I'll venture to say that we ARE going to war, for better or for worse. Now that Bush has Congressional support he is going in regardless of whether unfettered inspections are provided. Is there anyone that really believes otherwise at this point?
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
war in Iraq ?
- Thread starter kafka
- Start date
- Status
Well, I'm opposed to a war in Iraq, and I'll be glad to explain why.
First, Bush is so hell bent on getting out young men and women into combat, it's frightening. It seems to me, that he's not thinking one little bit about the guys who will be doing the fighting, and dying over there. The desert is still highly toxic from depleted uranium munitions used the first time around. Also, it's gonna be urban combat this time. Street to street, and house to house. The worst kind of fighting there is (look at seoul 1950, or Hue in Vietnam 1968) Bush is worried about the Iraqi chemical/biological threat-yet, our soldiers have chemical warfare protection gear, which is at best questionable in it's effectiveness.
I don't believe the Kurds will rise up to help us either. They tried that in 1991-we stood by, and let saddam massacre them as a result, after we urged them to revolt. Also, the republican guard just throwing there hands up is a big "if"
Also, what about Israel? They've already said, if saddam attacks them again, they will not stand by and do nothing. Israel has a nuclear arsenal-will they unleash it, if a SCUD with a chemical warhead lands somewhere in Israel? How would the fallout from that affect our fighting men amd women? Will the other Arab states come to the defense of Saddam over that-make it another Arab/Israeli war, with the US caught in the middle?
The concept of having the right to strike first over WMD's is something we should all be concerned about. The Indian government says it has the right to attack Pakistan, because it has nuclear weapons. By that logic, Pakistan would have the right to hit India first, because it too has a nuclear arsenal. Those guys already faced off in June over Kashmir. It could very well happen again. this time, they could both feel the need to hit the other first.
Also, an occupation of Iraq could go on for twenty, to thirty years, or longer. It will cost billions of dollars a month. Meanwhile, people in this country face unemployment, homelessness, all sorts of other problems. Yeah, the world would be better off without Saddam. But shouldn't we worry about taking care of our own people, before we go off trying to rebuild Iraq? Shouldn't Bush, and all of his people worry about what I talked about at the beginning of my post?
This is all just my opinion though.
First, Bush is so hell bent on getting out young men and women into combat, it's frightening. It seems to me, that he's not thinking one little bit about the guys who will be doing the fighting, and dying over there. The desert is still highly toxic from depleted uranium munitions used the first time around. Also, it's gonna be urban combat this time. Street to street, and house to house. The worst kind of fighting there is (look at seoul 1950, or Hue in Vietnam 1968) Bush is worried about the Iraqi chemical/biological threat-yet, our soldiers have chemical warfare protection gear, which is at best questionable in it's effectiveness.
I don't believe the Kurds will rise up to help us either. They tried that in 1991-we stood by, and let saddam massacre them as a result, after we urged them to revolt. Also, the republican guard just throwing there hands up is a big "if"
Also, what about Israel? They've already said, if saddam attacks them again, they will not stand by and do nothing. Israel has a nuclear arsenal-will they unleash it, if a SCUD with a chemical warhead lands somewhere in Israel? How would the fallout from that affect our fighting men amd women? Will the other Arab states come to the defense of Saddam over that-make it another Arab/Israeli war, with the US caught in the middle?
The concept of having the right to strike first over WMD's is something we should all be concerned about. The Indian government says it has the right to attack Pakistan, because it has nuclear weapons. By that logic, Pakistan would have the right to hit India first, because it too has a nuclear arsenal. Those guys already faced off in June over Kashmir. It could very well happen again. this time, they could both feel the need to hit the other first.
Also, an occupation of Iraq could go on for twenty, to thirty years, or longer. It will cost billions of dollars a month. Meanwhile, people in this country face unemployment, homelessness, all sorts of other problems. Yeah, the world would be better off without Saddam. But shouldn't we worry about taking care of our own people, before we go off trying to rebuild Iraq? Shouldn't Bush, and all of his people worry about what I talked about at the beginning of my post?
This is all just my opinion though.
No offense but you started this post by saying you'd rather be uninformed about what was actually said in this thread and assumed that it would make you do something.
Isn't that a tad misguided? I say that as a former member of the US Air Force and an American citizen.
As far as who actually knows what, I don't think anyone posting here is exactly in the inner circle
Originally posted by Brad Johnson
As far as who actually knows what, I don't think anyone posting here is exactly in the inner circle
You mean the bullseye?
An interesting note, the other week, my father said he was watching a show that demonstrated a car that ran on compressed air! It could achieve speeds up to 65mph. (Which is plenty IMO, we have enough speeders on the road) I personally think lots of alternative power sources have been developed, but they unfortunatley don't have as much "pull" politcaly, or financialy as the oil companies. Let's face it, fossil fuel is more profitable than compressed air, sun light, corn oil, or alchohol. Oil companies are going to lobby and buy their way to staying in business. Remember the Hudson car. It blew anything made by Chevy, Chrysler, or Ford off the road in terms of quality. But due to the big 3's politcal and financial pull, they kept the car out of production. Guess that's the crap part of capitalism, don't let the little guy outshine the big guy.
But back on the fuel topic, I think Bill Mahar put it best: If you truly want to be patriotic, don't put a flag on your SUV, instead, sell your SUV and get a more fuel efficient vehicle.
No offense, but you are seriously sounding like Bush. It's not like a Superman comic, where the lines of Good and Evil are plainly drawn, it's more like an X-men comic, where the lines are really shady.
Seriously though, my point is we can't look at this from a Good vs. Evil point. I mean, c'mon, this is the real world. Things aren't that black and white. Again, 9/11 didn't begin on 9/11, you have to look at cause and effect. Bin Laden didn't wake up one morning and say "By golly, I'm bored, I feel like attacking the US". (Not saying 9/11 was justified, just saying it didn't come without reason)
I've said it before, I'll say it again, 9/11 was a blessing for Bush. It secured him another term in office, it helped push his War on Drugs (remember those dumb commercials about the teens saying "I helped blow up buildings"
Of course, you didn't see any commercials against buying diamonds, well, I guess that's because there is no war on diamonds) and it's helping him push his war on Iraq. If it does come clear that Saddam has nukes and it looks like their pointed towards the US, then I say go in and take care of business. But his "Yeah they got nukes even though we have no proof" speeches just isn't cutting it for me. If the government does have proof, show the public, I'm sure you'll get a lot more support from current anti-war people like myself if you do. By not showing people proof, you're just making the war unpopular before it even begins.By the way, thanks to Chaosgwar, he was the only person who answered my orginal question about enlisted talkbassers who support the war. Guess it proves my point there for the others, your tune would probaly change if was you going over to fight this war. Personally I Bush should go over there, and see what war is really like. The most war he's ever seen is Saving Private Ryan. Wake up Bush, this isn't a game of Risk, this is the real world.
>I would go as far as to say that anybody who
>actually thinks this is a good idea, is worse than
>the terrorists.
Well, it is worth noting that America is the only country to have ever actually nuked another country. I don't know exact figures on how many civilians we killed but suffice it to say it was a lot. And we didn't nuke them just once - we had to do it TWICE before they finally surrendered.
However, given the nature of the Japanese to fight until the very end in conventional battle, had we NOT nuked them, the death toll would have been astronomically higher on both sides and there probably would not be a country known as Japan today.
That being said, we aren't going to be nuking anybody this time. Saddam Hussein, and anyone that joins the war on his side, will give up (or be completely eliminated by conventional means) long before that becomes necessary.
>Seriously though, my point is we can't look at this
>from a Good vs. Evil point. I mean, c'mon, this is
>the real world. Things aren't that black and white.
>Again, 9/11 didn't begin on 9/11, you have to look
>at cause and effect. Bin Laden didn't wake up one
>morning and say "By golly, I'm bored, I feel like
>attacking the US". (Not saying 9/11 was justified,
>just saying it didn't come without reason)
I agree. I don't think of it as Good versus Evil anymore. It's more like Us versus Them. There is going to be a big war. If we don't start it, they will. Which side do you really want to be on? America may not be perfect but we're the best there is. I'm proud to be an American no matter what. At the risk of sounding cliche, if you don't agree with that, then don't live here.
The thing is this: Saddam most definitely has the motive to attack us. Do we really want to wait around and see how long it takes him to develop the means? What I sense from the anti-war crowd is the feeling that Saddam is more trustworthy than Bush and that people like Saddam and bin Laden have already "learned their lesson" so to speak and that they will give up on trying to harm Americans. That is very disturbing.
>actually thinks this is a good idea, is worse than
>the terrorists.
Well, it is worth noting that America is the only country to have ever actually nuked another country. I don't know exact figures on how many civilians we killed but suffice it to say it was a lot. And we didn't nuke them just once - we had to do it TWICE before they finally surrendered.
However, given the nature of the Japanese to fight until the very end in conventional battle, had we NOT nuked them, the death toll would have been astronomically higher on both sides and there probably would not be a country known as Japan today.
That being said, we aren't going to be nuking anybody this time. Saddam Hussein, and anyone that joins the war on his side, will give up (or be completely eliminated by conventional means) long before that becomes necessary.
>Seriously though, my point is we can't look at this
>from a Good vs. Evil point. I mean, c'mon, this is
>the real world. Things aren't that black and white.
>Again, 9/11 didn't begin on 9/11, you have to look
>at cause and effect. Bin Laden didn't wake up one
>morning and say "By golly, I'm bored, I feel like
>attacking the US". (Not saying 9/11 was justified,
>just saying it didn't come without reason)
I agree. I don't think of it as Good versus Evil anymore. It's more like Us versus Them. There is going to be a big war. If we don't start it, they will. Which side do you really want to be on? America may not be perfect but we're the best there is. I'm proud to be an American no matter what. At the risk of sounding cliche, if you don't agree with that, then don't live here.
The thing is this: Saddam most definitely has the motive to attack us. Do we really want to wait around and see how long it takes him to develop the means? What I sense from the anti-war crowd is the feeling that Saddam is more trustworthy than Bush and that people like Saddam and bin Laden have already "learned their lesson" so to speak and that they will give up on trying to harm Americans. That is very disturbing.
Of corse we couldnt do that. But look in the past before we bombed japan we warned them before we droped the bomb there but their millitary kept their citizens from leaving "thinking" we wernt sick enough to drop the bomb on thousands upon thousands of civilians. But we were egotistic enough to do it anyway. Hell, we even did it twice. What makes you think were any different as a country now? Ego is ego (and pathetic at that) Thats not to push for nuclear weapons (because i think there stupid quite frankly, they just hurt everyone in the end) But when has the lives of civilians ever stoped any major power from accomplishing what they want? All in all it comes down to "could you kill one to save a thousand" and which side would that "one" be on. Yea, its simply somthing that shouldnt come up in the first place, but thats what war is. I dont see their thought process behind war in the firstplace, so my anger if ground troop is sent into that country stands. We can handle this with planes and well targeted explosives with little or NO loss of american lives.
If it were up to me ide assassinate the guy and give america a 51'st state but thats well innapropriate to say anymore because "iraq's citicens love their lifestyle and wouldnt want change."
- Apr 1, 2000
- 17,398
- 9,830
- Disclosures
- Endorsing Artist: Roscoe Guitars, DR Strings, Aguilar Amplification
The difference between modern nukes and the atom bomb is HUGE. I think the smallest warhead we have has something like 100 times the destructive power of the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
I'm enlisted as well, and if I were called to fight, heck yeah I'd go. I do believe that Hussein has to be stopped. I do, however, question the timing. It looks more like finishing Daddy's work than a well-timed intervention.....
Yes, he does need to be stoped but how far should we go? And as for Bush... If someone tried to kill your dad and you had the worlds strongest power backing you up wouldnt you be a bit tempted to use it? I know i would.
If we send it ground troops the sick bastard will kill his own people untill we leave (he doesnt care about his people, he has proved that time and time again). However when we do go in it needs to be quickly. No warning, just a knife in the back, no long drawn out war to help devistate our economy. We don't want him to get what he wants.
I think it is a mistake. This is how i see it and if anyone outside of the USA would like to correct me they're more than welcome. I think that the rest of the world, primarly terrorist organisations and nations will get the idea that the US never finishes what it starts. After the terrorist attacks Bush swore to capture or kill Osama Bin Laden and he hasn't. He promised to rid the world of Al-Queda, and judging by the fact that we are constantly on high-alert, he hasn't accomplished that either. I think by going after Iraq now, Bush is sending a message to other organizations that might attack us, that we will not finish what we start. That if they attack us and deal with a few months of bombings and ground attacks, that we'll leave them alone.
And dls59, what Bruce said wasn't ignorant at all. I think what he was saying was that someone who would be willing to drop a nuke is worse than a terrorist and i'd have to agree with him. I dont know about you, but the thought of killing thousands of INNOCENT people sickens me. ITs what the terrorist did, and i dont see how having gov. backing makes it any more right.
And dls59, what Bruce said wasn't ignorant at all. I think what he was saying was that someone who would be willing to drop a nuke is worse than a terrorist and i'd have to agree with him. I dont know about you, but the thought of killing thousands of INNOCENT people sickens me. ITs what the terrorist did, and i dont see how having gov. backing makes it any more right.
I say that we should just nuke the bastards. It's gonna solve alot more problems that it will create.
- Apr 1, 2000
- 17,398
- 9,830
- Disclosures
- Endorsing Artist: Roscoe Guitars, DR Strings, Aguilar Amplification
Well, I'm opposed to a new war in Iraq, for the reasons stated in my first post . But I do NOT believe that Saddam is more trustworthy than Bush. I don't think the anti-war crowd feels that way either. I just can't believe how hell bent Bush is on invading Iraq-sending our young men and women into combat for something I don't believe to be worthwhile.
And the recent terrorist attacks show, that no matter what happens in Iraq, Al-qaeda is far from being defeated. So I don't think that invading Iraq is gonna change that.
Just my opinion.
And the recent terrorist attacks show, that no matter what happens in Iraq, Al-qaeda is far from being defeated. So I don't think that invading Iraq is gonna change that.
Just my opinion.
- Status
