1. Welcome to the forums! Take a second to look at our Beginner's Guide. It contains the information necessary for you to have an easier experience here.

    Thanks and have fun. -NF staff
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Forum Skin Contest:

    Let us know if you’re participating or would like to participate in a forum wide skin contest. If so, please give us your opinions here.

    Dismiss Notice

Was the war in Iraq justified?

Discussion in 'The NF Café' started by Robotkiller, Nov 16, 2005.

Was the war justified

  1. yes

    6 vote(s)
    7.9%
  2. no

    58 vote(s)
    76.3%
  3. yes but they did not go about it a correct way.

    8 vote(s)
    10.5%
  4. other(state your opinion in anser)

    4 vote(s)
    5.3%
  1. Robotkiller Still alive

    Messages:
    21,644
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2005
    I have seen this brought up in many threads but I was suprised to discover that it did not have its own. So what do you think, was the u.s. government right or was there no justifacation for a war. I live in america and am interested to see what people from other country's say.(if there is already a topic on this I am sorry)

    could someone move this to the debate section.
     
    Tags:
  2. CABLE S'okay guys, I know blacks.

    Messages:
    3,118
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2005
    This belongs in the debate corner. And Sai rocks, you suck.
     
  3. Robotkiller Still alive

    Messages:
    21,644
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2005
    dude I know it belongs in the debate corner....AND I can not like sai if I want its an opinion I dont go around bad mouthing sasuke fans or sakura fans.
     
  4. Id The Demon of Elru

    Messages:
    23,737
    Likes Received:
    69
    Trophy Points:
    1,317
    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2005
    In short hell no!

    this is what bush thinks of us and anyone else

     
  5. MF NaruSimpson In memory of Trayvon

    Messages:
    31,809
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2005
    what's worse is he blames everybody else about the war except himself
     
  6. Robotkiller Still alive

    Messages:
    21,644
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2005
    What scares me is that even after all of his reasons for going to war were proven false he still persists that he did the right thing.
     
  7. Haruka modkop

    Messages:
    7,663
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2005
    No, the Iraq war was never justified.
    Congress never approved of the war and never signed a bill saying that the war was official.
    Bush had an executive power to send in a number of troops in for a period of a time, depending ont he situation.
     
  8. roguenoir S-Ranked Pervert

    Messages:
    160
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2005
    According to the information supplied by the media, it is perfectly justified. But you know how much of the information the media gives out is truth. Unless we have 1000's of people who stayed in Iraq for many years, witnessed the stockpile of chemical and other deadly weapons, and escaped to report it (with concrete evidence like pictures or actual samples with them), I'd not be convinced. Sorry, but unless the evidence is very real or concrete, I can't accept it.
     
  9. Id The Demon of Elru

    Messages:
    23,737
    Likes Received:
    69
    Trophy Points:
    1,317
    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2005
    This is what Geroge W. thinks of congress, and anyone that gets in his way to find "te wepns of mas destruction"

     
  10. Haruka modkop

    Messages:
    7,663
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2005
    From the recent horrible and rash decisions GWB has made recently for this country has not even benifited, nothing has changed, the Patriot Act gave The government more power to control our First Amendment, and our speech is limited due to war time.
    Give me atleast 3 benifits GWB has done for this country, and everyone, including the wealthy, poor, etc to benifit from his decisions.
     
  11. rimpelcut You know it, I know it.

    Messages:
    1,789
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2005
    no
    ------------------
     
  12. Quoll loungin'

    Messages:
    1,723
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2005
    That about covers it. Their have been many threads asking this question but the answer will always be "No. We went under false pretenses and we still haven't found the evidence that is supposed to justify it."
     
  13. neko-sennin AKA shadesmaclean

    Messages:
    9,042
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    392
    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2005
    I usually refrain from this topic anymore because all it does in most circles is start flame wars.

    There's no way to win this debate because either you're with him, or you're against him, and if you attempt to use logic against GWB, he'll call you down for being smarter than him.


     
  14. hesd Anomic.

    Messages:
    351
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2005
    Where are the ABC's?

    Atomic
    Biological
    Chemical

    Remain in realm of belief. Unless a an anthrax bomb is pulled from Saddam's ass, then surely, the war's justified. But, my, I just hate wars, i mean, real wars. I recommend you to read alternative magazines. There are stories written there that are not published in the mainstream. Peace yields crops, war yields carnage. To digress a little, are you familiar that the US sustains its economy basically by selling armaments (aka Arms Economy)?

    btw, i am from the Perlas ng Silangan=Pearl of the Orient... You know what it is no?
     
  15. Heartgobbler wandering philosopher

    Messages:
    1,134
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2005
    Well, Hussain couldn't have had weapons of mass destruction, because if he had, they wouldn't have risked attacking him. As simple as that.

    On the other hand, he had been asking for a kicking for some time.

    And, it's the first time in a couple of centuries that my country occupies something rather than being occupied, so I can't really complain.
     
  16. Sh33p Jutsu Theorist

    Messages:
    87
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2004
    ... Wow. I knew this board was probably a bit on the liberal end of things, but 11 to 2 on such a topic is a real surprise :D

    That said: Yes. I think the war was justified. We didn`t go about it perfectly, and a lot of things could`ve been done better, but it was justified.

    That said, allow me to make the following points and stop any flames or insults before they get thrown: I am not a Republican. I consider myself independent and despise political parties in general -- all of them. I`m no real lover of Bush; as a person, I cannot stand him at all. As a politician and leader, he`s done his job decently considering the amount of flak that`s been thrown at him just for being Bush in the first place, among other things.

    I believe he went to war for oil, yes. I don`t care about that. Saddam needed to go. He`s gone, a new government is in place and the people are finally starting to turn things around. Sure, it`s Hellish in a few places right now, but give it a few years and hopefully things will turn out alright.
     
  17. uncle jafuncle sustenance proxy

    Messages:
    1,592
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2005
    I chose other meaning: Yes, it was as justified as any attack can be. which is very little.

    We went for revenge and oil. period. And there isn't anything more wrong with that than any other war ever started. Every war has alternative motives, this time it was oil and finishing up what "daddy" started.

    Plain and simple: Powerful countries will do what they want until someone else gets the balls to try and stop them. Look at the USA and USSR during the Cold War. They did whatever the fuck they wanted. Today it's looking more like the USA and China, but that's the way things have always worked.

    The United Nations didn't have the balls to say, "shut the fuck up America and stand down or we'll shove our United feet up your Capitalist ass," so America gets what it wants. It's wrong, but that's how things have always been so either deal with it or do something about it.
     
  18. Sh33p Jutsu Theorist

    Messages:
    87
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2004
    Just to add a point to this: The U.N. is completely useless anyway. If they were worth their salt, they would have removed Saddam instead of just sitting there trying to slap at him with resolution after resolution like a wheelchair-bound retard.

    You can`t really count on the U.N. for anything. At all.
     
  19. The Fireball Kid Respect the Mustache

    Messages:
    11,056
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2005
    It wasn't. It was a truly dumb and heartless thing to do to Iraq.
     
  20. Sh33p Jutsu Theorist

    Messages:
    87
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2004
    No. No, I do believe you`re wrong, Sir.

    It was heartless helping him get into power. It was heartless helping him stay in power. It was heartless leaving him in power. It would`ve been heartless to ignore him and let him stay in power.

    Kicking his ass out of power was probably the most humane thing the U.S. has done in ten or more years. It was a correction of many past mistakes, and even if we made a lot of mistakes in doing it; it was the right thing to do.
     
  21. Phelan New Member

    Messages:
    2
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2005
    Yes, the war was entirely justified.

    Why?
    1) It's a proven fact that Saddam has, in the past both possessed and used WMDs.
    2) It's a proven fact he has committed human rights violations.

    There are more reasons to be sure but those two are the main military and moral justifications. Sure, oil was involved but how many here enjoy paying $2.00+ per gallon of gas? OPEC is a virtual monopoly and has undue influence on the world economy in my opinion. By doing what we did in Iraq we not only removed Saddam from power but also set up favorable economic conditions for the US.

    And let's face it folks, economics runs the world, petroleum economics especially. There's few other substances that have quite the same impact on industry and commercial consumption. Almost every product on the market today is impacted in some way by petroleum. So, in a way, Bush went to war to secure the future of the US. Don't you feel special for tearing at him now?

    And if anyone is going to start saying how going to war for economic reasons is a bad, then you ought to go ahead and blast nearly every war and military action after the Civil War. The US has been high handed and imperialistic for most of the latter half of it's existence so taking out Iraq is right up our alley.

    As for the UN telling us where to shove it? That's never going to happen for a variety of reasons, but mostly because the UN doesn't have the military power to make any such declaration stick without the US backing them. The US is one of the few remaining superpowers and if one of our leaders takes advantage of that in order to remove someone most of the world thought of as a murderer, I'll back them all the way.
     
  22. Riles481 Jade-Eyed Jasper

    Messages:
    59
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2004
    simple answer, you can't. Bush as raised, and supported throughout his life, whether he was a business owner or the president, by his daddies rich republican friends, so, no matter what he says, almost everything he does is for the big man, but, hey, isn't that what republicans are for?

    1.) Oil in every other modernized country is at least twice the amount per gallon/litre than we have ever paid and, out of all industrial nations, our economy seems to be suffering the worse, there are many reasons why this may be so but oil should not have that much of an effect.
    2.) The only justification we had in interfereing with Iraq was to make sure they didn't have WMD's and to give him, with the backing of the U.N., and proverbial slap on the wrists, whether he had wmd's or not is yet top be determined (I'm not asking if he MOST LIKELY did I'm talking about concrete proof), Iraq had not attacked the U.S. and any crimes, although unhumane, were conducted within his borders, the most we should have done is organized 'peace keeping' efforts with the U.N. instead of giving them the middle finger and invading a country whose oil we were jealous of cause we still wanted to drive our fuckin S.U.V.'s and minivans

    but whether it was justified or not, we got ourselves into this mess, and now we have to solve it.
     
  23. Sh33p Jutsu Theorist

    Messages:
    87
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2004
    That`s what all political parties are for. Democrats are no better.

    I`ll leave it to the previous poster to respond to your oil arguements. Those don`t really matter to me. What does matter to me are the humanitarian issues you seem to be ignoring.

    Saddam Hussein committed crimes against humanity. I don`t much care if he had WMDs or not when we took him out of power, but he did have them several times in the past and he did use them. Refer to the Iraq/Iran war and the gassing of the Kurds. To say that removing him from power was wrong is, quite frankly, total bullshit to the highest power. The crimes he committed against his people couldn`t be solved with a mere U.N. peacekeeping force, because the U.N. would not do anything. All it did was sit on its ass letting off resolution after meaningless resolution about how bad Saddam is. It never did a single thing to actively remove him and bring him to justice.

    The United States did.

    Our leaders may have only wanted the oil, but I don`t much care about that. You focus entirely on nothing but the oil and whine about how poor innocent little Saddam never did anything to us, all because you despise Bush too much to acknowledge the good-by-proxy that resulted from the war he started. You completely ignore the problems Saddam caused to his own people, nevermind the fact that they couldn`t remove him themselves, and marginalize them as being 'simply inhumane.'

    Furthermore, you completely ignore the fact that those people now have a chance at rebuilding their country and their lives because we got rid of the guy who was brutally oppressing them. There are brushfire insurgencies, terrorist incidents and what-have-you, but that is nothing compared to what they had to put up with before we took him out.

    I`m not defending Bush in this either. Like I said: I despise him as a person. I know he probably only wanted the oil, and I don`t care about that. Whatever reasons he had are irrelevent. The broader question is whether or not the war in Iraq was justified, and it was. To say otherwise simply because you dislike a shrubby little redneck douche from Texas is utterly ridiculous.
     
  24. TheMexicanKingVII Shadow Supervisor

    Messages:
    400
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2005
    Kinda, but Bush just went about it the wrong way, but I personally feel that 9/11 really fucked up Bush. If 9/11 hadn't happened I don't think people would of been as unhappy as they are now, but Bush in simple doesn't take shit from no one. He just went along and went to war, of course some people feel it's wrong that were at war but I'm trying to find out the reason why?

    Is it because of the soldiers who joined the army and acknowledged that the reason they joined the army is to be deployed and can end up dead?

    Or

    Is it because some people don't like the thought of us going in with no real 'cause' on WMD and such?

    Now some people may say if we pull out that were pussys but remember this, even pussy can kill you.
     
  25. Stealth Tomato It has big taste.

    Messages:
    10,311
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2004
    2085 US soldiers have died during the war.
    This represents about 1.4% of the US soldiers currently in Iraq.
    It represents about .000007% of the population of the United States.

    About 30,000 civilians have been killed in Iraq.
    This represents about .11% of the population of Iraq.
    It is about .5% of the Jewish death toll of the Holocaust.

    In total, about 32,000 deaths have directly resulted from the Iraq war, or .000005% of the world's population.

    Statistically insignificant, anyone?
     
  26. Haruka modkop

    Messages:
    7,663
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2005
    Remember, where are the UN headquarters located?

    Exactly.
     
  27. Sh33p Jutsu Theorist

    Messages:
    87
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2004
    Yes, and that somehow magically hindered them from taking out Saddam, huh?
     
  28. Phelan New Member

    Messages:
    2
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2005
    Okay, first to address the UN issue.

    We all know the UN was created after WWII and the US was the driving force behind it, just like the earlier League of Nations after The Great War. Why did the League of Nations fail?

    The US didn't ratify the treaty that supported it.

    Why has the UN (semi-)succeeded?

    Because the US ratified the treaty that supported it. Also, the US has a permanent seat on the Security Council of the UN which is more or less the executive branch of the UN. That cannot be taken away from us. So, we're one of the powers in the UN.

    In addition, if you look at UN military action to date the bulk of the forces - and high echeleon commanders - have been US. Why? Because, militarily, we're the single most powerful nation on Earth at the present moment. We have the largest, best equipped, standing army and navy to say nothing of the marines and air force. Those are relatively indisputable facts.

    So, I ask of you, if the bulk of the forces that would make up a UN peacekeeping mission in Iraq be US, what difference is there between the US and some of its allies (England and Australia spring to mind) taking action against a globally reviled national leader and the UN taking action against a globally reviled national leader?

    The answer is that, in all liklihood, Iraq will come off better for it. The last time the UN re-structured a nation we got Israel and that area of the world hasn't been peaceful since.

    And before anyone goes off on a tear about that, it's not a remark about religion or Jews or any such thing as that, it's a statement of fact.

    Secondly, oil. Or, in a broader sense, petroleum which includes gas, natural gas and other materials.

    A year ago, I was studying to be a petroleum engineer and this was a large topic. Petroleum touches, in some way, every aspect of life. Plastics of all kinds are derived from oil, so are alot of polymers that are used in clothing. Industry relies rather heavily on oil for energy, machine maintenance, and manufacturing of some things. Petroleum, as has been stressed in the media, is a finite resource.

    So, even if Bush did attack Iraq with oil prominently in mind, it was done with the good of the national economy in mind. You may not agree with his ideas of what's good for the economy - I don't personally - but that's part of it. And if you're upset that Haliburton got contracts, well, Bush is southern. It's the way things are done down here. I ought to know, he was my govenor for about 8 years.

    Now....about the war in general. First, I turn to Carl von Clausewitz:
    "Warfare is the continuation of political policy through different means."

    Granted, that's a paraphrase but it gets the point across. We already had a hostile political policy or attitude towards Iraq, the next logical step was a continuation of that policy through military means. When it became clear that political pressure wouldn't make Saddam do as we - in this case the UN - wished, the next step is force.

    I quote from On War:
    Saddam had run rings around the UN weapons inspectors when he allowed them into Iraq at all. The UN had already proven ineffective. So, in the grand tradition of meddling for the greater good (points if you detect the sarcasm) the US did what everyone wanted done. We knew that Saddam had WMDs in the past, we knew he could make them, we knew he was trying for a nuclear stockpile.

    Most of which, by the way, are banned by the Geneva Conventions I believe.

    It's an indisputable fact that Saddam has had WMDs and that he has used them. He gassed the Kurds. It's suspected that he used them during the Gulf War.

    And, by the way, if you want to blame a Bush, blame the right one. Bush Sr. could've taken Saddam out of power during the Gulf War but didn't and left Shrub to clean up the mess a decade later.

    Iraq, as a member of the UN, is obligatd to heed the UN resolutions and in particular violated the Geneva conventions, the Fourth in particular, as well as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and has not. And, as a note of interest, there was already an attempt by the UN to resolve alot of the problems in Iraq, the Oil for Food program but it was discontinued because the UN supervisors were taking advantage of it. So much for that, eh?

    So, with the failure of the UN's systems to deal with the acts perpetuated by Saddam the US stepped in, and yes it was somewhat unilateral, and took care of things. The end result is that for the first time in decades Iraq has the capability to be a self-determined nation. It's infrastructure - roads, health care, education, industry - can be rebuilt now that aid from other nations will get to where it needs to go and it can move in whatever direction it likes.

    And, since people are so strenously protesting that we had no right to invade or meddle in another nation, I'm somewhat dissapointed that no one's railing against our occupation in Nicaragua or the fact we high handedly attempted to fix Venezula's borders. The fact we dictated China's foriegn policy for a number of years. Oh well, that's all in the past right, over and done with? Just like this war is.
     
  29. Last of the Uchihas Get your own girls, Jonas!

    Messages:
    3,980
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2004
    Nope, the war wasn't justified.

    If he wnated to fight terrorism he should have fought North Korea or othrt countries in south america.
     
  30. xeno Emmissary of Dance

    Messages:
    1,542
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2005
    After looking at the poll and everyone else's opinions it looks like I'm going to open up a can of worms with this, but, even though you may say that it wasn't justified, that sadistic genocidal dictator needed to be removed from power. Anyone who lines buildings up with citizens of his own country as human shields doesn't even deserve the "fair trial" he's been given. Besides, even though no WMD's were found, Bush was going on what "intelligence" was given to him. Everyone is blaming him as if he actually went over there himself and gathered the proof that showed SH had WMD's. And who's to say that Sadam didn't get rid of them? Has anyone read about how Sadam BURIED his ENTIRE AIRFORCE in the sand. Pretty "convenient" if you ask me. That's my 2 cents.
     
Loading...