Hello, you are not signed on. |
|
![[ Blogs.starwars.com ]](/static/skin/default/img/title_banners/site_banner.jpg "[ Blogs.starwars.com ]")     
|
 | |
 | Bush May not Be a Sith, But he is no Yoda |
well.....a recent blog has inspired me to write this.....
why we should not be in Iraq:
1) Countries should keep their hands to themselves. pretty simple.....nobody in Iraq bugged us....showed no signs of hurting us, and the U.N. said that they were OK where they were.
2) Bush (and his administration) lied to get us in. on numerous occasions people form the bush administartion stated that they had cold hard evidence there were WMDs in Iraq. U.N. went in, could NOT find any evidence of WMDs and yet we are there now still without any WMDs to be found.
3) Congress never officially approved this war. nobody ever voted on wether we should go into Iraq because it is not technically a war it is a "conflict".
4) lastly (mostly because it is really late here),simple, people die in iraq. now, I do not know if george bushs life has ever been in immanant danger but he has put thousands of americans at risk.
this war was un needed and I hope ewee can fix the middle east.
Independentjac out
|
 |
http://blogs.starwars.com/teachings/11 |
| |
Rogue Squadron Leader
After-Action Summary
|
date Posted: May 15, 2006 12:00 AM
Countries should keep their hands to themselves. pretty simple.....nobody in Iraq bugged us....showed no signs of hurting us
Just one example of where you're wrong: Iraq was shooting at US aircraft patrolling the No-Fly Zones daily.
and the U.N. said that they were OK where they were.
The UN also said they had WMDs, and the UN was being paid off by Saddam via the oil for food program.
|
| |
Rogue Squadron Leader
After-Action Summary
|
date Posted: May 15, 2006 12:00 AM
Bush (and his administration) lied to get us in.
Bush and previous administrations used the intelligence the world had gathered that stated Saddam had WMDs.
U.N. went in, could NOT find any evidence of WMDs
Yet, their intel said that they were there...not to mention the payoffs I mentioned earlier, and the fact that Saddam never fully complied with the required cooperation for the inspections.
we are there now still without any WMDs to be found.
Yet
|
 |
Rainbow Droideka
Aren't you a little short for an egg?
|
date Posted: May 15, 2006 1:27 AM
independentjac, I agree that the invasion Iraq was not the right thing for the U.S to do at the time. But I don't agree with all the reasons you gave.
1) Countries should keep their hands to themselves. pretty simple.....nobody in Iraq bugged us....showed no signs of hurting us, and the U.N. said that they were OK where they were.
This is a pretty questionable statement. By this logic, it was also wrong to stop the "ethnic cleansing" in Kosovo, and it was right to sit back and let the Rwandan genocide happen. On the bright side, the Chinese government is on your side here.
|
|
Rainbow Droideka
Aren't you a little short for an egg?
|
date Posted: May 15, 2006 1:27 AM
But I would instead say something like:
"Countries should not invade another country unless they, other countries, or people are in serious and imminent danger."
Under these altered conditions, I would also argue that it was not time to invade Iraq. They were not an imminent danger to us or our allies, and although there was some danger to the people of Iraq, it was mostly not immediate, and they seem to be in more danger now....
|
| |
Vader of Clubs
|
date Posted: May 15, 2006 1:35 AM
This is a pretty questionable statement. By this logic, it was also wrong to stop the "ethnic cleansing" in Kosovo, and it was right to sit back and let the Rwandan genocide happen. On the bright side, the Chinese government is on your side here.
Agreed. Was the Uk wrong to aid Belgium in WW1, or Poland in WW2? I think sitting back in these situations would only be the actions of a horrificly cold and disgraceful nation. Not that I'm naming names or anything.
Other than that though . . . I just think if they're gonna be getting rid of facist governments there's other places to go which, ultimately, they (we, even. After all, we backed you up) won't go for.
|
|
Rainbow Droideka
Aren't you a little short for an egg?
|
date Posted: May 15, 2006 1:39 AM
Bush (and his administration) lied to get us in.
They sure did! There might be some room to argue this (there must be), but it seems pretty clear to me.
on numerous occasions people form the bush administartion stated that they had cold hard evidence there were WMDs in Iraq. U.N. went in, could NOT find any evidence of WMDs and yet we are there now still without any WMDs to be found.
This is true, but it's a lot more complicated than just that. I think it's more like they intentionally exaggerated the evidence than that they completely made it up. Plus, by using such a vague term as "WMDs" they left room to define what exactly they meant later on....
|
|
Rainbow Droideka
Aren't you a little short for an egg?
|
date Posted: May 15, 2006 1:41 AM
But they lied about or exaggerated other things too. For example, Bush attempted to convince the American people that Husein was allied with Bin Laden, which is a claim that can't really be supported at all. A lot of this convincing came not in direct statements, but in his continual implied references, which makes it hard to take him to court over lying....
|
|
Rainbow Droideka
Aren't you a little short for an egg?
|
date Posted: May 15, 2006 1:41 AM
Congress never officially approved this war. nobody ever voted on wether we should go into Iraq because it is not technically a war it is a "conflict".
I'm not sure this is true....I think congress was, for the most part, behind the decision. Much more so, for that matter, than the American people on the whole (although a lot of America was supportive, partly, but obviously not entirely, due to the administrations lies and exaggerations.
|
|
Rainbow Droideka
Aren't you a little short for an egg?
|
date Posted: May 15, 2006 1:46 AM
lastly (mostly because it is really late here),simple, people die in iraq.
This definitely should be an issue, probably a lot more than it is in the eyes of congress or the administration (who aren't sending *their* sons and daughters over....). But that's not always absolutely wrong, in my opinon - for example, some risking of lives is probably worth it in order to stop a genocide (not that that's what was going on in Iraq....)
this war was un needed and I hope ewee can fix the middle east.
The attitude that we should be "fixing" the Middle East could be part of the problem. The most lasting changes would be changes made by the countries themselves.
|
| |
Vader of Clubs
|
date Posted: May 15, 2006 2:13 AM
lastly (mostly because it is really late here),simple, people die in iraq
People die everywhere . . . I wonder what soldiers think of this. After all, isn't this what they sign up for? Or is this exactly what they don't sign up for but what they get forced to do anyway? As for the Iraqi citizens, well, yes, they die. That's bad.
It's all the Britiah Empire's fault, it must be said . . .
|
| |
mcfalcons15
Darth Districter
|
date Posted: May 15, 2006 5:57 AM
Well I have a friend who is in the Airforce, and even before we went to war with Iraq, he would tell us stories of how they would be over their bombing Iraq all the time, you just never heard about it because they didn't want you to hear about it. They would bomb all type fo factories and stuff, and it NEVER made the news. Trust me, we have been beating up on them for a while now.
Also the President doesn't need Congress approval to go to war, he can send troops out as long as he reports to Congress before 48 hours has passed to infrom them, and then get approval.
|
| |
EvilDarthBear
The Grand Admiral's Club
|
date Posted: May 15, 2006 6:18 AM
You know, if Bush "lied" about the intel, then Clinton, Schroeder, Chirac, Blair, Putin, Kerry, Kennedy, Frist, and Kofi Annan ALL lied to you as well. They had the same exact intel, and they thought Iraq had WMD. Let's not forget that Iraq had WMD at one time (gassing 5,000 Kurds, and horribly killing thousands of Iranian soldiers with chemical weapons). So I ask you, If a violent dictator with a history of posessing WMDs, and a history of vicious evil, who's generals think he has WMDs, and our intel agrees, how can we not depose such a threat?
|
| |
Frostor
|
date Posted: May 15, 2006 6:29 AM
Pre-emptive war (entirely unjustifiable for any reason, IMO).
Based on spurious intelligence (Curveball).
Misleading the public and then coming up with ad hoc arguments as to why we went in there.
Against the wishes of most of the international community and the UN.
Used by politicians to gain more power over their citizens (like most wars, including Star Wars).
Etc., etc.
But don't listen to the pacifist in the corner. Go back to your fighting.
|
| |
darth eagle2
the veiws of a sith
|
date Posted: May 15, 2006 7:40 AM
Ohh a political arguement my favourite! Sometimes when people invade others it can be a good thing, when the Romans invaded Britain it was a good thing, they taught us how to read, they taught hygeine, they were the first to figure out mathematical difficulties (it was called an abbacus) the british ceased to be unwashed barbarians. The americans havent invaded iraq, they have just come to put things right, The yanks got rid off Sadamm Huisan! he was an evil SOB! The situation as i see it isint all black and white.
By putting thousands of americans at risk it has saved alot of other people.
|
| |
Marvolo7
Marvolo's Misanthropic Musings
|
date Posted: May 15, 2006 7:47 AM
Agreed, EvilDarthBear.
Large stockpiles of weapons have not been found, but as David Kay (a UN inspector) reported, there is overwhelming evidence that Saddam Hussein had extensive chemical and biological weapons programs, that he made great efforts to conceal his activities from inspectors (in violation of numerous U.N. resolutions) that would let him produce weapons in the future, that facilities were built for future production, and that manpower was secretly mobilized for this purpose. His effort included work on unmanned aircraft and missiles that could attack well beyond the Iraqi borders. Despite the absence of stockpiles, Saddam Hussein's programs were a serious threat.
|
| |
Marvolo7
Marvolo's Misanthropic Musings
|
date Posted: May 15, 2006 7:49 AM
A president must make decisions based on the available evidence. Hussein was certainly acting like he did indeed possess WMDs, kicking inspectors out of the country and not denying that he had them. If Bush had taken the risk and decided that Saddam Hussein did not possess weapons of mass destruction, it could have led to disastrous consequences. Action to remove Hussein, despite uncertainty, involved costs of war, yet this posed less risk than leaving Hussein in place and discovering too late that he did indeed possess chemical and biological weapons that he was known to be producing. The Bush administration should not run the risk of discovering they had waited too long for action.
|
| |
Marvolo7
Marvolo's Misanthropic Musings
|
date Posted: May 15, 2006 7:49 AM
A clear example of this choice is found in Clinton's actions in 1996. When bin Laden was expelled from Sudan, the Clinton administration would not take custody of him. If critics of Bush's foreign policy are correct, Clinton did the right thing in 1996, as bin Laden did not pose an "imminent" threat at the time. America waited too long to dispose of bin Laden, and bin Laden became an imminent threat before killing three thousand people on September 11th. This example clearly illustrates the hypocrisy of foreign policy critics. The responsible course of action to follow when confronted by a foreign threat are to act before it is too late, and before the threat becomes even more imminent.
|
| |
independentjac
"How long can any man fight the darkness, before he finds it in himselft?"
|
date Posted: May 15, 2006 8:04 AM
om gosh.........u guys.....UN said there were no weapons.....and Iraq Had WMDs yeasrs ago and Bush Sr. chose to ignore it.....also the UN was not bribed that is so untrue it makes me gag.....also if we went to every dictator that help mass murderings we would be very busy......also we did not reall save a huge amount of people in iraq, over 50,000 iraqis have died. also.....when people die in iraq they cannot come back. in hurricane Katrina they were short on Ntnl. guardsmen to help because they were in iraq.....as I said.......stop listening to bill oriley and FOX news....they do not tell you the truth
|
 |
Kataar
Read, Write, Watch, Enjoy!
|
date Posted: May 15, 2006 8:07 AM
to my knowledge and if my memory serves, we went into Iraq to go after terrorists, although the WMDs were another reason. That's why we went into Afganistan, to go after terrorists. Even after all of this, where's Bin Ladin? We have Saddam, but still no Bin Ladin? Conveniently he's been forgotten, and that seems to support the 'conspiracy theorists' that Bush never went into Iraq for the reasons he claimed. He simply wanted Saddam. but that's my theory any way, with evidence both supporting and disproving it, so what can I say? 
|
| |
greenandwhitejedi
Bar 66
|
date Posted: May 15, 2006 8:26 AM
In my opinion, it was simply the mistake of the Mujahideen to think that they could do jack about Western involvement in the Muslim lands. If the final attack on the WTC was indeed organised by such a group, then it was nothing more than a spasmodic outburst of their impotent rage. In the long run, it's impact on Mr and Mrs Average American has been what exactly? In the meantime, it provides a perfect excuse to solidify U.S. control in the Middle East using military force - hey, might as well make it official - which at least shifts the crosshairs onto the military abroad rather than civilians at home, which you may or may not think is a good thing depending on how much you value human life.
|
| |
Marvolo7
Marvolo's Misanthropic Musings
|
date Posted: May 15, 2006 8:30 AM
Well, that's convenient. We disagree with you, but what we're saying can't possibly be true because we must have gotten it from FOX news. Sure. I myself am Canadian, and I don't even get the channel.
Have you even heard of the oil for food scandal? It was huge, involving hundreds of millions of dollars, yet it was barely reported in the news because there is such a liberal media bias.
|
 |
The Stooge
Star Wars Joke-A-Day
|
date Posted: May 15, 2006 8:38 AM
Ohhhhhh boy.
Here's a lesson from an older SW fan: you just stepped in a big pile of poodoo.
|
| |
greenandwhitejedi
Bar 66
|
date Posted: May 15, 2006 8:40 AM
To get to the point, what I am saying is this: WMDs, torture of civilians...all that stuff is just background static; column filler for the hawkish newspapers. America could just as easily gone in softly-softly with Spec Ops and CIA plants and have had the same or better chance of catching Osama Bin Laden and the rest of the Al-Quaeda leadership. But they want to control these countries - that much you can see by turning on the nightly news - and if that's what they want then nothing will stop them. I just hope they don't expect that it will magically induce good will in the native populations, or somehow send the extremist problem to bed.
|
|
Rainbow Droideka
Aren't you a little short for an egg?
|
date Posted: May 15, 2006 9:10 AM
So I ask you, If a violent dictator with a history of posessing WMDs, and a history of vicious evil, who's generals think he has WMDs, and our intel agrees, how can we not depose such a threat?
I'm not sure what the big "threat" is here, EDB. Are you trying to imply that he was about to attack someone? Because you didn't say that.
But don't listen to the pacifist in the corner. Go back to your fighting.
I hear you, Frostor.
|
|
Rainbow Droideka
Aren't you a little short for an egg?
|
date Posted: May 15, 2006 9:11 AM
when the Romans invaded Britain it was a good thing, they taught us how to read, they taught hygeine, they were the first to figure out mathematical difficulties ... the british ceased to be unwashed barbarians.
Hm...I would caution against considering any culture "unwashed barbarians" just because they don't read and have calculators.
If critics of Bush's foreign policy are correct, Clinton did the right thing in 1996, as bin Laden did not pose an "imminent" threat at the time.
Had Bin Laden committed any crimes against the U.S. at the point? Because whatever you think of pre-emptive war, pre-emptive arrest is absolutely not okay.
|
|
Rainbow Droideka
Aren't you a little short for an egg?
|
date Posted: May 15, 2006 9:14 AM
The responsible course of action to follow when confronted by a foreign threat are to act before it is too late, and before the threat becomes even more imminent.
That's not a wholly unreasonable opinion, but it's not the only one either. Was it irresponsible for the U.S. to wait to enter World War I and II?
to my knowledge and if my memory serves, we went into Iraq to go after terrorists
That's one of the ideas they tried to plant into our heads, but it can't really be true, because before we went in, there wasn't much terrorist activity in Iraq, unless you count Saddam Husein's scattered atrocities against his own people. There's waaaaay more terrorist activity going on in Iraq now than before we went in.
|
|
Rainbow Droideka
Aren't you a little short for an egg?
|
date Posted: May 15, 2006 9:18 AM
Have you even heard of the oil for food scandal?
I know of it, but it's a pretty big jump to get to the generalization that "the U.N. was bribed" to oppose an invasion of Iraq.
It is most problable that Osmam Bin Laden is dead now anyway...
I don't know that it's "most probable," but it probably doesn't matter nearly as much as many people would have us think anyway.
|
| |
Marvolo7
Marvolo's Misanthropic Musings
|
date Posted: May 15, 2006 11:43 AM
Had Bin Laden committed any crimes against the U.S. at the point? Because whatever you think of pre-emptive war, pre-emptive arrest is absolutely not okay.
I absolutely agree that pre-emptive arrest is not okay. Prior to 1996, Bin Laden was responsible for the bombing of the Gold Mihor Hotel in Aden, Yemen, which had been housing 100 US soldiers. Bin Laden was known to have been connected to several other terrorist acts, including the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, and believed to have been connected or involved with many more acts of terrorism.
And my mention of the oil for food scandal was simply to illustrate that bias in the media exists for and against both sides.
|
|
Rainbow Droideka
Aren't you a little short for an egg?
|
date Posted: May 15, 2006 2:22 PM
Prior to 1996, Bin Laden was responsible for the bombing of the Gold Mihor Hotel in Aden, Yemen, which had been housing 100 US soldiers.
Ah, ok. I couldn't remember.
And my mention of the oil for food scandal was simply to illustrate that bias in the media exists for and against both sides.
I see. It seemed like it got a decent amount of coverage. I'm inclined to think the reason it didn't get more was because Americans as a whole are unfortunately not very interested in things that they percieve not to directly affect them.
|
| |
darthgenious7
Chickens only cross the road after coercion.
|
date Posted: May 15, 2006 2:50 PM
this war was un needed and I hope ewee can fix the middle east.
This contradicts even through the grammatical errors your entire philosophy starting with number 1! Keep our hands to ourselves but fix the middle east? what?
|
| |
EvilDarthBear
The Grand Admiral's Club
|
date Posted: May 25, 2006 11:29 AM
>they were used on his civillians in the crimes he is on trial for
He had more then he used, and anyway.....it's a bad thing he's on trial?
|
| |
Darth Kaitlyn Skywalker
|
date Posted: Jun 02, 2006 7:15 PM
IT'S OBVIOUS!!! BUSH SUCKS!!! WHAT HAS HE DONE TO HELP ANYONE?
ANYTHING?
HOW ABOUT NOW?
PRESIDENT HAS NO MASSIVE LIFEFORM READINGS AND HE COULDN'T DEFEAT A DROID IF THERE WAS SUCH A THING!!!
DEMOCRAT KAITLYN
|
|
Rainbow Droideka
Aren't you a little short for an egg?
|
date Posted: Jun 03, 2006 5:48 PM
As a member of the Democrat party, I must distance myself from the previous post....we can discuss this calmly, there's no need for angry yelling (except at protest rallies maybe... ).
|
| |
Captain Gilid Pellaeon
|
date Posted: Jun 07, 2006 3:58 PM
how about all of you shut up. this is a star wars blog. no one wants to read your political crap!
|
| |
shaakti0
Star Wars Girl At Heart
|
date Posted: Jun 21, 2006 12:01 PM
I totally agree. The war was not necessary. Besides, way too many people are dying. I'm a teen who's not one for wars like that. But for some reason, I love the Clone Wars though because the battles were awesome. The war kept continuing because Palpatine was behind it. Jedi kept fighting and fighting and fighting. And nothing was solved. Jedi kept dying trying to protect the Republic. But that was kind of a waste of 6 months because the Republic was controlled by Sidious.
|
- Please log in to post comments
|
|
 |
![]:)](http://blogs.starwars.com/share/img/emoticons/devil.gif)