Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

How many Americans on the Forum support war with Iraq?

Discussion in 'Free Fire Zone' started by Doc Raider, Feb 13, 2003.

  1. dasreich

    dasreich Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Messages:
    580
    Likes Received:
    1
    Originally posted by AndyW:
    Im sure he would have, for the war was already in full swing and Germany was winning. Had Hitler, in 1932, said he would start a world war with Britain and France, then proceed to kill millions of people in death camps, I don't think he would have received many votes. Point is, its not the future actions of a leader that determine if he will be elected, only his campaign promises. And back in 2000, there was hardly a peep out of Bush on Iraq.

    So far it seems that Tony Blair is making a better case for war than Bush, at least he speaks more eloquently. My question is, what does the UK have to gain by attacking Iraq? Why is Blair so adamant on disarming Iraq in the face of negative public opinion and a defiant Parliament?
     
  2. Knight Templar

    Knight Templar Miserable Cretin

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2002
    Messages:
    463
    Likes Received:
    0
    Eventually, the arguments supporting a war with Iraq (be they from Bush, or whomever...) all return to 911. This event has been hoisted to almost mythological status here in the USA. People should take a much closer look at the events of that day: now more than ever; and try to resolve SOME of the serious questions of the government's official explanation.
     
  3. C.Evans

    C.Evans Expert

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2000
    Messages:
    25,883
    Likes Received:
    857
    :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
     
  4. Knight Templar

    Knight Templar Miserable Cretin

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2002
    Messages:
    463
    Likes Received:
    0
    Another incisive comment from the Codetalker.
    It's always reassuring to know that in these troubling times, there are still those who never doubt our leaders.
     
  5. AndyW

    AndyW Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2000
    Messages:
    815
    Likes Received:
    1
    Actually interesting idea, Hitler might have it made fully democratically:
    Election 11/1932 NSPAD 33%, largest party in the Reichstag
    Jan. 1933: Hitler becomes Reichschancellor.
    (theoretical) date of next Reichstag election: 11/1936, just after the Olympic Games in Berlin, Hitler wins
    11/1940: France defeated, German hegemony over Central Europe, Hitler wins.
    11/1944: Hitler deselected.

    You win elections by successful wars, nothing new. But I digress.

    There was enough "beep" in the Nov. 5, 2002 election, and the U.S. voter boosted Bush's presidency in that election.

    Cheers,

    [ 10. March 2003, 02:29 AM: Message edited by: AndyW ]
     
  6. C.Evans

    C.Evans Expert

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2000
    Messages:
    25,883
    Likes Received:
    857
    Thank you Knight :D
     
  7. dasreich

    dasreich Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Messages:
    580
    Likes Received:
    1
    Originally posted by AndyW:
    Heres a first...I actually agree with you on that point. :D That is a plausible scenario, although if Hitler was worrying about votes, would he have made some of the gambles that he did, not knowing in advance the success or failure of them?
     
  8. Brad T.

    Brad T. Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2003
    Messages:
    350
    Likes Received:
    1
    Bump............. Alright, NOW howmany support the previous war?
     
  9. wilconqr

    wilconqr Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2003
    Messages:
    950
    Likes Received:
    16
    Location:
    Pass Christian, Mississippi
    I'm getting tired of the situation there myself!!! Erect some sort of stable government and get the hell out! I'm very jingoistic when it comes to avenging my fallen countrymen but I don't give a damn about the people of Iraq enough to continue my support of the debacle that exists there today nor do I enjoy paying $1.60+ for a gallon of gasoline (they say prices are up there because of the instability in Iraq). It's getting to be quite a farce in my opinion!
     
  10. Martin Bull

    Martin Bull Acting Wg. Cdr

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2002
    Messages:
    13,578
    Likes Received:
    1,487
    Location:
    London, England.
    $1.60 a gallon !! :eek: Try paying UK prices and see how you feel... :( :( :(

    ( eg : You're paying the equivalent of a pound a gallon, here it's three pounds 60p per gallon...)

    [ 27. August 2003, 11:08 AM: Message edited by: Martin Bull ]
     
  11. De Vlaamse Leeuw

    De Vlaamse Leeuw Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2002
    Messages:
    844
    Likes Received:
    2
    Well, there will be enough men who will fight the enemey than.
     
  12. Stefan

    Stefan Cavalry Rupert

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2001
    Messages:
    5,368
    Likes Received:
    336
    I was and still am against the war, however I think that now we have fouled things up we should put them right. The whole problem is of our making in the first place so really it is our responsibility to clean up. Our soldiers are needed otherwise the country will fall into chaos, we can not 'set up a stable government and get out of there', you try to set up a stable govt in a nation that has been ruled by a dictator for so long. We are now taking casualties as a result of our original mistake, i.e. putting Hussain in power in the first place. On the other hand, I don't think we will be there much longer, a few more casualties and Bush will have to take the US out (hey, its not like he cares about the Iraqi people, they ain't going to vote for him) and we won't stay without the US. Oh, by the way, has anyone else noticed what Afganistan is like at the moment?
     
  13. Friedrich

    Friedrich Expert

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2002
    Messages:
    6,548
    Likes Received:
    52
    I completely agree with all of Stefan's statements. Cheers up, man! ;)

    And I am still against the war. But the difference now is that it doesn't matter anymore. It is now an historical conflict to study. Pretty much like I am against WWII... :rolleyes:
     
  14. reddog2k

    reddog2k Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2003
    Messages:
    231
    Likes Received:
    0
    I just found this thread. I voted that I wholeheartedly support war against Iraq. The US isn't obligated to follow the UN, and has the right to attack Iraq. The reasons being.

    1. The US is a soveirgn country.

    2. Iraq is a dictatorship, and dictators like Saddam do not have rights.

    3. The UN cannot enforce any decision it makes, thus the US doesn't have any obligation to follow the UN.

    Also to Knights Templar who claims US soldiers are cowards. They're every bit as brave as the average Iraqi, N. Korean, or whatever soldier. In fact they are braver because their better trained, and their better equipped.
     
  15. Brad T.

    Brad T. Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2003
    Messages:
    350
    Likes Received:
    1
    Okay, so why should Iraq be obligated to follow the UN? Did they have the right to attack Kuwait? UN doesn't want North Korea to invade the South, why should they follow what other nations think? Hey, if the USA doesn't need to, who does?


    So? So a reason to attack is ideologies, so what would be the difference in say Stalin attacking Finland? Anything other then ideoligies? Kuwait is a dictatorship, so is Saudi Arabia, should they have rights?

    So was Nazi Germany, whats being soverign got to do with anything?


    So what, so the USA can do whatever they want? Again, what stops another nation from doing the same. Who cares right?
     
  16. reddog2k

    reddog2k Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2003
    Messages:
    231
    Likes Received:
    0
    I guess I didn't explain my self well the first time so I'll try again.

    1. The US is a soveirgn country, and the UN has no right to determine US foreign policy. The US is not NAZI Germany

    2. I said dictators like Sadaam don't have rights. Dictators who don't respect human rights, are developing WMD, and are threatening to the US do not have rights. I don't like the fact that the US is allied with Saudi Arabia, as "the house of saud" is a dictatorship, and barely a step above the Taliban.

    3. I meant exactly what I said the UN is nothing more than a debating body. The UN has no ability to enforce it's resolutions thus the US is not obligated to follow them.

    I don't agree with everything the US government does, but I do believe in freedom and democracy for all people. Hopefully the Iraqi people will live in a truly democratic naation when it's all said and done.
     
  17. Brad T.

    Brad T. Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2003
    Messages:
    350
    Likes Received:
    1
    And I don't think you understand what I am saying, what makes the US be able to determine so many nations, such as Iraq's, foreign policy?


    Saddam in no way supported human rights, but Saddam also in NO way threatend the USA, nor did he seem to make WMD of any kind.

    So its "you can't make me stop, why should I listen to you", boy, there is an example to set, hey if the USA can do it why can't everybody?

    And Iraq, currently, although I am sure it will soon be a democracy soon, is a corporate military dictatorship, with all of Bush's Ex-buddy's running everything. I am trying to point out the double standard and try not be one of those America is always wrong conspiricy morons, if it came out that way I didnt mean it.
     
  18. Martin Bull

    Martin Bull Acting Wg. Cdr

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2002
    Messages:
    13,578
    Likes Received:
    1,487
    Location:
    London, England.
    According to Blair ( now :rolleyes: ) the war was about 'WMD programmes ' - sort of 'Taxi Driver'
    policy-making ( 'you looking at me ?')...
     
  19. Stefan

    Stefan Cavalry Rupert

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2001
    Messages:
    5,368
    Likes Received:
    336
    Well said Brad, it is very hard to say that America is wrong these days without being accused of being 'anti-American'. I have said it before and I will say it again, the USA went to war claiming that it was because Iraq had not fulfilled its obligations to the UN, but in doing so the US is guilty of the same charge. So what the UN is a debating body? That is sort of the point, it is a forum where nations can work together or argue without anyone getting killed. More to the point, hasnt every nation signed the UN charter and agreed to stand by the decisions etc of the UN? So basically by acting on its own the US has broken its 'word to the world'. How can any nation be expected to trust the US if Bush is going to disreguard his obligations to the rest of the world? Why should any nation stand by its obligations to the UN if the US will go against it because 'they cant stop us' and the UK will follow so blindly. Basically the message it sends out is 'might makes right, if you have the capability to harm others for your own gain and no one can stop you, you may as well do it'. So next time I am walking down the street and I see an old woman with her pension book smelling of urine and looking at me in an unpleasant way, I will kick the stuffing out of her, take her money and tell everyone she looked like she was planning on mugging me and I wanted to get her first just in case! Apart from anything, who could stop me?

    Actually, we do have one thing to be thankful for, now we get the pleasure of hearing Blair sqwirm like anything. I love the way we are hearing something one day which will directly contradict another recent press release. A good example I heared was in the same speach, something like: 'The war was not about personalities, it was about ridding the world of the threat of Iraqi WMD' and then a little while later 'and we have achieved our aims, we have removed saddam hussain from power, killed X Y and Z'

    Its all a bit of a joke really. Shall we go on to the Dr Kelley murder theory for the conspiracy nuts out there?
     
  20. Martin Bull

    Martin Bull Acting Wg. Cdr

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2002
    Messages:
    13,578
    Likes Received:
    1,487
    Location:
    London, England.
    My thoughts are with 'Tone' at this difficult time - as he appears before the Kelly enquiry right about now.... :rolleyes:
     

Share This Page