Ok, I know this is a heated topic... but I need some closure here.

To anyone that is "against the war" ... is it just war in general that your against or do you think that we shouldn't be at war for the reasons we are at war?

I ask, just because I don't see why anyone would be against this war. Hell even Iraqi people are happy to see us there. What is everyone else's beef with it? I haven't heard one valid and believable complaint as to why.

Simply saying "bush is a bastard" is just the sign of an idiot. "It's for oil" no it's not, we hardley even get any of our oil from Iraq. "It kills innocent people" that is true, it's a price of war, name one war where innocent people didn't die, shit happens, war isn't pretty and cute, people die.

Anyone give any reasons NOT to be at war right now?

 

I'm not against the concept of war itself.

I am against the fact that our government goes around and does whatever it wants in the international arena because there is no more USSR to worry about trying to foil our plans. Mighty convenient how that when we want to invade Iraq we go around the UN because they get in the way, but now that we're talking about rebuilding we want the UN to be involved so that we don't have to clean up the mess we made all by ourselves.

As for the Iraqis: I would say that a more accurate assessment is that they are happy that Saddam is gone, not that they are big fans of the USA. You have to remember that the last time we fought a war in Iraq, Bush Sr. encouraged a popular uprising but then when Saddam asked us for clearance to fly helicopter gunships to put down the resistance we let him.

 

i'm not sure if im against it or with it...but my sociology teacher talk about it alot..one thing he told us to think about is "before we went to war, we was concern about weapon of mass destruction. But now weeks later we are now concern about freeing the people of iraq? So, what happen to the weapon they suppose to have?" and he went on with other good questions too, i see it very intresting. oh about the oil thing there was something one the news where the US permit a oil company to go there put out the fire and get control over it. he also say "if we not there for oil, then why getting control over the oil is one of the first thing to do?" he later on say "Saudia Arabia(not sure if thats the one we get oil from) and the US isnt as friendly anymore." so :shrug:

 

im confused i thought that we did NOT want them to help because they didn't do a thing in this war.

 

From the sounds of it, the UN wants to help rebuild Iraq. I don' t think that the US asked them to help do it. Maybe I'm wrong or miss-informed, but from what I got out of it, France, Germany, Russia, as well as many other nations are jumping at the chance to help rebuild Iraq. Also from what I heard France and Russia used to have a lot of business agreements with Saddam, and now that he is going to be removed, their business plans are falling apart. Has anyone else heard this?

I think it would be in our best interest if other contries helped to rebuild Iraq, that way if the government goes to hell in ten years, we are not the only ones to blame. Plus other countries that are close by can help to watch over things and they may have a better idea of how the culture wants to live.

 

We definitely do not want the UN in after Iraq falls completely. I dunno what Mike speaks of. The UN wants in, we don't want the UN in.

 

yeah i thought the british and members of the un council were the ones pushing for this, we're reluctantly agreeing more or less...

 

Just to restate: My basic problem is that the Bush administration has changed the direction of US policy such that we launch preemptive strikes against other countries we feel threatened by whether or not the threat is an immediate one or a more indirect one such as the possibility that a country like Iraq will supply terrorists with weapons and such.

About the UN: Bush and Blair have both publicly said that they want the UN to have a role in putting Iraq back together.
The main thing that people are referring to when talking about this is an agreement that the French oil conglomerate TotalFinaElf has/had with Saddam's government. Most of Iraq's oil resources are undeveloped because the government doesn't have the funding to do it themselves and international companies can't do it because of UN economic sanctions. So TotalFinaElf signed a deal where they get first crack at developing the oil fields and such if/when the sanctions are lifted. If Saddam's government goes away, then so do any agreements it made with corporate entities. Still. Just because a French oil company is going to loose some agreements with Saddam, doesn't mean that the French government is going to oppose removing him. Oil is obviously a factor in the situation because the truth is that Iraq does have oil, but to say it's a motivating reason for one side is to say that it's a motivating reason for all sides.

 

Even though we and the UN has proof that Iraq has supplied terrorists with weapons and training for the specific purpose of hurting the US?

The UN had 8 YEARS to disarm Iraq and they didn't. As for the oil... oil is not the reason we are there. Oil fields were not the first things we went for. Yes they are important, we can't just ignore them. But oil is not one of the main reasons we are there.

 

i agree.. also remember that we are seeing what the media wants us to see..im sure not everyone is thrilled...