Gulf War II and ZP Poll

[higgins999]

I've seen a lot of threads on the ZP forums, accentuated by the poll on the index page. Initial review suggests that there is less support for the war than actually exists, considering the numbers on the ZP poll state 44% are for the action, with 50% against.

It should be pointed out that this is not an accurate depiction of the American publics view. Most scientific polls show overwhelming support for the military action and for President Bush, which depending on who does the poll, ranges from 70-80 percent.

In addition, the most vocal opponents, France, Russia and China could care less about civilian casualties. Rather, they are more interested in their multi-billion dollar investments in Iraqi oil. Their econimic interests do more to hurt Iraqi civilians than the current American military involvement.

The American people are standing firmly behind this action, and behind the troops currently involved.

Also, the question presented is flawed. "War" is difficult in general to justify, because wars are started and fought for so many different reasons.

However, in this circumstance, the current military action is certainly justified. Saddam Hussain has to go, there is no question about it. We've tried diplomacy for 12 years with no success, should we wait another 12? Or wait until Saddam has nuclear warheads and long range ballistic missiles?

While civilian casualties are inevitable, this cannot let us deter our action in Iraq. The Iraqi regime is a clear and present danger to the United States, and the benefits the to Iraqi civilians in the long term will far outweigh their unfortunate losses in the present.

[grab_grab_the_haddock]

New threads on the war should only be started if you have a unique angle to look at things from, or piece of news which changes the whole debate.

You have neither, all you are doing is posting your opinion, which should have been done on one of the pre-existing threads on the war

[higgins999]

If your logic was the case for all "new" threads the ZP forums would be virtually non-existent...

[grab_grab_the_haddock]

which is why i wrote "new threads on the war"

it seems there is a new one every 10 minutes, and their is no point unless you have something new to say, which you dont.

[higgins999]

Ok...well, thanks for your input.

[SexySpammer]

It's true this thread is based on the opinions of one person; however, it's the first non anti-american thread that I have seen here and in all fairness, it should be accepted and given the same respect that the anti-american ones have been given.

to grab_grab_the_haddock: your post gives me hope that we can agree to disagree on a peaceful level, rather than resorting to the kind of ranting that I've seen so much of from people in past threads.

to higgins999: well said . . . thank you.

[grab_grab_the_haddock]

ok lets give this thread the same respect as threads which criticise US foreign policy (the name anti-american is dishonest, i know many good americans who are against the war)

lets start by asking Higgins999 what sort of evidence he has to back up the following statement:

" France, Russia and China could care less about civilian casualties. Rather, they are more interested in their multi-billion dollar investments in Iraqi oil. Their econimic interests do more to hurt Iraqi civilians than the current American military involvement."

[higgins999]

"France, Russia and China could care less about civilian casualties. Rather, they are more interested in their multi-billion dollar investments in Iraqi oil. Their econimic interests do more to hurt Iraqi civilians than the current American military involvement."

I do not believe that the governments of these countries are as interested in the safety of Iraqi civilians, not nearly as much as the United States. If they did care, they would not be in violation of the UN embargo. All three countries have provided either weapontry or monies to Iraq. This economic aid does not benifit the Iraqi population, rather it only strengthens Saddams power. France has billions invested in Iraqi oil, while Russia and China have sold arms.

For example, the cruise missle that hit the Kuwaiti mall was a Chinese Silkworm, while the high tech weapontry, such as anti tank weapons, have been provided by the Russians. In addition, the Russians have provided anti-GPS equiptment, which jams percision bombs and missiles.

If these nations were truely dedicated to the safety of the Iraqi people, they would not be helping the Iraqi regiem...

[fernandez]

Originally posted by higgins999
"France, Russia and China could care less about civilian casualties. Rather, they are more interested in their multi-billion dollar investments in Iraqi oil. Their econimic interests do more to hurt Iraqi civilians than the current American military involvement."


Have those economic interests also caused bombs to fall and buildings to crash? Read about Halliburton and what has been granted to them. In addition, find out how Cheney is connected to Halliburton.


I do not believe that the governments of these countries are as interested in the safety of Iraqi civilians, not nearly as much as the United States. If they did care, they would not be in violation of the UN embargo. All three countries have provided either weapontry or monies to Iraq. This economic aid does not benifit the Iraqi population, rather it only strengthens Saddams power. France has billions invested in Iraqi oil, while Russia and China have sold arms.


Others are not allowed to act against the will of the UN, yet the US is? Who sold nerve gas to Iraq?


If these nations were truely dedicated to the safety of the Iraqi people, they would not be helping the Iraqi regiem...

Really, how many civilians are dying? Collateral damage is caring for the population?

[higgins999]

I would hate to "nickel and dime" every point on this conflict. There are thousands of small arguments and counter-arguments that could be made about it.

Your argument about Cheney is well taken, and something I’ve raised my eyebrow to; however I would have to look into it further before I could intelligently discuss it with you.

As far as collateral damage, that is indeed an unfortunate side affect of this war. No one likes to see innocent civilians killed or injured (except Saddam and his circle.) But this is not the fault of the US as much as it is the fault of the Iraqi regime that has put into place the circumstances that has allowed these casualties to occur.

If Saddam were to stay in power without US involvement, how many more civilians would die? Once he gets his WMD program rolling, there's no telling how many would be killed if he decides to gas/nuke/bio attack the Kurds. I am fairly certain that the amount of civilians that would die under Saddams evil rule would be far greater than collateral damage caused by the US.

Once the US helps establish a free and democratic government in Iraq, life will be far greater for the civilian population than under Saddam....take Germany and Japan as an example....

[fernandez]

Originally posted by higgins999

As far as collateral damage, that is indeed an unfortunate side affect of this war. No one likes to see innocent civilians killed or injured (except Saddam and his circle.) But this is not the fault of the US as much as it is the fault of the Iraqi regime that has put into place the circumstances that has allowed these casualties to occur.


I fail to see your point. The Iraqi regime is not asking for weapons to be dropped. Civilian asualties have occurred because bombs are being dropped on civilian targets.


Originally posted by higgins999

If Saddam were to stay in power without US involvement, how many more civilians would die? Once he gets his WMD program rolling, there's no telling how many would be killed if he decides to gas/nuke/bio attack the Kurds. I am fairly certain that the amount of civilians that would die under Saddams evil rule would be far greater than collateral damage caused by the US.


If Bush were to stay in power, how many people in far off foreign lands will die? Bush has WMD and he has mentioned several times that he is willing to make use of such weapons.


Originally posted by higgins999

Once the US helps establish a free and democratic government in Iraq, life will be far greater for the civilian population than under Saddam....take Germany and Japan as an example....

Or look at Vietnam and Afghanistan for example. You can't bomb a country to democracy. Take a look who is in power in Afghanistan now. It's a rule of the minority over the rule of the majority, not democratically elected government at all. Dostum, a former Soviet sympathizer who fought against the Afghanis during the Russian occupation has been granted a high position, he is also known for his gross violations of human rights.

[endersgame21]

"France, Russia and China could care less about civilian casualties. Rather, they are more interested in their multi-billion dollar investments in Iraqi oil. Their econimic interests do more to hurt Iraqi civilians than the current American military involvement."
-
Have those economic interests also caused bombs to fall and buildings to crash? Read about Halliburton and what has been granted to them. In addition, find out how Cheney is connected to Halliburton.
Have you ever seen the commercial that says if you buy drugs you are supporting terrorism. You may not be giving money for that reason but you are still supporting it. If those countries didn't buy oil from Iraq and gave them no money then Iraq would have a lot harder time making weapons of mass destruction (I am not saying they do have weapons of mass destruction) and fighting this war.

[collideous]

Originally posted by endersgame21
If those countries didn't buy oil from Iraq and gave them no money then Iraq would have a lot harder time making weapons of mass destruction (I am not saying they do have weapons of mass destruction) and fighting this war.

Incidentally, if you live in Northern California and drive a car, chances are you're buying gas made from Iraqi oil. About a third of the Californian oil imports come from Iraq (http://www.oilandgasreporter.com/stories/121702/ind_20021217009.shtml). So, how about those countries?

[cheapprick]

Originally posted by endersgame21
-

Have you ever seen the commercial that says if you buy drugs you are supporting terrorism. You may not be giving money for that reason but you are still supporting it. If those countries didn't buy oil from Iraq and gave them no money then Iraq would have a lot harder time making weapons of mass destruction (I am not saying they do have weapons of mass destruction) and fighting this war.

That's a pretty poor argument. I've seen that p2p supports terrorism too. It's a commercial, designed to help you think a certain way in 30 seconds.

Wait until your next election, then watch their commercials. If every word is to be believed, you'll never vote.

[Krell]

Who is this imposter?


Why are you engaging him?


Why are we allowing another war thread?

[r_xq]

COS THEY ARE STUPID AND ALL THEY ARE DOING IS REGURGITATING THE STANDARD PRO-WAR AND ANTI-WAR ARGUEMENTS THEY HAVE HEARD AND READ ELSEWHERE.

[higgins999]

.....and we were doing so well in keeping this debate mature....

Lets face it; the anti-war movement in the United States is virtually dead. Support for the servicemen and women is rock solid. Those who do protest are a small minority....As for the rest of the world who doesn't support us, thats really their problem...

Once Baghdad falls and Saddam is either captured or killed (if he hasn't been already), those servicemen and women will be welcomed home as heroes. They will march proudly down the canyon of heroes in NY, as they should.

Whether or not you support Bush or the US government, we should support the troops. They are our friends, family and regular citizens who are putting their lives at risk. That’s fine if you don’t support Bush....but don’t blame the US solders...

[r_xq]

higgins999, as was said at the beginning of this thread, you have nothing to add to the debate. All this has been said before, and all youre doing is repeating repeating repeating repeating repeating repeating repeating repeating repeating repeating repeating repeating repeating repeating repeating repeating repeating repeating repeating repeating repeating repeating repeating repeating repeating repeating repeating repeating

[Ken17625]

COS THEY ARE STUPID AND ALL THEY ARE DOING IS REGURGITATING THE STANDARD PRO-WAR AND ANTI-WAR ARGUEMENTS THEY HAVE HEARD AND READ ELSEWHERE.

higgins999, as was said at the beginning of this thread, you have nothing to add to the debate. All this has been said before, and all youre doing is repeating repeating repeating repeating repeating repeating repeating repeating repeating repeating repeating repeating repeating repeating repeating repeating repeating repeating repeating repeating repeating repeating repeating repeating repeating repeating repeating repeating

Did you forget you're medication again?

It's gonna be ok r_xq. Thats it take deep breaths, calmmm.....

[grab_grab_the_haddock]

Originally posted by Krell
Who is this imposter?


Why are you engaging him?


Why are we allowing another war thread?


Some people are trying to have a sensible discussion, if you have nothing to contribute please take your testosterone elsewhere.

[r_xq]

huh?

dude, i've just taken my medication

TRIPLE DOSE!

[grab_grab_the_haddock]

Originally posted by higgins999


I do not believe that the governments of these countries are as interested in the safety of Iraqi civilians, not nearly as much as the United States. If they did care, they would not be in violation of the UN embargo. All three countries have provided either weapontry or monies to Iraq. This economic aid does not benifit the Iraqi population, rather it only strengthens Saddams power. France has billions invested in Iraqi oil, while Russia and China have sold arms.

.

First up, what is your evidence that the Russians sold these weapons? As far as i am aware it is something the pentagon alleged but was strenuously denied by Moscow.

Apart from this you seem to be arguing that Russia and China show a blatant disregard for Iraqi civilians because they once sold the Iraqi regime weapons, unlike the US government who show their concern for the citizens of Iraq by brutally murdering them in an illegal war.

[Krell]

No more war threads

The mods are in agreement on this, go find somewhere to piss in.

This is a P2P site, say PEER TO PEER . . . let's get back to the focus, I am closing this threads, if you don't like it, oh well.