Why does anyone care about a war?

Well.. on topic, why do you care?

[wu_trax]

because war is a bad thing

[Mr. Ed]

shut up.

[Starbucks]

i dont care either way

both situations are amusing

[Snurx]

Beacause people dying is bad.

[Tietäjä]

Price of petrol/gas will go up.

DAMN.

[LHC]

I'm not bothered.

Originally posted by Snurx
Beacause people dying is bad.

But hundred of thousands die every day from starvation all over the world. Do you really care about it? I think you care more about your pet than any of those.

[Snurx]

Originally posted by RiCo
But hundred of thousands die every day from starvation all over the world. Do you really care about it? I think you care more about your pet than any of those.

I don't have any pets.
And yes, i care about them as well.

I'm against
It'll seriously compromise my chances for entertainment..

[Vermillion]

* * * * * * *

Dateline January 22nd, 2007.

Wahhabist Islamic Regime Takes Power

After a brutal civil war lasting 3 years and costing an estimated 80,000 lived, the new government of Iraq officially took power yesterday in a ceremony which took place in a new Mosque unveiled in central Baghdad. The new Islamic regime promised a return to order and reconstruction of the shattered state, and neighbours Jordan, Syria and Saudi Arabia have already promised millions of dollars in aid to aid reconstruction. Though the state has taken a moderate tone in its first speech, and spoken entirely of internal matters, there can be little doubt of the massive swell of resentment against the United States and the West, who supported the now-deposed republican regime. With the secular government of Iraqi Leader Saddam Hussein destroyed in 2003, the American-built republican government did its best to remain outside the Islamic world. However, massive domestic and regional pressure in Iraq, combined with the shifting of focus of the United States to North Korea following the Seoul Disaster meant the new regime had little chance of holding onto power. Like the Russian puppet government in Afghanistan in the 1990's, it was soon besieged by Islamic forces bent on taking control of the oil-rich state.

International experts are concerned that with the major oil-producing nations of the Middle East unified under a religious authority, the ability of the West to keep these states in competition has been greatly diminished. One senior White house official, who wished to remain unnamed stated: "The fact that these nations were as afraid of Iraq as they were of the US meant that OPEC was a fractional power. Now with Iraq and Saudi Arabia tightly aligned, and most of the smaller oil-producing states in the region as well, their only source of fear is Israel and the United States. Even Iran, whose government is part of a different Islamic sect, finds itself isolated and forced to side with the central-Middle Eastern block.

With Oil prices having increased 60% since the new Iraqi regime took power, many are saying that the United States should have put more effort into effective post-war reconstruction and governance rather than simply assuring the ownership of lucrative oil contracts, most of which have now been cancelled by the new Islamic Iraqi government.

With Islamic terrorism and in the West on the rise, following the high profile destruction of Canary Warf in London last year, many are saying that this new Islamic solidification of the Middle East can bring nothing but trouble to the already beleaguered Western nations.

Associated Press / Vermillion

* * * * * * *

Originally posted by Snurx
I don't have any pets.
And yes, i care about them as well.

You know what I meant. We distance ourselfs from all the world evils. The way I see it, a good war is just another source for entertainment.

[Snurx]

Originally posted by RiCo
You know what I meant. We distance ourselfs from all the world evils. The way I see it, a good war is just another source for entertainment.

True, but i dont try to distrackt me at all. The only reason, is that my weak mind would be destroyed instantly if i had opened up for it all.
I still do whatever i can to help people that are in need.

Originally posted by Vermillion
-Valid points-

In other words, you are concerned what the war might bring for the future?
I must say, each time you make a comment, it's close to bulletproof. Impressive.

[Deffeh]

because as humans we are attempting to strive out of the dark ages, and have a bit of empathy. Death, is distressing. Murder, or Bombings, or death via an unneccesary war, is horrific, and will be on our heads, as it will be carried out by our countrymen.

[Sandsnake]

Originally posted by Deffeh
because as humans we are attempting to strive out of the dark ages, and have a bit of empathy. Death, is distressing. Murder, or Bombings, or death via an unneccesary war, is horrific, and will be on our heads, as it will be carried out by our countrymen.

but what defines "necessary?" That's the real question. Often, the public isn't aware of reasons that things occur or even that they DO occur.

The potential in many situations is lost in feel good politics and pacifist whining. People forget that stopping things BEFORE they happen is often far more important. Being PROactive instead of REactive can save far more lives.

I do agree with Vermillion though. The reason we didn't remove Saddam the first time is still the situation. Trade one predictable asshole dictator for one unpredictable asshole fanatic and we've not helped the world one bit.

[Tactitus]

Originally posted by Sandsnake
I do agree with Vermillion though. The reason we didn't remove Saddam the first time is still the situation. Trade one predictable asshole dictator for one unpredictable asshole fanatic and we've not helped the world one bit.

How about if the choice were between one predictable asshole dictator with nukes vs. one unpredictable asshole fanatic without nukes?

I think the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction--especially nuclear weapons--is not going to do the world any good at all, because sooner or later one of these assholes is going to use them.

I actually hope I'm wrong about that; but that's the way I see it.

We are heading for the inevitable doomsday. All will die in a blastering inferno of flames. Just like the bible proclaimed. Is it an act of God then?

I've enjoyed a couple of the Wheel of Time series latly. This does remind me of the 'pattern' wich Robert Jordan's fiction is based. Either we do or don't, but every action has a reaction.

[Marilyn Manson]

The reason we didn't remove Saddam the first time was because Bush had said that wasn't out purpose, The UN mandate authorising the action said that wasn't the purpose, and the coalition behind the madate would have collapsed if we had tried to do it, together with the fact that there can be no assurances that any Post-Saddam regime will be better, as Verm points out.

There were many reasons. Many of them are still quite relevant today.

[Marilyn Manson]

Oh, and I'm still wondering what's going to happen to Afghanistan over the long-term. Liberal Democracy is practically impossible to sustain in a place like that.

Originally posted by Marilyn Manson
Oh, and I'm still wondering what's going to happen to Afghanistan over the long-term. Liberal Democracy is practically impossible to sustain in a place like that.

They should have bloody nuked them when they where at it. Either you do it throughout, or don't do it at all. You can't really wage war against a country for one mans action, however much supportive that land is towards the terrorist. And if so, you can attack ~every other muslim country based on the same reasoning.

Edit: That came out sligthly wrong. But the point is, that the reasoning behind the attack on Afghanistan is not valid, atleast equally unvalid as attacking the Twin Towers. The same is happening in Iraq and they could very well fight the same war under a different name. I would summarise it as a quest for oil.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally posted by RiCo
They should have bloody nuked them when they where at it. Either you do it throughout, or don't do it at all. You can't really wage war against a country for one mans action, however much supportive that land is towards the terrorist. And if so, you can attack ~every other muslim country based on the same reasoning.

Now yer talkin', son!

Originally posted by Marilyn Manson
Now yer talkin', son!

\o/ Would you go as far as telling me I'm actually making some sense ?

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally posted by RiCo
\o/ Would you go as far as telling me I'm actually making some sense ?

No.

[oldtown]

Originally posted by Marilyn Manson
The reason we didn't remove Saddam the first time was because Bush had said that wasn't out purpose, The UN mandate authorising the action said that wasn't the purpose, and the coalition behind the madate would have collapsed if we had tried to do it, together with the fact that there can be no assurances that any Post-Saddam regime will be better, as Verm points out.

There were many reasons. Many of them are still quite relevant today.

True, however you conveniently skipped the fact that in addition to the above Hussein signed an agreement which ended the war. He had many things he had to do to assure there wouldnt be a problem with future aggression..the main issue being he wouldnt continue any of his weapons of mass destruction programs........he has yet to fulfill any of his promises and with each passing day comes closer to landing the biggest prize ...Nuclear weapons.........If he isnt removed now , down the line we will be right where we are at this moment with the only difference being hussein will have nukes and no one will be able to do a thing about any tyranny he acts out cause he will have ability to wipe out his neighbors.......That is certainly not a situation i want to be looking at down the line...

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally posted by oldtown
True, however you conveniently skipped the fact that in addition to the above Hussein signed an agreement which ended the war.

Errr, so we had an 'agreement' forced on us that stopped us from deposing him, if we'd have wanted to press ahead?

Originally posted by oldtown
He had many things he had to do to assure there wouldnt be a problem with future aggression...etc

All that tends to assume that he is a naturally aggressive nutcase, and not just a great oppurtunist. Not to mention that we can't actually disarm him peacefully, both of which I disagree on.

[Sandsnake]

Originally posted by Marilyn Manson
The reason we didn't remove Saddam the first time was because Bush had said that wasn't out purpose, The UN mandate authorising the action said that wasn't the purpose, and the coalition behind the madate would have collapsed if we had tried to do it, together with the fact that there can be no assurances that any Post-Saddam regime will be better, as Verm points out.

There were many reasons. Many of them are still quite relevant today.

The reasoning for the entire for NOT removing him, or rather setting the purpose of the force to a smaller goal was largely due to the political climate at the time.

Shi'ite Muslims were in a strong position to take control if Saddam was deposed. The Shi'ite sect of Islam is extremely militant and has been lead by notables such as the Ayatollah Khomeini. This would largely have the effect of doubling the size and power of Iran, which is on the "worst case scenario" list for most western nations.

We had a choice: Secular, predictable nutcase on a leash or Militant Fanatic with the backing of one of the largest religions in the world. The choice was easy and probably the best for the time. We probably also believed that Saddam would act like a whipped dog and go along with whatever was required to keep him in power.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally posted by Sandsnake
The reasoning for the entire for NOT removing him, or rather setting the purpose of the force to a smaller goal was largely due to the political climate at the time.

Shi'ite Muslims were in a strong position to take control if Saddam was deposed. The Shi'ite sect of Islam is extremely militant and has been lead by notables such as the Ayatollah Khomeini. This would largely have the effect of doubling the size and power of Iran, which is on the "worst case scenario" list for most western nations.

We had a choice: Secular, predictable nutcase on a leash or Militant Fanatic with the backing of one of the largest religions in the world. The choice was easy and probably the best for the time. We probably also believed that Saddam would act like a whipped dog and go along with whatever was required to keep him in power.

I think you're missing the larger realpolitik concern that nobody really wanted Saddam deposed at that time, Shi'ites or no. There wasn't a huge hankering for nation building in The Middle East, and other states around Iraq were cautious about what such an action would mean. They still are, really.

I think you're also overstressing the importance that The US then placed on non-Iranian fanatics being a security risk. Communists were still very much still the international baddies at that point. (Not for much longer, though.)

And I'm not sure about the Shi'ite thing. Iraq is, after all, a largely Sunni, secularist state.

And even if they had taken over Iraq, (I'm not sure who would have let them, after Iraq was conquered and NATO security forces were established in the place.) then I doubt very much that they would have been able to build an effective Islamic alliance with Iran. I'm remined of The Taliban's relations with Iran at this point. Realpolitik will always win over ideology. The China-USSR split, The Nazi-Soviet pact, etc, etc...

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by Tactitus
How about if the choice were between one predictable asshole dictator with nukes vs. one unpredictable asshole fanatic without nukes?

As far as any evidence I'm aware of, Saddam Hussein does not have nukes, and is not likely to get nukes in the near future. Nukes + the missile program to go with them can't exactly be hidden under a mattress.

[wu_trax]

http://www.idleworm.com/nws/2002/11/iraq2.shtml

[Tactitus]

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
As far as any evidence I'm aware of, Saddam Hussein does not have nukes, and is not likely to get nukes in the near future. Nukes + the missile program to go with them can't exactly be hidden under a mattress.

Actually, Iraq has proven to be quite adept at hiding many aspects of its nuclear weapons program--even while "cooperating" with inspections.

Four years of on-site inspections (1991-1995) failed to uncover large parts of Iraq's nuclear weapons program. It wasn't until the defection of Saddam's son-in-law, Hussein Kamel, in 1995 that we started learning just how extensive and far along it was--much further along than any of the "experts" thought (here's a brief description of Iraq's efforts at deception).

It's is almost certainly true that Iraq does not have nuclear weapons--yet; but I think it is also true that we don't really know how far along they are.

[LHC]

I'm up for a jolly good war.

TOP BANANA!

(where did they put that smilie )

That last song was dedicated to our brave boys about to go into iraq, dont forget your gas masks guys.

[Texan]

Originally posted by RiCo
We are heading for the inevitable doomsday. All will die in a blastering inferno of flames. Just like the bible proclaimed. Is it an act of God then?

I've enjoyed a couple of the Wheel of Time series latly. This does remind me of the 'pattern' wich Robert Jordan's fiction is based. Either we do or don't, but every action has a reaction.

I grew up with the idea that I was going to be blasted out of existence by nuclear weapons from the Soviet Union. Then for about 10 years it looked like we would not face that death. Now it's back. Live with it.

Next Wheel of time comes out in February I believe. About a year late. Hope it comes before the nukes.

Peace out.

Originally posted by Texan
I grew up with the idea that I was going to be blasted out of existence by nuclear weapons from the Soviet Union. Then for about 10 years it looked like we would not face that death. Now it's back. Live with it.

Next Wheel of time comes out in February I believe. About a year late. Hope it comes before the nukes.

Peace out.

I was merly drawing parallels to how action has a reaction. Your quoting me off topic.

[Sandsnake]

Originally posted by Texan
Next Wheel of time comes out in February I believe. About a year late. Hope it comes before the nukes.

it's been out for about 17 days now and it sucks.

As for the nukes bit, Americans tend to be VERY touchy about them considering we lived in the nuclear shadow for so long. So nuclear proliferation is not just about "we have them and you don't" but more about "those who have them are not very likely to use them"

Originally posted by oldtown
True, however you conveniently skipped the fact that in addition to the above Hussein signed an agreement which ended the war. He had many things he had to do to assure there wouldnt be a problem with future aggression..the main issue being he wouldnt continue any of his weapons of mass destruction programs........he has yet to fulfill any of his promises and with each passing day comes closer to landing the biggest prize ...Nuclear weapons.........If he isnt removed now , down the line we will be right where we are at this moment with the only difference being hussein will have nukes and no one will be able to do a thing about any tyranny he acts out cause he will have ability to wipe out his neighbors.......That is certainly not a situation i want to be looking at down the line...

How come you think you know more than the ones who keep many parts of the truths out there from the public? Do you honestly believe you know more than them?

[W]

Originally posted by oldtown
True, however you conveniently skipped the fact that in addition to the above Hussein signed an agreement which ended the war. He had many things he had to do to assure there wouldnt be a problem with future aggression..the main issue being he wouldnt continue any of his weapons of mass destruction programs........he has yet to fulfill any of his promises and with each passing day comes closer to landing the biggest prize ...Nuclear weapons.........If he isnt removed now , down the line we will be right where we are at this moment with the only difference being hussein will have nukes and no one will be able to do a thing about any tyranny he acts out cause he will have ability to wipe out his neighbors.......That is certainly not a situation i want to be looking at down the line...

Why not? Why should not another nation have that bargaining power when you do?