This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

George Bush, Iraq war e.tc e.t.c

Hi
I am sorry, but I wanted to view my opinion on this matter. I am sick and tired of people saying how they hate george bush, how they have wanted him 2 resign, how the iraq war was for oil and nothing else and so on and so on. I think that george bush is not a 'dangerous man' (in the words of one user of this site), but infact one of the bravest mean there is along with tony blair! He and Blair, against all the negative publicity and contorversy over the iraq war sent troops in and LIBERATED thousands of Iraqi people, men, women and children, who would otherwise be leading awful lives. They had to follow and strict (and in my opinion, stupid) regime, girls were not educated, women were not allowed jobs. Although Sadaam Hussain did profit from Iraq's oild, where di this money go? to the people? NO! He spent it on luxurious palaces and nice food and expensive wines, while there were hundreds of people in his country dying of malnutrition everyday! In my eyes, George Bush and Tony Blair are not traitors, or dangerous, or evil or anything else like that, they are courageous and strong! They stood up and ignored all the people who were against them because they knew that going into Iraq and FREEING its people was the best thing to do! They may not be totally perfect, but who is? I think all the negative publicity about the war is unfair! On the tv or radio or internet you mostly hear about the bad things that happen, the bomb attacks, the deaths. I agree, these are disastrarous and horrible things that happen, but a lot more lives would have been lost if Sadaam had been allowed to stay and rule Iraq! What about when Bush made a trip to the american troops on thanksgiving? He went to one of the most dangerous parts of Iraq and risked his life to give them a moral booster. What about all the street parties and celebrations that took place when the soldiers first took Sadaams palace and he was officially destroyed from power? The Iraqi people were overwhelmingly happy because they had been freed from this ruthless, violent regime. You people who are saying how Bush is stupid, bush is bad, bush shud resign, i hate bush, all this stuff about both bush and blair, you people should go out and visit the people in iraq and ask them what they think! Would you want a regime, full of hatred, violence, sexism e.t.c hanging over you, or to be FREED???

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1

pedy1986

oh yes iraq is certainly 'free' now.

Blair and Bush went to war over the WMD of which were never found, the war was illegal and went AGAINST what the public thought, surely as politicians they should reflect the majoritys views.

Reply 2

CHAD

corey

Was this really the majorities views?
A poll suggested that 62% were for the war in Iraq and 38% were against, obviously contradicting the opinion that the majority were against it. Also, it has only been the opposers to the war that have protested, made any sort of statement or anything becos people like me are obviously not gonna walk around wearing a tshirt saying 'I agree to the war' are they? We would have rotton eggs thrown at us. Besides, I dont agree to war, I agree to Liberating innocent people who have been forced to live under a such a regime which I have outlined above, for their whole lives. No-one should have to live like that! Do you agree that no-one should have to live in this way?

Reply 3

zizero

A few questions:

To CHAD: If the war was all about liberating Iraq, I wonder why the US chose Iraq for its crusade for freedom. Why not Saudi-Arabia, Lybia, Zimbabwe North-Korea or Chechnya?

To corey: Was the war really fought against the will of the majority, or was it fought against the will of a vociferous minority which claimed to be the majority? And besides, should politicians really always follow the majority? Does that mean that the UK should pull out of the EU, because a recent poll revealed that there is a majority of people in the UK, who believe it is a bad thing their country is a member of the EU?
You say the war was illegal. Does that mean that the UN has or should have the right to be a world legislator? Does that mean that sovereign nations are subordinate to the UN? And anyway, why exactly was the war illegal? After all, 1441 stated that appropriate action may be taken if Iraq were not to comply.
And finally, does the fact that no WMD's were found mean that there are no WMD's?

Reply 4

CHAD

Although I am not fully informed as to the whole situation in those countries I do know about the suffereing the populations there go through as well and I do not think that should be ignored either, but Iraq posed an immediate threat to westerners and foreingers of any sort (shown in the bombings of hundreds of innocent people only because they were of a different religion). Saddam claimed to posses WMD and this posed a threat to westerners as he had used bombs b4 so what would stop him now? Blair, Bush and the other few countries who helped us were saving and freeing the Iraqi people. Look at the scenes of jubilation today! They were so happy that their dictator who had dominated over them for centuries was captured. Didn't you see their happiness? They went into Iraq to end the dictator's strict and vile regime. They did it liberate thousands of Iraqi people and they did it to end the possibility of the threat of WMD.

Not until we had actually gone into Iraq, did we hear the whole situation in North Korea for example and that they are suspected of also having WMD.

Reply 5

REASONS FOR WAR:

IRAQ BROKE some UN regulations.

AGAINST

Israel has violated 32 resolutions, and Turkey Morocco have each violated more than 16 UN resolutions. The facts are there.

Reply 6

FOR WAR:

WMD

AGAINST:

To date (200+ days) no WMD has been found, it may be noted that America supplied Iraq with supplies for making WMD, especially when Dick Cheney was the president of a pharmacutical company. Also The Iraq dossier was "inaccurate" because the copy given to the UN, to be photocopied somehow lost 8000 pages relating to mostly America's involvement in supplying the Iraqi regieme. Colombia, who was the head of security turned a blind eye, as its government is "propped" up byAmerican troops "helping" to fight the Drug barons.

Reply 7

FOR:

Iraqi citizens need to be liberated

AGAINST:

If we were really concerned about Iraqi citizens, why did they not support the Kurds in 1988, when Hussein used chemical weapons on them? In fact, America continued to support Hussein for at least a year and a half after that attack. In 1991, Shiites in South Iraq were directly encouraged by the U.S. to rise up against Hussein, and the U.S. then abandoned them and their cause. If they really cared about the citizens, why did they let the citizens suffer so much under the UN sanctions? If human rights is really their cause, the U.S. and "the coalition of the willing" would be busy for a long time, if not indefinitely.

Reply 8

FOR:

We cannot wait for Hussein to invade his neighbors or use his weapons on Iraqi citizens (a pre-emptive strike is necessary).

AGAINST:

If this is a good rationale for going to war, we can make this argument of every single nation that we don't feel comfortable with; in other words, this argument is too broad - it justifies much more war than just war with Iraq. Also, this argument justifies other countries' going to war with any other country virtually anytime for pretty much any reason.

Reply 9

FOR:

The USA cannot be blamed for civilian deaths in any case. You can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs.

AGAINST:

No-one who has ever experienced the true horrors of war ever makes a statement like this. It comes from a place of ignorance and superiority completely cut off from the reality of death and torment that war always brings. The aggressor is always to blame for the acts of that aggression. Ignorance is not a valid response (as the Nurenburg Trials established legally). It is well known that in modern warfare, 90% of the deaths are civilian, knowing this going in makes any act of war an immoral act.

Reply 10

FOR:

Iraq deserves retribution for the 911 terrorist attacks

AGAINST:

Iraq had nothing to do with those attacks. There is no credible evidence linking the two. They are a relatively weak and poor country, isolated from world opinion. They have almost zero reach outside their own borders. They pose effectively no threat as US investigations themselves have shown (ignored by the White House). Also indeed Iraq is America's only potential ally in that region as Sadaam waged an unheard war against the Taliban who wanted to topple him.

Reply 11

FOR:

The war was not waged for oil

AGAINST:

If we take a look at Bush’s National Security Strategy, published in 2002 one major contradiction stands out. America’s “unparalleled and unequaled force and influence in the world” would not be allowed to be matched or overtaken by any other country out of basic principle - yet several sections down we find that America will champion the cause of the “free-markets”. Simple mathematics show that China, with its enormous demographics and leverage over foreign investors, will easily become a plausible challenger to this American power within several decades. But China is an increasingly oil dependent economy, with 45% of domestic demand imported (comparable to America’s rising 5O%), and has signed a panalope of contracts with Iraq for its oil needs. In a free market this would empower Saddam Hussein or a baathist successor; and build a new world power, China. It makes sense to demolish these contracts and have American firms snap up new ones, the future of American power depends on it.

Reply 12

Cost of War: So far the cost of the Iraq war is exceeding $89,000,000,000, that’s is equal to building 4000 new hospitals, or hiring 1,209,000 new teachers.

Reply 13

Sire

George Dubya Bush invaded (note the absence of the phrase "went to war with") Iraq for a few very stupid reasons. a) cuz his daddy was shunned during his term as the prez. b)he simply wanted to leave his mark on the world, so chose Iraq for above reason. also because Iraq just couldn't match the U.S. in any way, shape or form industrially, militarily, numbers etc. and also because of ole Saddam being the prick he is, people would see it as righteous to break a few basic freedoms of people as a whole and come off as Mr Popular. c)the supposed quest to rid the country of possible, and I quote, "weapon of mass destructions". (Yes he did say the entire thing in the plural sense, so that C average at Yale really served him well.)

Reply 14

Sire

lol

Reply 15

Sire

2776

Cost of War: So far the cost of the Iraq war is exceeding $89,000,000,000, that’s is equal to building 4000 new hospitals, or hiring 1,209,000 new teachers.

Now you understand why I rep. this guy people. The Iraq war was a farce. If that money had been put into helping the country (and don't say it wasn't possible) then things would have been much more satisfactory. Imagine 4000 new, professionally run hospitals in Iraq, perhaps only 1000 and put the money from the other 3000 into human aid operations...

Reply 16

Sire

Thank you Sire, I will give you rep when I am able (about 8pm)

Reply 17

Sire

2776

Thank you Sire, I will give you rep when I am able (about 8pm)

Thankyou kind sir :smile:

Reply 18

haakon

I agree that the reasons Bush and Blair presented to justify going to war were wrong. The threat from WMD was greatly exagerated, and the idea of pre-emtive strikes would only lead to instability if it became accepted. However this doesn't mean that the overall effect of the war won't be positive, both for the Iraqi people and the entire middle-east. Also a stable Iraq would make the US less dependent on Saudi-Arabia, which is the primary source of terrorism. I think this is the most important reason for the US invasion.

And saying that the US invaded Iraq because of the oil is just ignorant. Anyone who reads newspapers would know that the Bush administration fought bitterly against the Democrats in congress when they wanted part of the money spent by the Americans to be a loan to Iraq which would be paid back in oil (this doesn't mean i support the Republicans). And the argument about the Chinese oil deals isn't very convincing. It won't stop the Chinese economic growth blocking a few iraqi oil contracts. Anyways the Russians and the Chinese are planning to build an oil pipe from Siberia to China to make the Chinese less dependent on oil from the Middle-East. An all industrial countries are dependent on oil, so Iraq entering the oil market with full capacity (instead of just enough to buy food as under the UN sanctions) will benefit all oil-importing countries including China.

When it comes to the argument that civilian deaths make the war unjustifiable, this is interesting. This is a pacifist view point which i don't share because it would imply that war can never be justified (in all wars since WW2 have civilian casualties been larger than military casualties). I think some wars are just, but whether the war in Iraq is, is a difficult question.

I agree that it seems a bit hypocritical to say that the war was justified because of the suffering of the iraqi people, when the US never has seemed to have taken this in consideration elsewhere. However the fact of the matter is still that the invasion will probably have a positive effect on the conditions in Iraq in the long run. It doesn't really make sence to say that because you don't help everyone, you can't justify helping at all.

Reply 19

Unregistered

haakon

Wow. You really know what you're talking about. I agree completely.

I am still very confused about this war. I do not understand why Bush wanted to go to war and I do not understand why Saddam led the world to beleive he had weapons of mass destruction if he didn't (which seems to be the case).