War in Iraq

[cakadu]

Now, before you start dissing me, let me say that I wholeheartedly agree that we cannot have people like Saddam ruling countries or able to have power over anyone. Let's look beyond the short term for the moment, and just to play devil's advocate, ponder on the following:

What happens if the coalition does not get Saddam?

What if there is someone as bad, if not worse, than Saddam that steps up next?

How do you suppose getting rid of Saddam is going to fix all the problems of the Iraqi people, much less the turmoil and problems that there have been in the Middle East for as far back as we can remember?

How sincere are we in supporting the Americans, if and only if we are doing it to avoid economic sanctions or boycotts in the future?

If the coalition is going after terrorism and/or evil people, what about what has happened in the Sudan for the past several years? That is just as horrible as there is genocide going on there every day. The problems there stem somewhat from sanctions that were placed against the Sudan for not supporting the gulf war.

Part of what is happening to the Iraqi people - starvation, lack of food and water, derives from sanctions that have been placed on them.

What about the fact that this may not be the end, but the beginning for people who have long memories, hatred of the West and no conscience at all about doing what they feel they need to in order to make their point?

What about the fact that Canada has stood alongside the U.S. in many battles, most recently Afghanistan? To quote a phrase that my mother used many times.... if so and so jumped off a bridge - would you jump too? Again I ask, if we are just doing it to avoid getting penalized by the U.S. somehow, then how sincere are we about getting into the war?

What about the fact that Canada could still play a role in this - perhaps one that is along the lines of helping the people to adjust to life without Saddam?

I'm not sure how to feel about all of this. All I know is that we have to look beyond the next few weeks.

[tumbleweed]

I wonder how much of the difference in opinions amoung Canadians, and American for that matter, is purely philosophical, and how much is the result making decisions based on differing information.
Anyone who didn't see the March 26th edition of The Fift Estate, might like to have a look here.
http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/kurds/index.html
Also, to better understand the real motivation of the current US administration it is worth doing a little reading here.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/

[ianben]

There is certainly propaganda from all sides in this war and I just hope the powers that be got it right.
I think Iraq was chosen not because of any oil weapons or civil rights atrocities but because it was seen as a war that could be WON!
Shock and awe was not for Iraq but N.Korea Iran etc.
I just hope 6months messing about with UN has not given Saddam too much time to prepare

[cakadu]

I guess the other thing that really gets my head scratching is are those who feel that if you aren't behind this "war" then you have to be for Saddam. Nothing is ever that black and white and I think that it is safe to say that one can be against war but not for the other, in this case for Saddam. There aren't too many that would want to see him stay in power and I'm sure that goes for those that do not think we should be in this war.

Can someone explain this logic to me - if you aren't for one, then you're automatically for the other?

[flatbroke]

I'd say that there are 2 things that all of us, regardless of our stance on this issue, can agree on 100%

#1. Nobody is on Hussein's side.
#2. Nobody WANTS to be fighting a war.
However...
This clown had 12 years to comply with UN resolutions following the Gulf war, and showed no interest in doing so. He is known to have funded terrorists worldwide (including el-quaida)and sold food traded for oil meant for Iraqi citizens to fund his military. If we could have gone back to 1938 and Removed Hitler BEFORE his attempted genocide on the Jews, as well as the hundreds of thousands of allied soldiers killed in the war, would we have been justified? I mean, sure he was violating the terms of the armistice by building up Germany's military, but he hadn't invaded anybody yet, right? At any rate, it's safe to say he'd have stopped once Britain had fallen, so maybe we had no business over there...
You see where I'm going with this. It was a noble cause then, and I really do believe it is a noble cause this time.Neither PM Blair nor Pres. Bush will gain any popularity by this action, in fact I guarantee it will decrease with every coalition casualty, a fact both men are very aware of. The irony is that if a pre-emptive strike is successful, we'll never know just how neccessary it really was.

[bobn]

henbent,

Quote "Guess what, Vice President Dick Cheney's company Haliburton just got a HUGE contract to reconstruct Iraq's oil fields and pipelines. US weapon of mass destruction GREED!! Wild weasels at work. "

You erred. You should have stated "Former company". VP Dick Cheney sold his Haliburton shares in August 2000. Want to retract your statement?

[Muttley]

So what if a few high profile American politicians get some contracts to help build Iraq.

I'm sure when they give out the contract for the "Saddam Memeorial Golf Course" that our very own Jean Crutchin will be at the top of the list!!!!

[cakadu]

Hindsight is a great thing and I wonder what would have happened if there had been intervention prior to the second world war.

We have to put things into perspective though - we weren't right there in the tanks and on the battlefields the way we are today. We had to rely on military reports given to the media for our news about the war going on over in Europe. It wasn't until the Vietnam war that we were all subjected to the horros and atrocities of war on a somewhat more firsthand basis.

One also has to consider that the Americans didn't enter into the 2nd world war until AFTER the bombing at Pearl Harbor - up until that time, they too didn't get involved and I suppose that it may have been in part due to the fact that we had no idea of what was happening over there.

I have to wonder if all the coverage isn't having somewhat of a numbing effect on us?

I still don't really know how to feel about it and I've heard a lot of arguments both for and against.

One more thing to ponder, will getting Saddam out of the way really end the problems over there? What if there is someone worse waiting in the wings?

I heard an interesting argument the other day and it does leave one thinking about it. Over here, as a rule, we don't need all family members to contribute to the overall income in order to get by - we did many years ago, but that pretty much has become less of a factor. We all know of families who had the major bread winner, in those days dad, pass away and then the whole family had to pitch in just to put food on the table.

Think about many of these developing countries where that is still very much the norm. These suicide bombers get enticed into doing their missions because their families will be very well provided for. Now this person's argument was what would happen if you took away that incentive? I'm still trying to come to some sort of conclusion on that. What are your thoughts?

[Deb]

George W. Bush was elected because he knew all along he was going to invade Iraq. He's an oil man and oil men get fed up with OPEC. Invading Iraq and gaining control of the second largest reserve of oil in the world would take the stress off having to deal with OPEC.

Anybody who thinks Bush, Cheney, Powell (who was reluctant at first), Rice, Rumsfeld, Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz have any humanitarian desire to "free" the Iraqi people and install a democracy, has forgotten the United States history in central and south america starting from back in the 60s.

Richard Perle (who is currently a consultant to the Secretary of Defense and Consultant to several U.S. and multinational companies and who once advised Binjamin Netanyahu to abandon the Oslo Peace Process and return to military repression of the Palestinians) and Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Secretary of Defense who has longed to see the Middle East colonized by the United States, are scary people. Vice President Cheney was Bush Sr's defense secretary. In 1969 Cheney was special assistant to Donald Rumsfeld in the Nixon administration (remember that crook?)

This old boys club is thick as thieves, they hate dissent and free speech, they'll support the American arms manufacturing industry till their dying day, and they are bankrupting the United States. I support the U.S. troops because I don't think they should be in Iraq and they should come home. Right now they are unwitting mercenaries for the American oil corporations.

I suppose they have to finish the job now, though, so those 500 Iraqi men, women and children who have been killed, didn't die in vain.

[carebear300]

Anybody that thinks that they will actually ever successfully institute a democratic government in Iraq has been smoking way to much wacky tabacky. The demographics of that country are not condusive to democracy. Fifty percent of the population is under the age of 18 and with that high of a percentage of the population that young the odds are against any lasting government as we know it. It will end up being some sort of a US backed dictatorship being the only kind of government that can keep some sort of order in the country amongst the various tribes(for want of a better or more appropriate word Linda would know the proper term to describe those different peoples) And maybe that isn't all bad because we saw how bad the last regime was.