I actually supported the Iraq invasion at the time

[Moonlight_Graham]

I didn't like the agressive way Bush went about things leading up to the war, but I supported the war in Iraq back when they originally invaded the country last year. Given the info i was told by Bush and others at the time, namely that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction and that Iraq would likely have obtained/built a nuclear weapon within a year. This info i thought justified the invasion of Iraq, since WMD's and nukes in the hands of Saddam is just bad, and he could give them to terrorists.

 

But of course, we know both those claims are incorrect. No WMD's, and Condeleeza Rice now says Saddam would have likely built a nuclear weapon within 10 years, not 1 year as claimed.

 

Also, would any of you have supported the war if both those claims were true, and the US did find WMD's and a nuclear weapons facility?

[Sparq]

While I did (and I guess still do) support the removal of Saddam Hussein, they really went about it the wrong way. If th potential for nuclear weapons really had been their main motivation, North Korea would have been a more logical target. They already have nukes.

 

And doing it despite UN/NATO approval was a huge mistake...looks like they may be headed the way of the old League of Nations now, thanks to the US...

Edited September 2, 2004 by Sparq

[no yu begin wher i end]

Sadly, I supported it too at the beginning. Then I began to read a little, and I began to think of the many injustices and lies that occured, and now I'm fully against it. In newspaper, intelligence officials were on the record supporting it, but on other newssources they said, anonymously, that they were being pressured to give the Administration what they wanted (a case for invading Iraq).

 

I doubt many people who aren't Americans would support the war even if the claims turned out to be true mainly due to the supreme arrogance of the Bush cabal up to, and during, the war. As well, much of the world views the Americans as hypocrites. What right do they have to tell other countries that they can't have WMD when they have the most advanced and vast stockpiles of WMD in the world? In 2002, they released a list of countries that could potentially face a nuclear strike: China, Russia, Iran, Iraq, Libya, and I think a few other Middle Eastern countries. ;)

[Sparq]

That's the thing...I still support the invasion, but not the motive or methods. And I would not be inclined to mess with China or Russia...the potential for disaster is too high. Nor would I want the US to be the only ones with nukes.

[Tim]

Never supported it. To me, it sounded utterly ridiculous right from the get-go.

Edited September 2, 2004 by Nearing_Fantastica

[juanpe]

I could NEVER support a war... actually in Spain we were told the same lies Bush told americans and population never believed or supported the war (95% of the spanish population was against the war)...

 

it is only a question of being a military culture or not: the american culture seems to be VERY military and others - for example, Spain - are not

 

a war CAN NEVER be justified, for no reasons... just because that implies that a lot of innocent people are gonna die for sure... diplomacy should rule international policy, it is the most powerful "weapon"... but never an invasion, never starting a war... that cannot solve problems

 

(just my humble opinion...)

[Skwu]

I never supported the invasion of Iraq either. Largely because of what no yu begin wher i end said about the hypocrisy.

[ok_go_570]

a war CAN NEVER be justified, for no reasons

 

Thats not true at all. A war can be justifyed...if Spain was being invaded by...say...Morrocco would you want Spain to just let them in and not fight?

 

I'd assume not

 

And ive always belived that if genocide is taking place than that country should be invaded and the ruling party or dictator be taken out

 

as for the war in Iraq, ive never supported it. Even if they were right about the WMD's i still would not have supported it.

 

If they were really after WMD's then they would have invaded a country like North Korea simply because they were TESTING theres at the time

 

FOr that reason i think they picked iraq for the oil

 

On a side note, when the Bush government said that the attacks on the World Trade Center and Iraq were connected, i thought that was a load of bull

Edited September 2, 2004 by eliselover570

[Skwu]

As Canadians, we're are mostly cynical about American foreign policy. Not to mention thanks to Federal legislation, we're not bombarded 24/7 with pro-war messages. As a result, we don't accept what the Bush Administration tells us indirectly.

 

Think what it would be like to live in a large country in constant state of fear. Where every media outlet is constantly repeating "Saddam," "Evil," "Iraq," "Terrorism," "WMD," "Bin Laden," and "9/11." Just hearing those words together the message will embed itself and create associations. Furthermore, social pressures from others. "What you don't agree with us? Then you're a terrorist/anti-american/french/hippee/liberal/democrat/and flip flopper." I don't blame some Americans for being tricked or lied to. The Bush Administration had skillful people tell the public what the should think. Most of the devices and language they used trick the public is psychological. Heck, If I live in the U.S, I would have probably been tricked along with them.

[ok_go_570]

As Canadians, we're are mostly cynical about American foreign policy. Not to mention thanks to Federal legislation, we're not bombarded 24/7 with pro-war messages. As a result, we don't accept what the Bush Administration tells us indirectly.

 

Think what it would be like to live in a large country in constant state of fear. Where every media outlet is constantly repeating "Saddam," "Evil," "Iraq," "Terrorism," "WMD," "Bin Laden," and "9/11." Just hearing those words together the message will embed itself and create associations. Furthermore, social pressures from others. "What you don't agree with us? Then you're a terrorist/anti-american/french/hippee/liberal/democrat/and flip flopper." I don't blame some Americans for being tricked or lied to. The Bush Administration had skillful people tell the public what the should think. Most of the devices and language they used trick the public is psychological. Heck, If I live in the U.S, I would have probably been tricked along with them.

 

Now i have to say that thats a good point

Edited September 2, 2004 by eliselover570

[Moonlight_Graham]

I could NEVER support a war...

 

it is only a question of being a military culture or not: the american culture seems to be VERY military and others - for example, Spain - are not

 

a war CAN NEVER be justified, for no reasons...

i also have to disagree with you on that. Canada is not a war culture either, but if another country were to invade Canada i would be the first person lined up and ready to fight back for my country and my freedom.

 

If people didn't fight back, the only alternative is to roll-over and let other countries invade at will. Thats why i don't really believe in pacifism. I don't like war, but sometimes diplomacy doesn't work and you are forced to take action.

 

Another example that "eliselover" mentioned is genocide. Would it be right for the world to have just let Hitler invade all the countries he wanted during WWII, and keep slaughtering millions of Jews? Of course not, which is why is was justified that the US, Canada, and the European Allies etc. fought back to defeat Nazi Germany. Diplomacy unfortunately doesn't usually work with madmen.

[Crusader]

If someone tried to invade Canada I think all of us would stand together and kick invading ass.

[ok_go_570]

If someone tried to invade Canada I think all of us would stand together and kick invading ass.

 

I know i would

 

not a big supporter of war but when theres no other choise i'll fight

[Sparq]

It's the greater good. Killing may be 'wrong' in the books of most people, but when it's to prevent even greater amounts of killing...killing of civilians, not just soldiers...then yes, it's justified.

[Skwu]

Careful, that's getting close to Premptive war doctrine. "Iraq has weapons of mass destruction that could harm rest of the world. That is bad. Therefore, we need to invade Iraq to protect ourselves."

[Boond]

well i would put juanpes quote in here but it seems i have been beaten to it...and i disagree with it as well....forgein policy, diplomacy,and bartering are terrific first steps...but telling someone to stop invading other countries or killing their people isnt going to make them stop...often times these edicts have to be enforced, unfortunately violently...

 

lets take society as an example, the law states you should not do certain things....however most people dont do those things not for moral reasons but out of fear of reprisal..policing and enforcing these laws can be violent and harsh, but is often more a matter of menace than actual action...

 

that being said i never supported the invasion of Iraq...only an international entity can decide to take policing action, one country acting unilaterally, especially against an international authority can never be right

 

and yes, if Canada was threatened i would head the call to arms...i love my home and my freedom

[Sparq]

Careful, that's getting close to Premptive war doctrine. "Iraq has weapons of mass destruction that could harm rest of the world. That is bad. Therefore, we need to invade Iraq to protect ourselves."

Yeah. I'm not talking about the preemptive thing...unfortunately in this day and age it is neccessary to wait until the killing starts before you take steps to stop it. Hidden agendas generally seem to motivate 'preemptive' invasions.

[S.E. Hardy]

I never have and truely doubt I ever will support any war.

[juanpe]

It's the greater good. Killing may be 'wrong' in the books of most people, but when it's to prevent even greater amounts of killing...killing of civilians, not just soldiers...then yes, it's justified.

that is exactly the excuse Bush, Blair and Aznar used in order to invade Irak and we are suffering the results of their mad, nazi, despotist idea nowadays...

 

prevention? maybe we should start a war against Bush, Blair and Aznar (well, this one is already out thanx to us, spaniards ;) ) to prevent ourselves from their despotism...

 

NO TO WAR

NO TO ANY WAR

THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION TO START A WAR

Edited September 3, 2004 by juanpe

[therethere]

Never supported this war. If you really wanted to get rid of Saddam or get rid of his supposed WMDs, then you wouldn't have invaded the country and stayed there to keep control of the oil.

[Sparq]

that is exactly the excuse Bush, Blair and Aznar used in order to invade Irak and we are suffering the results of their mad, nazi, despotist idea nowadays...

 

NO TO WAR

NO TO ANY WAR

THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION TO START A WAR

You miss my point. Starting a war is not justified. Finishing it can be. Again, the line blurs if you are not directly under attack, but if, for example, the army of some North African warlord entered, say, Mali and started burning villages and slaughtering their inhabitants at random - would you not support the mobilisation of UN/NATO/independant forces to stop them? Would you prefer to sit and watch people kill who they want and take what they what they want unchecked?

 

Don't try to compare what I said to what Bush is doing. I did, after all, state that these days you've got to wait for the killing to start before you can take steps to stop it, otherwise you just look corrupt (which, in this case, I'm sure he is). There is a difference between invading to protect innocents who are under attack, and invading because you think they might soon be under attack. I thought I'd made that clear...

 

Let's make it something easier to imagine - You and a friend are ambushed in a dark alley at night. Are you going to stand there and watch your assailants kill your friend, or are you going to fight to save him? If you are that much of a pacifist that you wouldn't even condone violence in defence of yourself, your friends, or your family, then I just don't know what to say.

Edited September 4, 2004 by Sparq

[juanpe]

that example of a friend does not have anything to do with a war, Colin... that's an asault, not a war

[Sparq]

If that's the way to want to see it...but both involve the infliction of violence either out of defence or aggression. As far as I'm concerned, war is the same thing - on a larger scale, and government sanctioned.

 

Kill a man for his wallet, or devastate a country for its oil...the only differences are the numbers involved and government approval.

 

The same situation can be applied here: A hostile country declares war on your own, invades, and slaughters everyone as they make their way toward the capital. Civilians, military, adults, children...EVERYONE. Are you still going to say that fighting back isn't justified? That self defence is 'wrong'? It's the 'ambushed friend' scenario all over again...large scale.

Edited September 7, 2004 by Sparq

[Moonlight_Graham]

Careful, that's getting close to Premptive war doctrine. "Iraq has weapons of mass destruction that could harm rest of the world. That is bad. Therefore, we need to invade Iraq to protect ourselves."

Well, a pre-emptive war would have prevented 9/11. If the US had invaded Afghanistan, overthrown the Taliban, and hunted down much of Al Qaeda and its network before 9/11 instead of after 9/11 then the WTC and Pentagon attacks wouldn't have likely occured.

 

Thats why the US now has a doctrine of pre-emptive war. Its a tricky & controversial subject, but the US is obviously not content at waiting for another enemy to attack them first before they strike back.

 

that being said i never supported the invasion of Iraq...only an international entity can decide to take policing action, one country acting unilaterally, especially against an international authority can never be right

The problem with that is that the United Nations is a flawed entity. France had a vote to veto any invasion of Iraq, but they have huge financial ties to Iraq and Saddam and had many oil and construction contracts with Iraq. Thats well documented. So if every other member of the UN Security Council was for the invasion, but France was not (neither was Germany, but nix that for sake of argument), does that mean its not justified for all those other countires to still invade Iraq even though its not under the "UN" banner.

 

For the record, there was not "one country acting unilaterally" as you say. US had Britain/UK on their side, and also a part of the Iraq coalition were/are: Albania, Armenia, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Rep, El Salvador, Estonia, Georgia, Honduras, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, South Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Moldova, Mongolia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Thailand, Tonga, and Ukraine.

Edited September 12, 2004 by Moonlight_Graham

[ok_go_570]

For the record, there was not "one country acting unilaterally" as you say. US had Britain/UK on their side, and also a part of the Iraq coalition were/are: Albania, Armenia, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Rep, El Salvador, Estonia, Georgia, Honduras, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, South Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Moldova, Mongolia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Thailand, Tonga, and Ukraine.

 

Notise that over 75% of the countrys in the "colilition of the willing" are poor? If you were offered guns, bombs, tanks, planes and/or money then you would join too.

 

-Uncle Sam- " I have a bunch of nice shiny F-18s for you! want them?

-Some poor country- "YES!!!!"

-Uncle sam- "well you better come and help me in Iraq then *shakes fist*"

-some poor country- "Ok then anything to help the POVERTY situation in my country"

 

Theres a phrase for that. I cant remember exactly what it is but it goes something like "indirect imperialism" or something like that.

Edited September 12, 2004 by eliselover570