American warmongers - Page 3

The war's consequences are yet to be told it may not have been worth it for the US when all is tallied. There is a lot to consider-
There is a count of amercain soldiers who died, yet I have not seen the figures of Iraqi deaths whether they be military or civilian. all those deaths- that is aterrible price to pay was it worth it to them? I doubt it. There will be a very long period of time in which the Iraqi people will resent the US- todays homeless orphans may grow up with a very large chip on ttheir collective shoulder- which may lead to anti US sentiment and even the willingness to strike back as what we call terrorists. Certainly it is good thgat a dictator has been removed- but the circumstances just don't seem right as it was the US who installed him in the first place, if he was dislodged internally that would be a different matter. Also consider that Saddam was supported when he was Anti-communist and now a new government will be supported that will be anti-terrorist (the new US agenda) is the Us then just continuing to pull strings? I think so I ask you this if Iraq was not filled with oil would the US give a damn? I doubt it- There are a lot of countries that would love to be domocratic- was Iraq just at the top of the shit list?
the US is indeed a warmonger! Sure it is the politicians decision but the soldiers & generals carry out there orders so obeidiently and the public does little sure there was and still is some argument but that is all, whether it be by ignorance or apathy the US public obviously condones this war.

One must not forget that although war had a cost (a low one for wars), the cost of the peace was far from negligeable. Many Iraqi civilians died because of lack of medical treatment/food because of the UN embargo.
The Americans themselves, most of them, are not warmongers. They are however, like most peoples, apathetic to whatever happens beyond their country.

This is so stupid. I hear this argument everywhere, about people saying that Bush lied about why were going to Iraq. Bush is a good Christian man, and I would bet my soul that he wanted to save Iraq people, yes oil may have been an added incentive or w/e, but he is not a hearless man and it pisses me off when people try to act like he was spawned from the devil himself and only went there for oil.

Also, IMO, we should have taken all those opposed to the war to Iraq, and let them live there and see if they would want to be liberated because I'll bet you after living under him their minds would change,

Good people do bad things unintentionally. I'm sure if I was drowning and no one else was around except Mr. Bush he would save me. But when we are the president of the United States. It isn't about you anymore. Every decision you make involves everyone else, so you are held up to a higher standard. Clinton didn't do good either.

I am angry because I did send the president several emails asking him not to do what he had done. Of course why should he listen to me? But there were many, many like me who expressed our concerns. I think that some of us may have spoken out louder, but we didn't really think it would happen, but it did. Mr. Bush ignored us and he was wrong. A presidential campaign is coming up, he's trash, that's politics, he knew that going in, he made up his mind, he's a grown man, now he's got to face the consequences.

Mr. Bush may have believed that he was helping out the Iraqi people. To justify the action he was ready to take, I'm sure he choose to believe he would be helping the Iraqi people.

You have to think about what happened here. We just can't go around starting wars with people because we feel threatened, they have something we want, and justify it by saying, we'll make it better for them afterward. That just isn't right. Lives were lost, much money was spend that could have been better spent elsewhere, and the environmental damage. This is where I have a bitch with the church. We say we love God and we destroy his creations. Don't think so. We're lying to ourselves and everyone else. We don't love God if we can't respect and honor, and even protect what God created.

You say Mr. Bush was a Christian, I say this. If Mr. Jesus was here today, do you think that Mr. Jesus would approve of Mr. Bush's war? I think if Mr. Bush was really a christian, he would say, "I'm sorry."

Have you ever heard the Bible verse that was like "to everything there is a season." I specifically remember it saying "A time for war, and a time for peace."
And you have to remember, God initiated wars himself, and destroyed cities, like Sodom and Gomora, so you can;t say God would never approve of war, which it sounds like that's what you are getting at.

Desert Storm was a time for war - This was not. No, I don't think Jesus would approve. Concerning the old testament of the bible, there are some parts of it I DON'T BELIEVE. God tells the children of Israel to go and kill every living being, women and children and leave no one alive, and in the law of mosses parents are told to stone their children if they are disrespectful. I don't think many of us would have survived childhood. To the best of my knowledge the Jewish religion does not follow this rule. Sometimes you have to use common sense, you have to draw from the truth within.

Does this mean, every1 who is against the war on Iraq wants Saddam to still be in power and hold dictatorship over the Iraqi people?

From what i beleive, even if Saddam didnt have WMD the crimes he was commiting against his own people was bad enough. Sure America has things much harsher weapons than nerv gas, but the president doesnt go around using it on his own people.

And if one country doesnt play god, another will try, one country must always be in total power, and be sure not to abuse that power else risk being ganged up on by all countries, if all countries had equal military strength and were al able to make WMD then WW3 would soon follow as all countries would want to be known as the strongest.

If you are against the war on Iraq, then answer me this, if you current president suddenly declared Dictatorship and noone could leave the country, and was releasing gases on people, slaughteing people, abusing his power. Wouldnt you want a country to come in and take him away from power?

And this Jesus guy wouldnt approve of removing such a man from power by going to war to liberate a whole country? Did this jesus guy say we shouldnt go to war to liberate countries / Jews under attack by Germany? If no, then it is a contradiction, that he is against the war on Iraq. If yes, then he was a fool taht didnt understand that in some situations evil blood must be shed to restore peace.

Well, thats what i think anyway, feel free to rebut

" If he was such a bad person he wouldn't have been placed in power by us to begin with."
Absolute bullshit. The US in the past has supported terrible people for various reasons, whether it be to stabilize an area or to fight world communism (Pinochet).
The US had a moral obligation to remove Saddam after committing the mistake of getting him there in the first place.

I think getting rid of Saddam was a good idea, but it did not require a war. We have killed more people then we have saved and the fighting still continues. Our economy is in a shambles while the environment worsens. I don't see that the Iraqi people appreciate what we did, obviously it wasn't right. And this Jesus guy did live under such conditions and was still against war - to that I can only say - read for yourself.

"I mean, how does it make sense that we blame him and jail him and kill Iraqis for a mistake that was literally the exact result of our own doing? "
True, it was our doing by putting him in power, but it was his doing in abusing that power.

He had like 9 palaces all over Iraq and he had a double who had a facelift to look just like him and he never spent more than one night in a palace.

"I think getting rid of Saddam was a good idea, but it did not require a war."
Was there any other way to do it? An ultimatum was given to excile him from Iraq, he chose to go against it.

"If the world believed that the US was actually going to liberate Iraq and not monopolize their natural resources, the UN would have supported the war. "
I am very aware that America only went to war because of the oil reserves. Even for selfish reasons a good thing did come out of it.

Saddams War Crimes:
http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/iraq/iraq99h.htm

If he governed Australia would you not want this man removed from power? And under Dictatorship no one had any say, so if America would have invaded and removed him, in a way we would be liberated, even if they did have alterior motives.

"A majority of the planet was against it, as were the majority of Iraqis. "
As i have not personally interviewed Iraqi's, my notion of them being liberated is a assuption of what we would be feeling if saddam ruled over us. Personally, i do not beleive most of the things shown on TV, as they are usually monitored by the Government

I do remember however a story about Saddam's son Raping a younger girl, and he was not punished for it because of the Dictatorship. Does anyone else know anything about it or am i wrong???

"Jesus guy did live under such conditions and was still against war"
I bet he didnt live under the conditions of the Jews in WW2.

Well, what do you guys think?

"Many of the stories you hear about Saddam gassing his own people was in full view and apathetic support of the US.

I mean, how does it make sense that we blame him and jail him and kill Iraqis for a mistake that was literally the exact result of our own doing?

By that rational a parent is permitted to kill their child after they raise them incorrectly."
Wrong. By that rational, a parent is permitted to spank/reeducate her child if said child has been biting other children.

Bush was doing a real good job of scaring Saddam, the Russians were working out a deal. The local Arab countries asked us to stay out, saying they would take care of it, and I believe they would have. Bush had to have his war. Only Bush really knows why, I have my theory. We didn't need a war. As a matter of fact, it turns out that Saddam's own generals took out his WMD without him knowing. Obviously he was on his way out. If we would have just waited, we would have seen Saddam fall. I was really surprised when we declared war, because we had him cornered, why were we going to war?

DumbTeen - You are right. I'm sick and tired of hearing about how Saddam is our fault. We didn't make Saddam, we just made a deal with him. We didn't sanction any crimes he committed, we just failed to take notice. We are not perfect, we have our faults. But who blames God for creating Satan. No one would dare preach such a thing. But because Saddam did some bad things, we are to blame? Because we believe we are responsible for the world, the world believes it too. How do these delusions of grander flourish?

How would have saddam fallen? He ruled in dictatorship over Iraq, had america not interfered then Saddam might still had his WMD.

And the Russians were probably dealing some sort of treaty so they can also have front row seats to Americas Destruction.

"Bush had to have his war"

It was America who put him in a position of power, so it is only fitting that they take it away from him again. I dont think other arab countries would have done much. If they tried they would have probably been bombed and begged for help from the US anyway.

"If we would have just waited, we would have seen Saddam fall."

Maybe, but it was waiting the nearly lost the allies WW2.

"because we had him cornered, why were we going to war? "

Also not forgetting the oil reserves that lie there, other Arab countries might not have had the power to put out the flames that were lit there, or maybe they wouldnt bother as it would hurt america more than them. How else remove Saddam from power if he ignore an order from the UN. (The ultimatum)

Also probably other misc Government consipiracies.

"Six Carefully placed Neaclear Bombs can wipe out the US"

"Six Carefully placed Neaclear Bombs can wipe out the US"
Saddam didn't have nukes, there was no question. If the US went to Iraq for nukes it should have went to Pakistan, North Korea or even Iran and Lybia.

The Iraq war was not good because of some nukes, the UN said he had none and he had none.
The Iraq was good because it gives the opportunity for the US to liberate a people and install democracy in a place where good democracies are scarce (only turkey so far, and its flimsy). Why liberate and not an obscure African nation? Because Iraq has other interests in it, namely the very slight possibility of WMDs being there, the removing of an aggressive source of instability in the ME (Saddam) and ultimately the possibility of more stable oil prices which benefits everyone.

perhaps i'm in a easier place to judge seeing as i am english, but there does seem to be a great deal of hypocracy in america's foriegn policy. for instance we are told by america that iraq must be disarmed, it has weapons of mass destruction and is an aggressive nation. ok, first of all it does NOT have weapons of mass destruction, and secondly the notion of america persecuting any nation for being aggressive is so far beyond hypocrytical it's laughable. i don't want to sound as if i think i know it all, but to my understanding america is the best example of a democracy in the world, in theory. the government is not supposed to be able to act against the peoples wishes. the fact that bush's mass genocide of any nation which dares to disobey him still goes on puts you the people in a bad light globally. people in england for instance, we don't hate you lot, but we are left with two options to choose from; either you agree with the slaughter of these people which is terrible, or you just won't put the effort into stopping him, which is even worse. come on yanks, stand up for yourselves, micheal moore has proved some of you care, don't let bush turn you into the butt of the worlds jokes, and into a target for the remainder of nations bush destroys.