How Many Americans Support The War?...

Thus, it seems clear that the public is not convinced yet that a war is necessary
Click to expand...

they talk to different people than I do then...I'd guess 2/3
 
Obviously it depends who they talk to, but I keep finding conflicting stories all over the net both in Europe and the US. It would just be nice if they quit with the BS and got it over with 'cos the administration's not taking any notice of public opinion anyway and this war has been on the cards for months and I can't see them backing down now.
 
To me its just a continutation of the 91 war. Iraq has thumbed its nose at all of the UN resolutions that were laid down by the greater international community to be declared a member in good standing again.

I see this whole thing as being akin to WW1-WW2. WW1 and the Treaty of Versailles placed upon Germany after it was this great pre UN type of punishment/restriction list, in lieu of general defeat and occupation, that they agreed to live up to. After time went on and the stomach for the original arguments waned within public perception, Germany said 'fuck all' and ignored the Treaty. At that time the Allies had grown a little scared of renewed war to enforce the treaty to keep the enemy in check. Once Germany knew that the Allies wern't going to do jack about it.. they just fired up the old ways overnight and went with the old plan of general regional domination. To me WW2 was just a continuation of the failed inconclusion of the original conflict. The same applies to Iraq. They were running around unchecked and finally barked enough for the world to make them the media darling of the day. The world went to war ... and then it stopped ... right at the point of certain doom for the current Iraq power structure. They were given the choice to be expelled or stand in the corner until they learned their lesson. They chose to stand in the corner and bide their time until public opinion found other things to bother with. None of the resolutions of the original conflict were settled ... the region has been at pre war ready alert for a decade... Saddam has made it clear that he will be defiant to the last* and go right back to his old ways to supress and eliminate opposition factions to his general rule of his own borders. This whole escapade has already made him a hero to the little guy that cant stand the western world. His intent was to dominate the entire gulf region and eliminate all borders and reinstate the next Ottoman Empire under his control. The borders were created arbitrarily by the french and English after WW2 to break the tribes up and keep puppet government in power.. or at least friendly ones. Its a terrible mess.

*He gained power in the first place showing no mercy or weakness. If he bows to international pressures he will be seen as weak and be assassinated faster than you can make a cuppa. He is doing what he has to to stay alive. He is good at this game.
 
im against war on general purpose. but i hate Sadam too but id rather he get out or die with as few deaths as possible. i do agree with unc as this does remind me of the Gulf War with one differece. back then we only wanted the oil. this time its in the name of anti terrorism, freedom or whatever the hell you want to call it.
 
has there ever been a time of peace on Earth when the human race all just got along? i don't think so. long after Saddam is history, the world will go on fighting.
 
as much as i hate to say it you are absolutly right on that. but that doesnt mean i like him as i said id ratehr he wasnt in power. id like to take any necessary steps to avoid war in general. any steps toward peace are good steps. maybe one day we wont be war mongers. maybe.
 
freako104 said:
im against war on general purpose. but i hate Sadam too but id rather he get out or die with as few deaths as possible. i do agree with unc as this does remind me of the Gulf War with one differece. back then we only wanted the oil. this time its in the name of anti terrorism, freedom or whatever the hell you want to call it.
Click to expand...

i think there are a good number of people out there who would say that the push to attack saddam hussein is still about oil.
 
i dont know cause i havent heard that as much. ive been hearing more of again the anti terrorism ideals
 
freako104 said:
im against war on general purpose.
Click to expand...

aren't we all. however, how many times has a lasting peace (not tolerance but actual peace) been obtainable without it?
 
violence begets violence doesnt it? theres got to be another way to peace without slaughtering so many. read my response to s4 and see if you can see any difference in this post and that cause its the same thing. that any steps toward peace are necessary. but there has got to be a better way.
 
freako104 said:
violence begets violence doesnt it? theres got to be another way to peace without slaughtering so many. read my response to s4 and see if you can see any difference in this post and that cause its the same thing. that any steps toward peace are necessary. but there has got to be a better way.
Click to expand...

After WWI, Germany was put onto a program to repair all the damage it had done. WWII started out because nobody wanted to fight. The German army rolled over everyone except for the UK until the US got involved after Japan's ill-advised attack on Pearl Harbor. Violence may beget violence, but it also keeps bullies at bay.
 
maybe but again when WWII started think of what was happening. Nato gave Hitler lands and he wanted more and more. he then did the Blitzkrieg on Poland just so he could have it. i think it was justified to do what happened to him but again im more against him than the people. although i do hold a grudge against them they have/had free will they didnt have to listen but they did. but im more against him. same with Iraq. im more against Sadam than i am against the people unless they are out there killing and raping or whatever. as i said there has got to be a better way than destryoing everything out there.
 
Maybe we can all sign our name to a piece of paper & say no more war. A treaty. Oh wait, it only takes one to scrwe up a treaty(see N Korea & non-proliferation)

War sucks...bad guys suck worse
 
treaties dont always work i know that. too often someone wants more or some bullshit like that. or they back out or they break the treaty. it happens
 
I'm not in favor of the war, but at the same time, I know its gonna happen so I say just be done with it. Do it, have it over with, and lets stop discussing it. Most Americans are not in favor of it, but it doesn't matter to those who want it. Ok, since you don't care what the rest of us think anyway, just do it and get it over with. If our leaders valued our opinion, and would maybe do something different considering the people didnt' want it, then maybe i would argue against it, but since it doesn't matter, "Just Do It"

I just hope this attitude doesn't continue to prevail AFTER this war. I mean where is it gonna stop?
 
freako104 said:
maybe but again when WWII started think of what was happening. Nato gave Hitler lands and he wanted more and more. he then did the Blitzkrieg on Poland just so he could have it. i think it was justified to do what happened to him but again im more against him than the people. although i do hold a grudge against them they have/had free will they didnt have to listen but they did. but im more against him. same with Iraq. im more against Sadam than i am against the people unless they are out there killing and raping or whatever. as i said there has got to be a better way than destryoing everything out there.
Click to expand...

NATO didn't exist before WWII. Appeasement, however, did. It was appeasement when Hitler attacked Poland and everyone just stood there and let him do it. It was appeasement when nazi Germany developed their weapons of war (forbidden by the treaty of Versailles) and nobody did anything to stop him. It was appeasement when Hitler and the nazis had kristalnacht, and nobody tried to stop him. It's not a question of whether to fight or not. It's a question of when do you fight. Should we wait, and appease our antagonists until they are able to do us greater harm, or do something while our enemy is weak? Lives are at stake. Both ours and theirs. Make a choice.
 
attack while weak but as i said i want as few lives taken as possible. you make it seem like there is no other way. there always is. however not everyone is willing to negotiate which is sad. but id rather lets get Sadam out of power rather than attack a country kill shitloads of people just to make an example of them. get him out of power and see how the people feel.
 
Believe it or not, I agree with you, freako104. As few casualties as possible to get the job done. As for innocents getting killed...more innocents die on highways than in war now. Don't misinterpret that. That means that we can try to minimize the effects of war, but it's still going to happen. During the first Gulf war, Saddam used human shields for some of his warfighting equipment.

There was an episode of Star Trek (TOS) that dealt with a planet that had so sanitized warfare that they never put a true end to it...(Eminiar 7?)...and, as a result, ONLY innocent people died. Think that over for a bit...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top