Why Do You Support the War?

Given that 15 of 19 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia, the Saudi's are heavily funding terrorism, resources have been diverted from Afganistan, there are many other brutal, murderous, dangerous regimes, no WMD's, and Iraq was pitifully weak - why do you support our quick rush to war?

Remember that Isreal and other nations have been in serious breach of UN resolutions and we continue to support Isreal and ignore other problem areas.

I support the troops now that they have been handed over.
I don't support the war.
Contrary to popular believe that doesn't make me unamerican. It makes me sick of seeing these soldiers die for oil, and money.

guys, the war is about giving the Arabs in Iraq an atmosphere in which they can thrive and aspire to something in their lives beyond living in fear of their government and playing the blame game for their situation. yes, yes, yes I know we helped to support the situation that put them there, so what? All the more reason we should help sort it out.

Human beings in general want to raise their families in a safe place, they want to be able to get jobs and make a living, they want to learn things and build things and do things. If you give them a place that is conducive to that, it's a lot less appealing to blow yourself up for a perceived wrong committed in the past, or because of a religious difference of opinion. Helps to get them some perspective on the world and their place in it. Gives them a place in it even?

There is no other motivator that can make them improve their situation and take power away from their corrupt governments than wanting a life! When the other oppressed populations see how that can work, and how much better off and happy the folks in Iraq will become they will want that too. All of a sudden they won't have so much to blame on the Great Satan and there won't be so many willing to kill themselves to kill us.

Thats why I support the war. If we succeed it's a win win situation. We stop being targets, they get a life. I'm sorry, American companies are going to make some money off the executing of it. That doesn't make it not worth while to do.

I don't see this going any where good...But I will give it a shot.

I, personally, did not "pity" Saddam and Iraq. They were strong enough to be responsible for 1-2 million people getting killed (including the use of chemical weapons on Kurds and Iranians), invaded a couple of nearby countries in two separate wars, was supplying support for the first World Trade Center bombing (supplied people, intelligence, training, money, etc.). Appear to have developed tactics of using carry-on weapons to take over civilian air liners and trained the terrorists for 9/11 using a Russian Jet Liner in an Iraq military reservation). Had and worked with and funded Palestinian terrorists in Baghdad for something like 10-20 years.

And Israel is still fighting the Terrorist Leader Arafat (does that make Palestine a Terrorcrascy?) that invented Airline Hijacking that our Saudi "friends" used on 9/11. And Saddam/Iraq was openly giving homicide bomber checks to Palestinians that blew themselves up in Israel. Are there any UN resolutions against Palestine?

There was about dozen and a 1/2 UN resolutions against Iraq saying that they did not comply with the cease-fire that Saddam himself signed. The US Congress voted something like 98-zip for Clinton to do a "regime change" in Iraq (and he just about expended our stock of cruise missiles in his attack on Iraq). There were no UN resolutions to support Clinton/NATO killing thousands of our former Serbian allies.

Afghanistan is no longer a base for Osama bin Laden to train, plan, fund, and supply support for International Terrorism. The fact that it is still a 12 century culture in a 21st century world is not the fault of the US.

In 2003, International terrorism is at a 34 year low (lowest since 1969).

Because of the new focus on terror and their supporting countries we now have:

<ul type="square">[*]North Korea no longer getting nuclear aid from the US--is US oil and food aid also stopped? Their nuclear weapons development program has been "outed" (in violation of the treaty signed with President Clinton which supplied aid, oil, and a nuclear reactor to North Korea--can you spell "dumb idea"?).
[*]North Korea talking directly with the US instead of with/through third countries.
[*]US interdicting North Korean missile shipments to third party countries.
[*]Pakistan's role in nuclear proliferation of technology and uranium centrifuges published and stopped.
[*]Hundreds of thousands of pounds of nuclear processing equipment shipped from Pakistan to Libya stopped on the high seas and redirected to the US.
[*]Iran has now admitted to a nuclear weapons program and has begun to allow international inspection of its facilities.
[*]Libya's leader allowing the inspection of nuclear and chemical weapons plants--and promising to dismantle them because he "is afraid of the US and does not want to be involved in Arab "liberation" any more" because they are so self-destructive.
[*]Nominally supportive regimes of terrorism (such as Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iraq, Jordan, Pakistan, Malaysia) are now being attacked by their own (or neighboring) Islamic Terrorists. Having bombings/shootings/killings in their own countries is already changing their views on terrorism enough to where they are now cooperating with the US.
[*]Other countries (such as China and Russia) which have historically supported the use of "asymmetrical warfare" against the US are fighting their own Islamic terrorists and (somewhat?) working with the US.
[*]Israel dismantled the French supplied and built Iraqi reactor before there was an "imminent threat."
[*]The US is no longer treating Terrorism as a matter for "law enforcement".
[*]The US has pulled down the "walls" between the FBI and CIA regarding the sharing of information on Terrorism that was put in place during the Clinton Presidency).
[/list]

I guess I will stop here for now... Other things that need to be done.

-Bill

[ QUOTE ]
jayflash:
Remember that Isreal and other nations have been in serious breach of UN resolutions and we continue to support Isreal and ignore other problem areas.

[/ QUOTE ]

While I am not Jewish I'll admit to being pretty biased in their favor. I also can't help but see Israel as part of the West and the Arab states as being (generally) hostile to the West. I don't see any solution to the Arab-Israeli thing anywhere in the future so even though I tend to lean towards Israel I don't see much that can be resolved. I grew up surrounded by Jews in one of the most Jewish places in the States, so maybe that explains it.

I think that the UN is highly over-rated. They could not accomplish anything without their money, the vast majority of which comes from the States. They are very anti-American -- which would be OK if we didn't pay for so much of it. I think that there was $10 billion in graft uncovered in the Oil-for-Food program (for Iraq) which the UN administered. The graft involved all manner of transactions that were not only NOT in the interests of the US, but also were unquestionably against the stated aims of the UN itself! I believe that the UN is popular because it provides cover for polititions who don't want to take heat for hard decisions. I also believe that the UN is eroding our sovereignty.

In response to the above quote, it is true that Israel is in constant violation of UN resolutions, but it is also true that every Arab state has been in constant violation of the UN Charter since 1948 by refusing to accept that Israel is a even a state. I think that there is certainly enough bad behavior by the different players at the UN to to cancel itself out.

On the larger issue of the War in general...I've got to go do some laundry.

James, why Iraq as opposed to the rest of the world and the many places we could have improved at far less cost and no war? The world is full of very bad governments that would have been easier to change.

Where does this stop, how can we afford to change all the bad regimes, and why is it our right to do so?

We will most likely be the recipient of more terrorism due to our aggression toward the wrong target.

No offence James, only disagreement, but your arguments leave me with even more concerns. Perhaps, though, it's just I who doesn't make the connection.

What about the Saudi's, the Taliban in other countries, and no connection between Iraq and 9/11?

It's not clear to me whether we ultimately should be in this war but the chain of events would seem to point to this inevitibility. As Bravo has stated, one can support the troops but be against *where* they are. I see an irony in the consideration of isolationisim or nationalisim when it comes to our troop deployment throughout the world. By irony, I mean that if one is to use the point of reference of a soverign US, justification might be difficult. However if one takes the point of reference of *all* of humanity, beyond borders, one might be able to argue a case of justification.

It is often cited that *we* are somewhere due to self interest; money, oil or what have you. If the Self Interest were to encompass all of humanity, then one might argue that we do what we do because we can and we believe it is right and just. Certainly many of those we fight have not confined their areas of operation to geographic borders and for us to fight back effectively, I guess we must cross borders as well.

There are global realities, a global economy and global threats. The US has a global pressence and to deny this is a denial of reality, me thinks.

In business and local communities, a strong case is made for proactive measures and response. Like it or not, I believe we must be proactive at a global level as well since boundaries (geographic or cultural) no longer impede to any great extent.

It saddens and sickens me whenever I consider that some soldier's life has been forfit or *used* by someone in power for their own gain or justification contrary to the understanding or reasons that have been given to the soldier who has made the ultimate sacrifice. I understand that for a military force to be effective, the soldier must not question but trust in the command and follow orders. Talk about faith and trust!

I support our troops where ever they maybe and can only hope that when they are in harms way, they have been placed there by leaders who know what they are doing and by leaders who appreciate the precious resource they are putting on the line. If a soldier is doing his job and following his orders, I do not hold him accountable to his actions and I certainly appreciate his commitment and exposure! I respect the individuals choice to serve or not in the military and would hope that this choice is made for the right reasons considered by the individual. Once one has joined, I Do Not hold thisindividual accountable for his actions while undr orders.

Growing up during the Viet Nam War, I saw peers against peers and folks against the war taking their frustration and convictions out on those who served; holding them accountable for where they went and what they did. I think it is naive to think that we don't need a military. Further it is foolish to think a military can be effective if it is composed of troops who are free thinking and in a position to decide on the merits or correctness of every action and deployment that they take while serving!

WHy do I support the war? I support the war because the US has decided to be engaged in it and we have fellow Americans now in harms way in service to our country which is us, when you get right down to it! Whether they are there for justifible reasons is beyond my knowledge and rather a mute point at this state in time. Right or wrong, our troops are commited and any decision to escalate or withdraw must, I would hope, be made under due consideration and with the welfare of our troops as well as those folks who are to be left behind, taken into consideration. The US has been criticized not only for engagement in previous wars but for the results and tragedies suffered by the local population upon the withdrawl from some of these wars and conflicts. Seems like a damned if you do and damned if you don't proposition to this simpleton! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/icon3.gif

Bravo25 states that the soldiers are dying for oil and money. It may be that the war has been waged for oil and money (I seriously doubt it's that simple) but the soldiers are dying in service to their country and hopefully more important, for which it stands (beyond borders).

If you mean the war in Afghanistan...yes. The Taliban directly supported Osama bin Laden, who has admitted responsibility for 9/11. The Taliban was clearly an outlaw regime that was not content merely to enslave their own people, but sought to attack the West (and the US in particular). Hence, the war on 'terrorism'.

If you mean the war in Iraq...no. Iraq did not attack us, and Bush admits there was no direct connection between Iraq and 9/11. Apparently there were no WMDs, and conflict there seems, to me, to be a waste of American lives. Democracies are built by the citizens that demand them and will live under them. They cannot be built at the barrel of a gun by well meaning third parties.

If you mean the war against terrorism...no. Like the war on drugs, the war on crime, and the war on poverty, the war on terrorism is political jingoism at its worst. Terrorism is a method, not an enemy. Our government does us all a disservice when it refuses to accurately describe policies and positions. We may have issues with Islamic religious fundamentalists that seek to threaten us, but to label them 'terrorists' is simplistic and inaccurate. If we are at war with Islamic zealots then we should say so, and drop the politically correct 'terrorism' label. BTW, conservatives also fall victim to PC. I doubt this administration wants to risk alienating its close friends the Saudis. Despite the fact (previously stated), that most of the perpetrators of 9/11 were from that country.

[ QUOTE ]
metalhed said:
Democracies are built by the citizens that demand them and will live under them. They cannot be built at the barrel of a gun by well meaning third parties.

[/ QUOTE ]
Is this true? Or is it just expensive to build a democracy? I guess it could be argued that Germany was democratic in WWII, but wasn't democracy imposed on Japan? Or is the "Taisho Democracy" period in the 1920s sufficient basis for claiming it was democratic prior to the end of WWII and the occupation?

[ QUOTE ]
James, why Iraq as opposed to the rest of the world and the many places we could have improved at far less cost and no war? The world is full of very bad governments that would have been easier to change.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you're looking for a universal reason, like that was the worst place or something, then you're not gonna get it. The reality is that we went there because we COULD go there. First, it was not going to present an obstacle militarily that we couldn't handle. Secondly, there is no love lost between them and any of the other Arab governments, so we could get away with that without them immediately getting worried about themselves. Thirdly, we could build an excuse in the form of his support for terrorists and WMD's and whatnot to help also get over that hump with the rest of the Arab nations. It doesn't matter that we haven't found any, the information served it's purpose to delay their reaction to our being there somewhat. Afghanistan is not a good candidate for what we hoped to do in Iraq. There are many political reasons, but Iraq is a better candidate for a strong, secular democratic government than Afghanistan is at the moment. And lastly, if we pick right, we don't have to do it anywhere else. The dominoes fall both ways. Thats actually the whole point, with a good example, we don't need to send in our own troops to handle the rest, they will do it themselves.

[ QUOTE ]
We will most likely be the recipient of more terrorism due to our aggression toward the wrong target.

[/ QUOTE ] Oh absolutely, ome will try, and have tried, but with the money he sent to them cut off they have less to work with. Without the emotional support of one more nation brainwashed to want to destroy the Great Satan there will be less popular support for them as well.

But, we were the recipient of terrorism before we went there. I don't want our people there getting killed. But I cannot come up with a better solution. We have been appeasing them and propping up the existing governments for decades and where did that get us? There is no appeasing the terrorists away. They are not asking for anything we can give them. There are no demands that we can meet. If you can think of something better to do then I'm all ears. But I am past the point of believing that doing nothing will make us more secure than doing what we are now. I honestly believe that it will not.

Because this war is about oil, and that oil is what allows us as Americans to live our lifestyle. Until we wise up and change that lifestyle, we will need to keep the Middle East stable, and not at war with each other. If it gets out of control, we'll have to pay Russia to let us drill their oil wells for them. Or maybe we might actually, finally find an alternative fuel.
The moment we no longer need their oil, I'm more than willing to do what some of what the fundamentalists want, I'll be happy to pack my bags and go home tomorrow (literally I might add) if we didn't need their damn oil. They can go back to living the way that they want, sort of. More like the way they did 50 years ago before all the money came rolling in. Of course many want the Western tech, but absolutely no Western influence. The more reactionary want nothing at all from the West, the Taliban for example.

Cutting off from this place will also stop almost all terrorism from here. First there won't be millions of dollars of US money coming into the region. Second, we might not be so willing to pressure Israel to be as restrained as they have been at times. Remember they were attacked three times with no provocation, the first the day that their flag flew for the first time. They could have taken a lot more land from some of the countries but didn't.

The supportive answers, so far, have confirmed what seemed to be true, nationwide, and that is: "Might is right and we ought to use it to continue enjoying our present lifestyle." But what gives us that right...because we can?

Realizing that more than half of us, here, support the war, let me express my disappointment. I'm ashamed of our gluttony, arrogance, cruelty, lies, and violence. I can't understand how so many Americans feel that the world's resources and innocent lives are ours for the taking. I hope that it's just me; that I don't understand the bigger picture. The picture I see of my country, right now, is pretty ugly. So sock it to me I guess.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm ashamed of our gluttony, arrogance, cruelty, lies, and violence. I can't understand how so many Americans feel that the world's resources and innocent lives are ours for the taking.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you really dislike this country that much? Do you really think we, as Americans are that bad? I feel like we have the power and ability to help out an oppressed people and we are. If we didn't we wouldn't be doing the right thing. I liken this situation to a group of people standing around watching a group of thugs (Sadams team) beat up and kill the local people. Should we have walked on by leaving this or step in and helped the oppressed people?

Call me an optimist, or crazy, or both, but I honestly believe the people in the region will be better off in the long run.

That's why I support this war and support what were doing. I don't like that we have to "police" this sort of thing, but unfortunately no one else on our planet seem to care how many millions of people he killed, and would have to continue to kill. I can't understand how anyone could think to let that go on is correct.

[ QUOTE ]
Unicorn:
Because this war is about oil, and that oil is what allows us as Americans to live our lifestyle.

[/ QUOTE ]

Emphasis mine

I think that the above statement is true, but not in the way that you intended when you wrote it.

The US military has either pulled out of Saudi Arabia or they are on the way out as I write. If this is only about putting troops on oil as you have implied, than why have we voluntarily removed our troops from the country with the largest oil reserves in the world and placed them in a country with less oil? SA is a country that has already built bases for us and the infrastructure for our military is highly advanced there. Why would we move our military to a place with no infrastructure in place, a larger, more hostile population and LESS oil? I don't see it. Can you give me one example of the US extorting oil out of any country at gunpoint?

IMO, here is where your statement becomes true: If the vast oil wealth of Iraq were to fall into the hands of those who would only use it to fund an endless series of attacks against civilian population centers throughout the Western World that would be a very bad thing indeed. In the last 35 months we have seen that there are a great many people in this world who would jump at the chance to take just that course. So yes, in that sense the war is about oil. But I will need a few examples of past behavior to back up the implication that we are there to take the oil from them with our military might. If that were the case, why not just take Venezuela? Wouldn't that be simpler, cheaper, closer and less frought with controversy?

EDIT: Some spellin

If the war was about the OIL, then how come I just paid $2.09 a gallon for gas? Wouldn't President Bush just open the tap and start taking all the oil?

First if we are talking about doing the "moral" thing, why didn't we go to the Killing fields of Cambodia in the sixties. Why are we putting a stop to the murderous crime rate at the Ivory Coast, or the genecide in Africa. This war is not for moral reasons. At least our self-inflicted morality only goes where the money is.
Second, If the people of Iraq want all of this, why are they killing our soldiers EVERYDAY, instead of killing those in resistance. If the opposition is just some criminal element of insurgents, and what we bring is so wonderful, the good people of Iraq should be taking sides with the US to rid their country of rabel.
Third if this is war on terrorism, why are we sending our troops the equipment they needed, and enough troops to fininsh the job. WW2 had almost 5 million people in country, and less casualties than we have taken here. (After the president said we were fininshed that is).
This world rotates on money. Not morality, self sacrafice, or the goodness of mankind, and so does this war.

jayflash, if you're counting me in that group you try to describe then you've drastically misunderstood my point.

If it was about oil, then Saddam would still be in power. He would LOVE to sell us his oil and take our money. If were about oil, the folks in his country and every where else would be thrilled with America and all the money we send them constantly. If it were about oil, the sanctions and "oil for food" program that the UN placed on Iraq would have been lifted at our urging a long time ago.

There was nothing about Saddams rule in the area that endangered our access to his oil. It doesn't matter who is in charge, they are going to sell us their oil. We should just be happy with whatever happens there I guess?

We made them richer than God and yet they bite the hand that feeds them.

The only place oil plays into the equation at all is historically. It allows people like Saddam to get a paycheck without actually having to get a job. They never became industrialized, they never learned to play nice in regular trade with other countries. Lots of money, no impact of reality. They can and do, do whatever they like.

I don't understand the comparisons that Bravo25 is making at all. So, we didn't go into Cambodia 50 years ago, therefore we should just admit to being amoral and give up? Oh well, mea-maxima-culpa, come and kill us, we deserve it.

As I explained above, our goals for them are completely self serving. We'd like them to get a life and stop trying to kill us please. If they can't do it by themselves, then we're going to set it up for them. There is no morality here. we're not doing it cause it's the right thing to do, but it is the thing that ensures our own safety. If there were a less expensive way of ensuring the same results, I'd like to hear about it and I'll bet the President would too.

Explain to me how pulling out of Iraq, or not having gone in the first place, would solve the problems that led to 9/11.

Brock, if I didn't love the USA I wouldn't bother trying to change it. I dislike only the excesses that are promoted by some business and politicans. If we weren't so damned powerful we'd have to be more diplomatic and respectful of other nation's rights.

Since the 1970's I've actively promoted alternate energy, conservation, and efficiency but this nation is going BACKWARDS in these areas. Our national security is at stake due to our lack of action on energy. I'm upset because in several important ways, the USA has backslid into our ills of yesteryear. We know better but do the wrong things anyway.

If I didn't deeply care for my country, I sure the heck wouldn't stick my neck out so far on this conservative forum. I hope that it's me - that I'm the one who's wrong, because if I'm right we're all gonna pay dearly.

James, I'm not lumping you or all of the war's supporters into the "gluttonus, selfish, group". Too many people that I talk to or editorials I read are from some really selfish individuals. I hear this arrogance on talk radio, and some people in my area feel we should bomb Iraq to kingdom come.

The question has been asked many times: why has the USA ignored 50 years of pleas for help from many other struggling nations? Why Iraq when we could have done so much good, elsewhere, for so much less cost in lives and money? This hasn't been answered yet. Why aren't we going after the perpetrators of 9/11 with the same zeal we have for Iraq? These are valid concerns that need truthful answers.

Take the fight to the terrorists, and to those who support terrorists. Due to the lack of actions by past administrations the terrorists believed that the US would do nothing or if they attacked the US, we would run away. This war is telling the terrorists, and those that support them, that if they attack the US we will find them and take them out.