PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Current Events
     Pre-emptive strike
       on Iraq of course

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Poll Question: Should the U.S. launch pre-emptive stirkes on Iraq   (15 votes)
  YES! Of course! n/a
  Yes, but only with the consent of the UN n/a
  No! How can you even consider the idea!?! n/a
  I dont care/know enough n/a
Guests Cannot Vote


    
badler007

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Ok, this is the current events section, so i assumed i would find this topic.  maybe its somewhere else, but in any case i havent checked much of the site yet.

Well, whats your stance on the United States launching pre-emptive strikes on Iraq?  And along with your post, put what country you are from.  Im in the United States.


-------
Willie didn't know!
 


Posts: 8 | Posted: 9:28 PM on October 16, 2002 | IP
dsadevil

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

With UN consent, and proper analysis of how it will affect our search for al-qaeda, our int'l standing, and the threat that Iraq actually holds, sure. But Bush is rushing it.
US of A


-------
"If stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?" -Will Rodgers<br><br><br>"Neither man nor nation can prosper unless in looking at the present, thought is steadily taken for the future." -T. Roosevelt<br><br>"Might I remind you that extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice, is no virtue." -Barry Goldwater<br><br>

Respect through Excellence only
 


Posts: 789 | Posted: 10:45 PM on October 16, 2002 | IP
AlexanderTheGreat

|     |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

i would love to take out Iraq. All the doves' arguments are bad, except that unilaterally it would be illegal, and that sets a bad precedent for international law. 1st try to get UN to go along, if not, find some other way.


-------
Alex
 


Posts: 292 | Posted: 10:05 AM on October 17, 2002 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Why does it always seem like the distinguished folks who scream the loudest for the use of military force are the ones who never spent a day in uniform?  These super-patriots who wormed their way out of military service when it was their time to fight are mostly conservative types who avoided Vietnam and all subsequent shooting wars, but are keen on abstract geopolitical schemes requiring the sacrifice of other people's children.

I am not saying that a lack of military service disqualifies someone from being able to comment on military issues.  What I am saying is that people who question the courage and patriotism of others, and eagerly send young men and women off to war, while passing up the chance to prove their own courage and patriotism are hypocrites.  If they want to convince people otherwise, they need to say:  "we need to to to war, and I , personally, will lead the way.  And my sons and grandsons will be right behind me."  Put their lives where their mouths are and we will be convinced they mean it.  Otherwise, if they support a way, but avoid serving in that war, they are letting other young men die in their place.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 05:19 AM on October 20, 2002 | IP
AlexanderTheGreat

|     |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I feel especially comfortable tearing apart what you just said. 1. I support the war against Iraq (only if UN goes along) and I am a Democrat. 2. I am only 22, so I wasn't around to dodge the draft in Vietnam. 3. I think it's ridiculous to say you can't have an opinion about war unless you agree to join the military when it comes time to go to war. There are many other ways to contribute to war and to society at large then serving as a soldier. 4. I am gay, so even if I wanted to defend my country by arms, I wouldn't be allowed to join the army. 5. I do not question the patriotism of people who are against the war w/ Iraq or any other war. 6. and that is what soldiers are for, to fight, and sometimes to die. of course when you decide to fight, it should be for necessary/just/good causes, but when u do, you send in your military. i pay taxes to have one, so I have a say in what we do with it. I understand your point, that some people who yell for war see soldiers only as chess pieces, but there are many good reasons to support this war, and others, and attacking peoples' sentiments about war and soldiers' lives is really just skirting the issues, which are: Is the war worth fighting? Does it improve US security or diminish it? Can it be won (in more than just the stadard meaning for the word)?


-------
Alex
 


Posts: 292 | Posted: 09:11 AM on October 20, 2002 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The case against the war is simple, clear and strong.  The Administration calls it a chapter in the war on terror, but Iraq has no demonstrated ties either to the September 11th attack or to the Al Qaeda network that launched it.  The aim of the war is to deprive Saddam of weapons of mass destruction, but the extent of his programs for building these weapons, if it still exists, is murky.  Still less clear is any intention on his part to use such weapons.  To do so would be suicide, as he well knows.  Administration officials have been asked several times whether they have any evidence of an imminent threat from Saddam against the United States and have answered no repeatedly.  On the other hand, if he does have them, and faces his overthrow and possible death at the hands of US forces, he might well use them.  Or more likely, give them to terrorist groups to use after his fall.

Even if Saddam possesses weapons of mass destruction and wishes to use them, a policy of deterrence would appear perfectly adequate to stop him.  Just as it was adequate for a half-century in stopping a much more fearsome country, the Soviet Union.  At the very least, this path should be fully explored before military action, the traditional last resort, is even considered.

The decision to go to war has a significance that goes far beyond the war.  The war is the product of a broader policy that has been spelled out in the clearest possible terms by the Bush Administration.  The Administration's recently published "National Security Strategy of the United States" set forth even larger ambitions.  It declares a policy of military supremacy over the entire world, an objective never before attained by any power.  This new policy reverses a long American tradition of contempt for unprovoked attacks.  It gives the United States the unrestricted right to attack nations even when it has not been attacked by them and is not about to be attacked by them.  It trades deterrence for pre-emption, or in plain English - aggression.  It accords the United States the right to overthrow any regime it decides should be overthrown.

The most important of the questions raised by the war is larger still.  It is what sort of country the United States wants to be in the twenty-first century.  The genius of the American form of government was the creation of a system to check and balance government power and so render it accountable to the people.  Today that system is threatened by a monster of unbalanced and unaccountable power that is taking shape in the executive branch of the government.  As disrespectful of the Constitution as it is of the UN Charter, the Administration has turned away from law in all its manifestations and placed its reliance on overwhelming force to achieve its ends.

In pursuit of empire abroad, it endangers the freedoms at home.  The bully of the world threatens to become the bully of Americans.  Already the Justice Department claims the right to jail American citizens indefinitely on the sole ground that a bureaucrat in the Pentagon has labeled them something called an "enemy combatant."  

I rattled on too long, but let me close by asking the question as it should have been stated.  Are you in favor of United States aggression against Iraq? That's what pre-emption really means.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 04:53 AM on October 21, 2002 | IP
thistownwilleatu

|       |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So we get rid of Saddam, his 2 sons are far worse than he ever thought about being, we're back where we started, if not worse off.


-------
"The greatest evil is not done in those sordid dens of evil that Dickens loved to paint ... but is conceived and ordered (moved, seconded, carried and minuted) in clear, carpeted, warmed, well-lighted offices, by quiet men with white collars and cut fingernails and smooth-shaven cheeks who do not need to raise their voices." - Thomas Merton

"I thank my God for every remembrance of you." - Paul
 


Posts: 341 | Posted: 09:20 AM on October 21, 2002 | IP
AlexanderTheGreat

|     |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Whoever said we should JUST get rid of saddam? If you want to do this, you have to do it right. Go in, take out everyone who is loyal to him (keep some who are willing to cooperate and have experience in administrative capacities). don't put in a puppet gov't right away, from go the Japan way: Keep the U.S. military (or preferably UN) there and run the show until institutions and stability has been established that will foster good governance once we leave.


-------
Alex
 


Posts: 292 | Posted: 01:17 AM on October 22, 2002 | IP
fallingupwards84

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

are you guys blind? if we attack iraq, then the middle east will hate us even more and there will be an increase in terrorist attacks. no war!!!


-------
i am a liberal chrisitian and proud of it!!!

"Those who produce should have, but we know that those who produce the most - that is, those who work hardest, and at the most difficult and most menial tasks, have the least." - Eugene Debs
 


Posts: 971 | Posted: 01:20 AM on November 18, 2002 | IP
beavischrist

|       |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Scheduling war makes war a little too casual of a thing. And if we let the government do it now, we may be asking for more.

Let's see what's on the calendar...Thursday we're meeting the Smith's for dinner, Saturday we're waging war, and Sunday is the football game.
 


Posts: 193 | Posted: 3:49 PM on November 22, 2002 | IP
fallingupwards84

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

exactly. if we allow the US to go to war against iraq, then its going to be easier for them to go to war against other countries. soon as you know it, we're gonna be trapped in a cycle of wars.


-------
i am a liberal chrisitian and proud of it!!!

"Those who produce should have, but we know that those who produce the most - that is, those who work hardest, and at the most difficult and most menial tasks, have the least." - Eugene Debs
 


Posts: 971 | Posted: 5:23 PM on November 22, 2002 | IP
deltabravo20

|      |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

 A few thoughts....; First,  I must state the fact that I am a Soldier in the United States Army, and even though I am generally expected to stay out of the business of revealing my personal opinions on policy, I believe that my service to my country entitles me to do so. I have very well defined views on the subject, and I hope you won't mind my sharing them with you.
 
 I am very much in agreement with AlexanderTheGreat! I salute him for stating his views in a very civilized manner, and I want him to know that we in the Army are sworn to protect and defend EVERY American, regardless of their orientation, (political, sexual, or otherwise), and we do it gladly.        
 
 However, I must say that there is some truth to everything that has been written throughout this thread so far.

  I think it is true that sometimes there are individuals who are eager and willing to see us in the military go and engage some foreign force in combat just because it seems the more expedient or convenient thing to do.        
 
 Military force is the tool that nations utilize to pursue their goals and secure their interests once all other options of influencing political circumstances have been deemed to be useless. That, in my humble opinion, is very close to being the case in this instance.
 
 Speaking as a Soldier, I must say that this is a problem that can only be solved by force, because dictators like Saddam Hussein DO NOT respond to any other kind of stimuli.
 
 Let's say the U.N. inspectors don't find any WMD, or evidence of their existence....what happens then?  Do we leave Saddam there, able to start reconstituting his forces, along with his weapons' programs? If we do that, we will not only have to go through the same thing again a few years down the road; then the situation will be much more critical, because he will more than likely be in a stronger position where he WILL be able to inflict great harm upon his neighbors, or upon the U.S. itself
 
 It's been said that those who choose to ignore History are doomed to repeat it, and this is a classic case. During the early 1930's, when Adolf Hitler started rising as a political figure in Germany, the more security-minded elements within the League of Nations took notice of his extremist views and statements, and they realized that his increasing prominence was a risk to the security of Europe.
 
 In spite of this, the leadership of these countries chose to adopt the docile posture of appeasement and containment, which only served to spur Hitler on. When he repudiated the Treaty of Versailles and declared he would embark on a modernization and strengthening program for the German Armed Forces, nothing was done. When he annexed territories which had been recovered from Germany after WW1 under the same treaty, nothing was done other than issuing some mild diplomatic challenges.
 
 The nations of Europe allowed him to get stronger and stronger, hoping against hope that he would refrain from exercising any type of aggression, and did nothing but try to contain him. Hitler became bolder and bolder, and in September of 1939 he attacked Poland and invaded her, leading to the results that we all know today.
 
 What would have happened if Hitler had been stopped in the early 30's by a determined leader, with enough force to erradicate the threat he represented? Surely there would have been a plethora of opposing voices, and there would have been generalized protest and discontent at the decision to use force to avert what ended up becoming the most catastrophic war this world has ever known, but IT WOULD HAVE NEVER HAPPENED.
 
 Peace can only be achieved through strength, and through the certainty on the part of would-be trouble makers around the world that DEADLY force will be employed against them should they dare to disturb it.
 
 As the leading power on Earth, we have a distinct responsibility to ensure that weaker countries can strive to attain maximum development for the well-being of their people, without having to deal with threats of aggression and distabilization of the kind that Saddam, Osama, Khomeini, Castro, and extremists like them so like to abide by.
 
 Whether we like it or not, and whether our friends and adversaries around the world like it or not, we are strong, and it is only moral and humane for us to use that strength in the interest of peace and humanity. Erradicating threats like the ones presented by Saddam Hussein are but one of the preventive measures we must take in order to preserve peace.
 
 Appeasement never lead anywhere; History has taught us that through countless examples, Hitler's being the one of the most notorious ones.
 
 Furthermore, I think that saying that our National Strategy for Security represents a blank check giving the U.S. permission to pull the trigger anytime and anywhere it feels like it is taking reality completely out of context.
 
 This was always the policy of the United States; the fact that during the past administration an effort was made to convince Americans to feel shame and to be apologetic for being strong didn't really change it. It only made our country weaker in the eyes of a determined and fanatical enemy who, thanks to that policy of appeasement, succeeded in striking a huge blow thinking that he would not be dealt with. He was wrong.
 
 Our Commander In Chief made that very clear, not only to terrorists, but to any and all of their sponsoring countries, which brings us right back to Iraq. Saddam Hussein's threat MUST be dealt with, and it must be dealt with now that he is not strong, and we have the means and the resolution to do it, for the sake of his own people, for the sake of our country, and for the sake of peace.
 
 Contrary to what many may think, it isn't really easy for me to make this statement, since I am very well aware of the possibility that I may be an active participant in this conflict. Soldiers are the people who loathe war the most, for we are the ones who must undergo its rigors and cruelty.
 
 However, I am determined to put in my two cents to make this a better, safer world for the children that I may have one day, for my brother's children, and for their children, so that they won't have to face foreign aggression and live under threat conditions and daily warnings.
 
 I thank you for your attention, and GOD BLESS!!



(Edited by deltabravo20 12/14/2002 at 05:31 AM).


-------
The United States Army..... Persuasive In Peace, Invincible In War
 


Posts: 3 | Posted: 05:19 AM on December 14, 2002 | IP
AlexanderTheGreat

|     |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

thanx. nice post. really.
the point i agree with most is that if iraq is a sponsor of terrorism (like, duh, it is!), that makes it equally culpable (whether it was directly linked to 9/11 is unimportant, we know they do/have supported other things). states get away with this precisely because wuss liberals in America distinguish classically defined war and terrorism as different somehow. terrorism is just a way for states who can't go to war against us to strike at our interests. i was amazed when people were saying we shouldn't go into afghanistan after 9/11. if the Taliban had dropped a bomb on NYC from a plane, would it be ok then? but they can't, so they sponsor al Qaida to do things more "discretely". states respond to deterrence. if we wipe the floor with a few sponsors of terrorism, maybe the rest will stop, and that will take away at least one source of support for groups like al qaida.

hey soldier, one last question. i can't help it. you said you gladly defend even gays. what do you think of us helping you charge the trenches? or are u worried we'll be too busy checking out your bum to pay attention to the bullets whizzing by?


-------
Alex
 


Posts: 292 | Posted: 12:06 PM on December 15, 2002 | IP
Bograt

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lets go get some! If those idiots were cheering in the streets on 9/11, let them weep today when they face the full wrath of the "sleeping giant" that they have awakend! Then, afterwards build the nation(s)(more than just Iraq) up so that they my produce things more useful than lies and WMD (like Japan). Oh, by the way I'm an active duty US Marine from...well duh, the US!


-------
Damn you Murphy!
 


Posts: 134 | Posted: 9:56 PM on December 16, 2002 | IP
fallingupwards84

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

alright, i dont wanna piss anyone off right now so i'm going to make myself very clear. i totally respect anyone who is serving our country, whether in the marines, army, navy, or what. i respect the fact that you are willing to lay your life down for your country. but honestly, do we NEED to go to war with iraq? we all know this is about oil. this isnt ww2 with hitler


-------
i am a liberal chrisitian and proud of it!!!

"Those who produce should have, but we know that those who produce the most - that is, those who work hardest, and at the most difficult and most menial tasks, have the least." - Eugene Debs
 


Posts: 971 | Posted: 11:04 PM on December 16, 2002 | IP
Bograt

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The thing that I don't get is all the hoopala about a "Pre-emptive" strike. We have already been struck at! Or has mainstream America already forgotten 9/11? Yes, Saddam did not send scuds our way, but funding, providing resources, sheltering and the active practice of terrorism casts the shadow of guilt upon him and those that would support him.


-------
Damn you Murphy!
 


Posts: 134 | Posted: 8:46 PM on December 17, 2002 | IP
Broker

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

We will see something similar to what happened in 1991. THe soldiers will be surrendering... they don't want to fight for Saddam.

If you don't want to go in because of terrorist regime, go in for the people. Saddam has his huge palace with Italian marble and gold lettering while people starve outside the gate. The people of Iraq are waiting to be liberated.

Not doing something about Saddam now will have disasterous future results. If this effort is derailed and if an Israeli or American city burns, we will know who to blame.


-------
Don't tell me I'm conservative...I know that!
 


Posts: 351 | Posted: 7:27 PM on December 22, 2002 | IP
Faze

|      |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Broker at 7:27 PM on December 22, 2002 :
We will see something similar to what happened in 1991. THe soldiers will be surrendering... they don't want to fight for Saddam.

If you don't want to go in because of terrorist regime, go in for the people. Saddam has his huge palace with Italian marble and gold lettering while people starve outside the gate. The people of Iraq are waiting to be liberated.

Not doing something about Saddam now will have disasterous future results. If this effort is derailed and if an Israeli or American city burns, we will know who to blame.


I agree with you Broker. Saddam IS a threat to the world. If anyone read the October 2002 issue of Reader's Digest, you'd really know Saddam even on the bit of information about his twisted world and twisted, miserable mind. How could he eat fresh food of lobster, shrimp, lean meat and dairy products when he is very aware of his starving people? How could anyone be so cruel?! (Well, Saddam is!)
I feel great sadness for his people. They're suffering something that they don't deserve. They haven't done anything for them to be ruled by a selfish tyrant. They don't deserve hunger and the beatings they get everyday. They don't deserve death - but they don't also deserve hell on earth.
I believe that the US needs the UN's consent, the UN's signal. It just irritates me that Bush is so itching to do a strike. He should not take the consequences for granted. Even though the world is threatened by the mere presence of Saddam, still, the people of Iraq have already suffered too much, consider how much more pain would it give them if Bush strikes arrogantly - he'll be recklessly gambling these people's lives.



-------
Use your mind - don't let it rot, let those words flow - don't let them get stuck
And mind you people, debating IS cool... so don't waste that witty talent - develop it up to its best
 


Posts: 22 | Posted: 10:51 PM on January 4, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Pre-emptive war is a horrible doctrine, and once let loose it will not obediently crawl back into its hole simply because we are done with it for the moment. The bar should be set very high for an act of pre-emptive war, and in the case of Iraq — if we are there at all — we are only barely there. The argument balances on a knife edge.

Allowing WMDs to fall into the hands of a man who has started two unprovoked wars against his neighbors in the past two decades — and who is also a brutal, sadistic dictator — is clearly something the rest of the world has a right to be concerned about. But the way the world goes about disarming him matters.

If the United States does it alone, the message we send is that any single nation state has the right to attack another if it feels sufficiently threatened. This is a dangerous precedent to set since, after all, we are not the only nation state in the world.

If we invade Iraq under UN auspices, we send a different message: pre-emptive war is justified in the extreme, but no single nation state is justified in doing it on its own. You have to persuade a group of neutral third parties first.

This is a principle worth keeping. Not because the United States should be held hostage to the United Nations, but because everyone should be. This is a case where it is in America's best interest to keep Pandora's Box firmly and solidly shut.


 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 04:33 AM on January 21, 2003 | IP
kelvin90703

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from fallingupwards84 at 11:04 PM on December 16, 2002 :
but honestly, do we NEED to go to war with iraq? we all know this is about oil. this isnt ww2 with hitler



We don't need to go to war with Iraq.  If we do then our leadership has failed in the nth degree.  Yes it is about oil and also other things.  This country would be back in the stone age without a steady supply of oil.  If I have to choose between toppling a middle east dictator or living in the stone age, I vote for having a lynching in Iraq.

A first strike by US forces only would be political sucide.  GW Bush does not have the support at home, politically, and abroad to do this.  As a leader he has failed to do this.  We already have the legal justification by the UN and treaty the end the Gulf War to attack Iraq.  We don't have the all our "ducks in a row" to do so.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 08:46 AM on January 25, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The most important line of Bush's State of the Union speech was this one:


"And this Congress and the American people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al-Qaida. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own."
If Bush has proof of this, he's got his invasion.

But he doesn't. It's a lie, confirmed by his buddy Tony Blair who claims that they have support for the idea but then admits "We do know of links between al Qaeda and Iraq -- we cannot be sure of the exact extent of those links."

Note the word - "links"- not "alliance", not "protection", just "links"-- as in the US being allied with Saudi princes, who fund radical Islam around the world, or the usual CIA contacts that existed with al-Qaida almost up until 911.

It's a hoary point, but the US was still funding the Taliban to the tune of millions of dollars right up until the 911 attacks. There is no evidence of Iraq having even that level of economic engagement with either the Taliban or al-Qaida.

So "links"-- breathless revelations of some lower-level al-Qaida operative meeting with some lower-level Iraqi official -- just won't be that impressive, however Bush and the hawks try to make it out to be.

If they have the goods, they should show it.

Otherwise, they are using the excuse of secrecy to pretend to have more information to justify a war than they can reveal. After the Gulf of Tonkin and other lies that led to war, that's no longer a justified argument.

Since Bush has opened the door on this lie to justify the war, the antiwar forces should broadly and loudly demand that the Bush administration Put Up or Shut Up.


 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 05:30 AM on January 30, 2003 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.