric and I had a lot of disagreements when we were roomies but we always got through them thats why eric is so cool, cause even when hes an asshole he discusses it hahahaha eat it wickeeeed

User avatar
"Really unneccesary"
Posts: 10178
Joined: 08 Jan 2003 00:20
Location: Tasmania

Post by Jeremy » 23 Feb 2003 14:38

Don't end the forum! When people get bored of it they'll stop posting. It's very hard to change someone's opinion on internet forums anyway so you just keep a light heart on everything (but still give the issues the time and thought they deserve). I think everybody here would agree that everyone has the right to their own opinions and a bit of respect would be good!

Last week I went to a peace rally in Melbourne that had over 150,000 people at it. John hoWARd wouldn't care though...

User avatar
Posts: 718
Joined: 23 Jan 2003 21:43
Location: *like a jamacian* Right near the beach!

Post by Hacky_Slacker » 23 Feb 2003 15:13

war is bad, mmmmkay?
Superprofundo on the early eve of your day!
...*sniff* ". . . I miss my cupcake!"

Dustin Camper

User avatar
Multidex Master
Posts: 205
Joined: 21 Apr 2002 20:12

IQ Test

Post by dizzy » 25 Feb 2003 19:07

Another friend sent this to me. It's by DANIEL QUINN, the author of ISHAMAEL

Take the War on Iraq IQ Test

Do you know enough to justify going to war with Iraq?

1. Q: What percentage of the world's population does the U.S. have?

A: 6%

2. Q: What percentage of the world's wealth does the U.S. have?

A: 50%

3. Q: Which country has the largest oil reserves?

A: Saudi Arabia

4. Q: Which country has the second largest oil reserves?

A: Iraq

5. Q: How much is spent on military budgets a year worldwide?

A: $900+ billion

6. Q: How much of this is spent by the U.S.?

A: 50%

7. Q: What percent of US military spending would ensure the essentials of
life to everyone in the
world, according the UN?

A: 10% (that's about$40 billion, the amount of funding initially requested
to fund our retaliatory attack
on Afghanistan).

8. Q: How many people have died in wars since World War II?

A: 86 million

9. Q: How long has Iraq had chemical and biological weapons?

A: Since the early 1980's.

10. Q: Did Iraq develop these chemical & biological weapons on their own?

A: No, the materials and technology were supplied by the US government,
along with Britain and
private corporations.

11. Q: Did the US government condemn the Iraqi use of gas warfare against

A: No

12. Q: How many people did Saddam Hussein kill using gas in the Kurdish town
of Halabja in 1988?

A: 5,000

13. Q: How many western countries condemned this action at the time?


14. Q: How many gallons of agent Orange did America use in Vietnam?

A: 17million.

15. Q: Are there any proven links between Iraq and September 11th terrorist

A: No

16. Q: What is the estimated number of civilian casualties in the Gulf War?

A: 35,000

17. Q: How many casualties did the Iraqi military inflict on the western
forces during the Gulf War ?

A: 0

18. Q: How many retreating Iraqi soldiers were buried alive by U.S. tanks
with ploughs mounted on the

A: 6,000

19. Q: How many tons of depleted uranium were left in Iraq and Kuwait after
the Gulf War?

A: 40 tons

20. Q: What according to the UN was the increase in cancer rates in Iraq
between 1991 and 1994?

A: 700%

21. Q: How much of Iraq's military capacity did America claim it had
destroyed in 1991? A: 80%

22. Q: Is there any proof that Iraq plans to use its weapons for anything
other than deterrence and self

A: No

23. Q: Does Iraq present more of a threat to world peace now than 10 years

A: No

24. Q: How many civilian deaths has the Pentagon predicted in the event of
an attack on Iraq in

A: 10,000

25. Q: What percentage of these will be children?

A:Over 50%

26. Q: How many years has the U.S. engaged in air strikes on Iraq?

A: 11years

27. Q: Was the U.S and the UK at war with Iraq between December 1998 and
September 1999?

A: No

28. Q: How many pounds of explosives were dropped on Iraq between December
1998 and September

A: 20 million

29. Q: How many years ago was UN Resolution 661 introduced, imposing strict
sanctions on Iraq's
imports and exports?

A: 12 years

30. Q: What was the child death rate in Iraq in 1989 (per 1,000 births)?

A: 38

31. Q: What was the estimated child death rate in Iraq in 1999 (per 1,000

A: 131 (that's an increase of345%)

32. Q: How many Iraqis are estimated to have died by October 1999 as a
result of UN sanctions?

A: 1.5 million

33. Q: How many Iraqi children are estimated to have died due to sanctions
since 1997?

A: 750,000

34. Q: Did Saddam order the inspectors out of Iraq?


35. Q: How many inspections were there in November and December 1998?


36. Q: How many of these inspections had problems?


37. Q: Were the weapons inspectors allowed entry to the Ba'ath Party HQ?

A: Yes

38. Q: Who said that by December 1998, "Iraq had in fact, been disarmed to a
level unprecedented in
modern history."

A: Scott Ritter, UNSCOM chief.

39. Q: In 1998 how much of Iraq's post 1991 capacity to develop weapons of
mass destruction did the
UN weapons inspectors claim to have discovered and dismantled?

A: 90%

40. Q: Is Iraq willing to allow the weapons inspectors back in ?


41. Q: How many UN resolutions did Israel violate by 1992?

A: Over 65

42. Q: How many UN resolutions on Israel did America veto between 1972 and

A: 30+

44. Q: How many countries are known to have nuclear weapons?

A: 8

45. Q:How many nuclear warheads has Iraq got?

A: 0

46. Q: How many nuclear warheads has US got?

A: over 10,000

47. Q: Which is the only country to use nuclear weapons?

A: the US

48. Q: How many nuclear warheads does Israel have?

A: Over 400

50. Q: Who said, "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about
things that matter"? A: Dr.
Martin Luther King, Jr

Charles Sheketoff, Executive Director Oregon Center for Public Policy PO Box
7, Silverton, OR 97381

From http://StandDown.net:

The United States Government will spend more on the military in fiscal year
2003, than all the rest of
the countries on Earth combined. Current expenditures are 437 billion and
our past obligations are 339
billion, this equals 776 billion. 46% of our Taxes go to the Military
Industrial Complex:
http://www.warresisters.org/piechart.htm This figure doesn’t even begin to
account for all of the
off-budget, black projects, homeland security nor the 40+ billion the United
States Government will
spend on intelligence in 2003.

User avatar
Multidex Master
Posts: 205
Joined: 21 Apr 2002 20:12

Post by dizzy » 25 Feb 2003 19:48

I'd like to know why they are over 1200 views on this thread an only 34 votes. Sure lots of them are repeat visitors or whatever... but 34 votes?

User avatar
BSOS Beast
Posts: 488
Joined: 24 May 2002 07:44
Location: Humboldt County, CA

Post by Juan » 25 Feb 2003 20:31

I strongly disagree with wicked and others on their stances bout the war on iraq. but i strongly agree with Eric that we shouldnt let opinions come between friendship. C'mon Linosphere, we jus gotta convince Eric with the Truth. Thanks to Allan for spittin all that fact, I hope for the sake of all us that it changes minds. For if we continue to live by our current ideologies that satisfy unnecessary and immediate interests (killing for nonrenewable petro; overconsuming energy and natural resources for excessive luxury), there will be no future for humanity. You need to consider the long term effects of destruction as well. Violence will not yield peace for too long.
It's set up like a deck of cards,
theyre sendin us to early graves
for the diamonds
they use a pair of clubs to beat the spades(ratm)
Cloud9-Juan Rangel

User avatar
Multidex Master
Posts: 205
Joined: 21 Apr 2002 20:12

Post by dizzy » 09 Mar 2003 18:37

User avatar
Rekordy Polski
Posts: 11366
Joined: 23 Jan 2003 23:51
Location: Denver

Post by C-Fan » 09 Mar 2003 18:51

What other country could drop a nuclear bomb on another, and now that same country is in LOVE with westernized culture. quote]

Hey shreddies.
Interesting thread, I will add my thoughts later. For the moment though, as this forums resident (pun intended) Japanese expert, let me clarify a couple things.

Japan averages a little under 40 gun deaths a year. The murder rate is also really low, but not all gun deaths are murders, and not all murders involve guns. Something to think about when reading stats.

Second: Yes, Japan is awfully fond of western culture. It produces westernIZED culture, and I suppose its a fan of that too. But anybody who thinks the Japanese are totally cool with the US nuclear bombings is on crack. I realize Wicked`s post was semi-joking throughout, but I feel that many Americans mistakenly think Japanese people worship them, which is very far from the truth. Theres a reason why every country in the world with US army bases wants to get rid of the bases. Many Japanese perceive Americans as being loud, obnoxious, and full of themselves. The current US administrations approach to North Korea and Iraq has solidified this opinion.

Third: Japanese footbaggers rule. Super friendly, funny, generous, and there are even a bunch of cute japanese girl footbaggers.

User avatar
Post Master General
Posts: 2826
Joined: 21 Apr 2002 14:07
Location: Iowa city

Post by Matt » 09 Mar 2003 21:05

we are going to war for these people who are against the war. We are fighting to protect your freedom of speech, etc.

No fighting = a nice little dictatorship over here. Will that be more pleasing on an anti-war stance?
Like every man of sense and good feeling, I abominate work
-Aldous Huxley

User avatar
Egyptian Footgod
Posts: 1013
Joined: 23 Apr 2002 16:39
Location: Regina, SK, Canada

Post by Brian » 15 Mar 2003 21:37

Last edited by Brian on 18 Dec 2004 19:59, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Multidex Master
Posts: 205
Joined: 21 Apr 2002 20:12

Post by dizzy » 29 Mar 2003 12:12

Axis of Evil Wannabes, by John Cleese


Bitter after being snubbed for membership in the "Axis of Evil", Libya, China, and Syria today announced they had formed the "Axis of Just as Evil," which they said would be more evil than that stupid
Iran-Iraq-North Korea axis President Bush warned of in his State of the Union address.

Axis of Evil members, however, immediately dismissed the new axis as having, for starters, a really dumb name. "Right. They are Just as
Evil...in their dreams!" declared North Korean leader Kim Jong-il. "Everybody knows we're the best evils... best at being evil...we're the best."

Diplomats from Syria denied they were jealous over being excluded, although they conceded they did ask if they could join the Axis of Evil. "They told us it was full," said Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. "An Axis can't have more than three countries," explained Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. "This is not my rule, it's tradition. In World War II you had Germany, Italy, and Japan in the evil Axis. So, you can only have three, and a secret handshake.. Ours is wickedly cool."

International reaction to Bush's Axis of Evil declaration was swift, as within minutes, France surrendered. Elsewhere, peer-conscious nations rushed to gain triumvirate status in what became a game of geopolitical chairs.

Cuba, Sudan, and Serbia said they had formed the "Axis of Somewhat Evil," forcing Somalia to join with Uganda and Myanmar in the "Axis of Occasionally Evil," while Bulgaria, Indonesia and Russia established the "Axis of Not So Much Evil Really As Just Generally is agreeable."

With the criteria suddenly expanded and all the desirable clubs filling up...Sierra Leone, El Salvador, and Rwanda applied to be called the "Axis of Countries That Aren't the Worst But Certainly Won't Be Asked to Host the Olympics."

Canada, Mexico, and Australia formed the "Axis of Nations That Are Actually Quite Nice But Secretly Have Some Nasty Thoughts About America," while Scotland, New Zealand and Spain established the "Axis of Countries That Be Allowed to Ask Sheep to Wear Lipstick.". "That's not a threat, really, just something we like to do," said Scottish Executive First Minister Jack McConnell.

While wondering if the other nations of the world weren't perhaps
making fun of him, a cautious Bush granted approval for most axis, although he rejected the establishment of the Axis of Countries Whose Names End in "Guay," accusing one of its members of filing a false application. Officials from Paraguay, Uruguay, and Chadguay denied the charges.

User avatar
Posts: 538
Joined: 05 May 2002 10:55
Location: Austin TX

Post by madshred2003 » 29 Mar 2003 18:10

haha! that's awesome. your post with the question and answers on them is really good. i printed it out and i plan to show it to pro-war people.

war spelled backwards is "raw" which is uncomfortable if your skin becomes raw. no one likes raw skin just as no one likes war. thus, war is an uncomfort, and should be avoided.
i scream you scream we all scream for... footbag?

-Charles Ford. holdin it down in the ATX

User avatar
Post Master General
Posts: 2826
Joined: 21 Apr 2002 14:07
Location: Iowa city

Post by Matt » 29 Mar 2003 21:46

or raw as in raw power
Like every man of sense and good feeling, I abominate work
-Aldous Huxley

User avatar
"Really unneccesary"
Posts: 10178
Joined: 08 Jan 2003 00:20
Location: Tasmania

Post by Jeremy » 05 Apr 2003 03:34

Matt wrote:we are going to war for these people who are against the war. We are fighting to protect your freedom of speech, etc.

No fighting = a nice little dictatorship over here. Will that be more pleasing on an anti-war stance?
You'll have to enlighten the rest of us on how war in Iraq will help protect our free speech. It has certainly made it clear that at least in the UK and Australia, our current form of democracy is lacking. Despite majority support against the war, it goes ahead. I have spoken to two iraqi refugees who both (despite fleeing because of Saddam's regime) are completely against the war. I would not be suprised if the majority of Iraqi civillians are also against it (since 100% of the ones I've spoken to are, and I'm sure nobody likes to have their home and country bombed). Yet [sarcasm] good old america for deciding that the people don't know what's best for them and making the decisions for them[/sarcasm]

Why do you have the attitude that there are only two options: war or doing nothing. neither is acceptable! It is a tough situation but just remember which country helped Saddam to power, obviously in an effort to preserve our free speech.

User avatar
"Really unneccesary"
Posts: 10178
Joined: 08 Jan 2003 00:20
Location: Tasmania

Post by Jeremy » 26 Oct 2004 19:43


This topic is such a good read. It's so cool to go back to this topic and feel like my opinions were justified!

User avatar
"Really unneccesary"
Posts: 10178
Joined: 08 Jan 2003 00:20
Location: Tasmania

Post by Jeremy » 28 Jul 2010 01:56

Triple post over 7 years. I presume that's some kind of record.

I'm bumping this because it's interesting reading and my opinion has changed a lot. Reading through the topic, in a sense I agree with most of what I wrote, but it turns out I think all of us misunderstood the issues. There are few serious mistakes that I made at the time, largely due to ignorance of the situation I guess. Certainly the mistakes I made were made by many people of authority, so my error was much more in critical thinking and trusting authority than anything else.

The case put forward for the war in this topic is woeful. I still agree with most of what Allan and I wrote just because what we responding to was such rubbish. Nevertheless my opinion has changed to being in support of a war in Iraq. I say "a war," because I'm much less sure if I support the actual war we got. However my opinion now is that using force to take Saddam Hussein out of power was the most humane and moral option to take, and opposing the war was the wrong position to take.

To say this isn't to say that the West is free from error. That's clearly the case. Indeed the West's relationship with Iraq over the last 40 years, if not 200 years, has been terrible. There have been countless disastrous decisions, exploitation, and moronic behaviour from Western nations, especially the UK and the US that contributed to the problem, and you could even say caused it. However when you realise that you've caused a problem, it's obviously your responsibility to try and fix the problem, not to wash your hands of it.

The war that we did get was perhaps not an effort to right those wrongs, but it is still generally the only solution that could have been put forward to do so. It is a shame the US put forward false arguments in support of the war. It's a shame that most powerful countries in the world didn't help with the war. It's a shame that the war was run so naively, and that as a result so many people have died. However, I think the jury's still out as to whether the costs outweigh the benefits, and we certainly should have gone to war with Iraq in some form.

The reason I've changed my mind is the work of three journalists. Firstly Robert Fisk's tome; "The Great War for Civilisation" which is about 1400 pages of history of conflict in the Middle East. Large, but that's the minimum of the kind of depth I think you need to come close to understanding the situation and being able to form an educated opinion on the conflict.

The second journalist was Pamela Bone, perhaps my favourite Australian journalist, although she's died from cancer a few years ago (and even as she died, had a similar opinion on cancer to me, which is that it's far less serious a problem for society than is made out, and that there are many much better charities to give money to than cancer charities). In a few of her columns and her book "Bad Hair Days," she puts forward good reasons at least for caution in opposing the war. She touches on the real brutality of Saddam.

The final journalist, and the one who has inspired this post is Christopher Hitchens, and his latest book Hitch 22. It's Hitchens that expounds upon the history of the Ba'athists, the brutality of Saddam and just why going to war was our only option. The Ba'ath party was actually inspired and founded by supporters of the Nazi party of Germany. The "socialist" part of the name refers to Hitler's socialism, not Marx's. In this topic I claim that the Ba'ath party was secular. This was once true, but after Saddam took power it became increasingly less so until he became clearly a strong proponent of Islam. The claim in this topic that there was a connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda is definitely still false, but Saddam was probably worse.

Of course it is true that the US was not actually threatened by Iraq at all, and people who support the war on that basis, or whose most concern is the welfare of America and Americans should definitely either reconsider the war or their priorities. However people who care about humanity, human rights and the well being of other humans should accept that Saddam was so crazy, so barbarous and so powerful within Iraq, that war was only option left. The war should have happened at the first gulf war. In fact it should have happened earlier, but it was still a case of better late than never.

When we are faced with dictators committing the kinds of crimes that Saddam Hussein committed we should take whatever action we can to remove them from power.

Avenging Disco Godfather
Posts: 1660
Joined: 09 Jan 2007 12:43
Location: Chicago, IL

Post by Frank_Sinatra » 28 Jul 2010 09:17

First, this should really be moved to discussion.

I'll bite (though every fiber or my being is telling me not to).
Jeremy wrote:I think the jury's still out as to whether the costs outweigh the benefits
This is probably the one point we agree on, partially. We do know most of the costs; we can not yet fully measure the benefits. We do not know at this time if Iraq is going to be a democracy or some form of autocratic government ten or fifteen or twenty years from now. Continuous democracy ought to be the standard, measured by peaceful transition from ideological opponents through a legitimate process. It just isn't something we can measure yet, and probably has to be measured over the span of generations.

At this time, Iraq does not appear to be on the brink of disaster, as it did in 2004-2006. Violence remains, and there are sectarian divisions both between violent factions and between political parties. The Iraqi security forces still have a lot to prove in terms of professionalism, corporatism, and state allegiance. The Kurdish territorial claims & desire for autonomy remain a potential flash point. All in all, cautious optimism may be warranted, but underlying factors that could lead to a civil war, and an emergence of a new dictator, or dissolution of the current boundaries, or regional conflict, remain.

So on the benefits side we've got - Saddam Hussein is no longer the autocratic ruler of the country, and then a huge question mark as to what will happen in the future.

Further, the Iraq war, regardless of outcome, should not be used to validate preventative war. No matter what a person thinks about this war, do we want any country to feel justified in going to war with one of its neighbors because that neighbor may become a threat at some point in the future? That is a recipe for pointless wars.

Jeremy, you're talking about humanitarian intervention, which is generally accepted by most regional security frameworks and international frameworks as a legal cause for war (though whether nations are generally willing to intervene for humanitarian grounds is another story). While I appreciate the moral clarity of being in favor of intervening to stop ongoing genocides or other large scale abuses of a population, there are a lot of practical reasons that have to be given careful consideration.

Basically, the US is capable of invading and overthrowing the majority of governments around the world. But then what? Succession is a huge problem. There are numerous examples of revolutions that overthrew an odious regime, only to become the new odious regime. Now suppose instead of an internal revolution, you have an external intervention, and you get several more problems - language barriers, cultural misunderstandings, being viewed as an occupier, attempting to impose a system that the populace does not accept - and you still haven't solved the first problem of building a new regime which will maintain order and solve whatever humanitarian crisis existed in the first place. You still have the problem of an aggrieved party using the new regime as an opportunity for retaliation for actions that occurred under the old regime.

Now back to this specific case. This is an entirely selfish reason that may look crass compared to all this high-minded moralism, but in this case, I don't think its worth the money. Here in the US we've spent 735 billion dollars on Iraq with more certain to be spent, as well as hidden costs such as treating (or not treating, as the case may be) the tens of thousands of veterans with PTSD or TBI returning from Iraq. As the situation stands right now, I'm convinced it is not worth the cost.

That's to say absolutely nothing about the casualties from the war on all sides. Far more people have died year after year due to the war than were dying under Hussein's rule. From the accounts I have heard, life in Iraq and provision of basic services has degraded since the invasion. Parts of Iraq are at times under military rule. The comparison between Iraq then and Iraq now would be better off coming from someone who has directly experienced it, so I will just say we should not claim to have solved all of Iraq's humanitarian problems by removing Saddam Hussein.

Thirdly, there have been a number of strategic responses and unintended consequences to the invasion of Iraq. More countries are seeking nuclear weapons or speeding up pre-existing nuclear programs, or increasing their potential to develop nuclear weapons, as a direct response to the invasion. Young people have become radicalized and committed or planned to commit terrorist acts again the US and other nations involved in the war. Attention and resources were diverted from other worthwhile actions. Beneficial strategic relationships have been frayed or entirely destroyed. A surge of global sympathy for the US soured into Anti-Americanism.

With what we know today about the costs, I still can not support this war.

Post Reply