A R C H I V E S
Madinat al-Muslimeen Islamic Message Board
| The Other Side of the War Debate |
|---|
| Chris |
| 02/21/03 at 09:55:33 |
| The Other Side of the War Debate Many people say that we should not consider attacking Iraq, or even attempting to kill Saddam Hussein. I say that there is a greater principle at stake here, which is why we must act to dispose Saddam. To illustrate this point, on March 7th 1936 German troops marched into the Rhineland. This was Hitler’s first illegal act in foreign relations since coming to power in 1933. It is easy to say that the Versailles treaty was unfair, forced upon Germany by victorious and bitter foes, and that its provisions were unjust. Certainly, Germany could not hold all of the blame herself, but by far the greatest share of the blame rests with Germany and her leaders. It was their decisions that led to starving German people, the collapse of the democratic government and the rise of Hitler. The failure to stand up against Hitler in 1936, when it would have been relatively easy, could have saved thousands of lives. The cost of World War Two is immeasurable. Thousands of people were killed. Millions more were ruined, made homeless, or trapped behind an iron curtain. All of this horror happened because the French and British leaders bowed to pressure, the terror of a repeat of the mass slaughter of the first war and the sincere beliefs of many people who knew that the terms forced on Germany were unfair and led to huge suffering. Saddam Hussein has had his Rhineland. In 1991, he invaded Kuwait, a peaceful, democratic, state that could not pose a military threat to anyone, let along the huge Iraqi army. An international coalition was formed and pushed the Iraqis back out, but they were afraid to take the decisive step of squashing the threat forever. Its also easy to blame sanctions imposed on Iraq for the sufferings of its people. The blame must be placed squarely on Saddam. He has attempted to massacre the Kurds, Muslims and now partly homeless. He has imposed a police state and attempted to crush freedom in Iraq. The cowardice of the international leaders in not removing Saddam merely prolonged the process, not started it. The Arab leaders claim that military action will destabilise the regain. They are right to say this from their point of view, because a success in Iraq would destabilise their reign. What if the US succeeds and Iraq becomes democratic? What message does that send to the people of Saudi Arabia (a monarchy) or Iran (a theocratic state)? Would they not be encouraged to seek freedom? Saddam must be stopped. The longer the world delays, the more the cost that will be paid. It will be paid in human blood, the blood of the American and British warriors who will be fighting, the blood of the Iraqi troops, sent out to fight against overwhelming odds by a callous leader, it will be paid by the citizens of Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Jordan, Syria and Israel, who Saddam will fire Scud missiles at once the end draws near, and, most of all, it will be paid by the Iraqi people, who have suffered enough under Saddam. Have they not suffered enough? We have free will, God’s precious gift to us, but, when faced with evil, how many of us would do nothing? How many victims before it becomes acceptable? If you do not want to be involved, then don’t be. Stay home, don’t vote, and don’t fight. But remember, in everything you do to prevent war, remember that you are aiding a tyrant who will not allow his own people to live free. I hope you can live with yourselves afterwards, because I know I could not. |
| Re: The Other Side of the War Debate |
|---|
| jannah |
| 02/21/03 at 10:13:05 |
| Wow wish you were at the thing last night. The speaker answered every one of the points you brought up here. I'll let some others respond and add some stuff he said after inshaAllah |
| Re: The Other Side of the War Debate |
|---|
| Dude |
| 02/21/03 at 11:10:59 |
| I'm still trying to get of the fence, as far as if I favor war or not. I wholeheartedly agree Saddam needs to be removed, but I'm having a tough time, at this point, justifying the inevitable bombing of Iraq. Just wanted to clarify one thing: Millions of lives were lost in WWII, not just thousands. It took all of Russia, Europe, England, Canada and the US to conquer the German War Machine. I don't think, militarily speaking, Iraq will ever compare to the worldwide thread Germany presented back then. |
| Re: The Other Side of the War Debate |
|---|
| BroHanif |
| 02/21/03 at 11:26:00 |
| Yes, lets invade Iraq and who will be nx ? N Korea, or Iran, Sudan or China ?? Who does the US think it is some sort of world policeman ?. Where did Sadam come from, the US. It is the US that pleases the despots arround the world, hey have we forgotten who Pinochet was ? Supported by the, US. You want democaracy lets have democracy in the only Mid East state, Israel. A democracy which is racist, evil and above all strips all other people of beliefs and cultures of their rights bar the Jews. Who supports this democracy the UN and US. Who has vetoed at evey UN resolution on action against Israel, the US. So this is the democracy you want. Also tell me a country where real democracy exists ? When Madeline Albright the witch was asked about sanctions on Iraq she said that is it worth 500,00 Iraqi lives for sanctions, who placed them in the first place and kept them on, the US. And now we have despots Bush and Blair going in to liberate Iraq, from who ? Them or Saddam ? [quote]the blood of the American and British warriors who will be fighting[/quote] True warriors fight with a clear concious not with a mind that serves the interest of the politicians. If you can call it war upon a country which has been ravaged by sanctions and left to rot then yeah they will have a fight, but it'll be over in a weekend. You may have people cheering in the streets when the US takes over but the after effects of the war will be a country that is raped and pillaged by the US. Steal the oil and give me sand. However, how many people will have lost their lives in this ??? Where is the US in Afghanistan ??? Where is the money that it was promised before the Taleban ???. Is Afghanistan any better or worse off ?? True some people have shed the beards and hijaabs but at what price ?. We have more rape, drug production, crime and people upset. Iraq will need at least 10billion in aid to develop after the war, will the US be willing to give that, will they hell. Where is the new leader of Iraq going to come from ??? Oh let me guess, shall he be one installed via democracy and free electionss, come on he'll be a US puppet ready to lick the boots and do their bidding. This war is about oil, nothing else. Even people like Robert Murdoch have said openly that Saddam needs to be disposed, so oil can then be used to boost the flaggin US and UK economys. Its in your face, cheap oil barrels for a million barrels of blood. Go to sleep with that concious. |
| NS |
| Re: The Other Side of the War Debate |
|---|
| Chris |
| 02/21/03 at 13:53:28 |
| [quote]Just wanted to clarify one thing: Millions of lives were lost in WWII, not just thousands. It took all of Russia, Europe, England, Canada and the US to conquer the German War Machine. I don't think, militarily speaking, Iraq will ever compare to the worldwide thread Germany presented back then. [/quote] Now yes, but then, hitler did not present a significant threat until 1939. Cancer needs to be operated on as quickly as possible, before it spreads and becomes truly deadly C |
| Re: The Other Side of the War Debate |
|---|
| sofia |
| 02/21/03 at 14:15:29 |
| [quote]Cancer needs to be operated on as quickly as possible, before it spreads and becomes truly deadly[/quote] So like, if I have lung cancer (leader A), and colon cancer (leader B), and skin cancer (leader C) -- which one should I treat first? Shouldn't it be the most deadly "cancer"? |
| Re: The Other Side of the War Debate |
|---|
| BrKhalid |
| 02/22/03 at 13:25:48 |
| Asalaamu Alaikum I’m sorry but this ‘moral’ case for war is utter folly!!. If people genuinely believe that the US and Britain are going to war to save people from Saddam then we have to say it’s a great PR achievement for the British and American spin doctors. The fact is that the US is going to war with a country which is thousand of miles away not because it feels under threat or because it has good intentions but because it is in its own self interest to do so. I’m sorry but anyone who thinks otherwise is dreadfully naïve. |
| Re: The Other Side of the War Debate |
|---|
| Anonymous |
| 02/25/03 at 17:01:14 |
| Pondering The World's Mother-In-Law: America By Fred Reed <http://www.interventionmag.com/images/contextual/fred_reed.jpg> I'm trying to understand American foreign policy. It's like oil-painting on a trampoline, but makes less sense. I'm not sure anybody could do it--not even if you took St. Augustine and Jimmy the Greek and Carl Friedrichs Gauss and wired them together in parallel. It seems that we're going to blow up Iraq. Some folk will call it a war, but it'll be more like drowning a litter of puppies. Iraq is a primitive country and hasn't got a chance. That's convenient, and lots of fun, but it ain't war. Now, understand: I'm patriotic, and believe in blowing up as many people as possible, wherever we can find them. But?why Iraq? It's mysterious. Sure, Hussein is a good, serviceable, every-day sort of monster and ought to be shot. So are about half the rulers in the world. Why this one? Bobby Mugabe needs it more, I reckon. Have we thought about Zaire? Explain it to me. A ratpack of Saudis blew up New York, so we're going to wreck Iraq. We're going to do it because Hussein has Weapons of Mass Destruction, except that he doesn't, as far as anyone can tell. The more he doesn't have them, the more we want to blow him up because he does, or doesn't, or would if he did. Maybe. I don't understand Weapons of Mass Destruction either. Actually, I do. They're a PR package, nice ribbon, pretty wrapping paper, but with nothing inside, to make it sound like we have a reason for attacking. Americans fortunately don't distinguish between a bumper sticker and a policy. Now, if Iraq had nuclear weapons, blowing them up might be reasonable. But it doesn't. I don't care whether it has chemical weapons, and if it has smallpox, bombing won't help. So why do it? To grab the oil? Make the world safe for Israel? Historical codpiece for George? What's the scam, really? It never stops. We're always bombing, invading, meddling, or embargoing. Nobody else does. Grenada, the Philippines, Panama, Vietnam, Cambodia, Afghanistan twice, Laos, Lebanon twice, Iraq almost twice, Yemen, Angola, Kosovo, Cuba, Libya. We're maybe about to get into a war with North Korea. In fact we have troops there as a tripwire, to be sure we get involved. What could be a better plan? Why? Why always us? Can't we just, you know, spend an occasional Saturday night at home? North Korea is South Korea's problem, not ours, and South Korea is an industrial power. If it wants to defend itself, fine. If it doesn't, I don't care. Is Japan upset about North Korea? Then let Japan do something about it. Why are we always the International Mother? What possible reason did we have for bombing Yugoslavia? Last I heard, Yugoslavia was in Europe. Granted, I haven't looked for a while. Maybe it moved to Mississippi or the outskirts of Detroit. Continental drift is like that. But if it's in Europe, I say it's Europe's problem. Let them bomb Yugoslavia till it squeaks. Or not. Why do I care? It's time Europe learned to diaper itself. For that matter, why do we have troops in Europe? I don't get it. NATO was supposed to fight the Soviet Union, I thought, which we don't have one of. Could we stop meddling for even a week? We're in Colombia and Mexico and Peru and God knows where because these folk work in the drug trade, and we have A Drug Problem. We have a drug problem because Americans want drugs. It's not Colombia's problem. It's our problem. Why don't we leave Colombia the hell alone? Think about it. Suppose a Colombian crept up to you in a raincoat, peering around furtively, and whispered, "Hey, Meester, wanna buy some really good polio virus? Great stuff. You'll never walk again. Iron lung, guaranteed. Five bucks." You would probably indicate that you didn't really need any polio just now. The Colombian would run off and starve, or jump his visa and get a job in construction. You can't sell what people won't buy. It's an economic law. (Unless you're the federal government, which consists of the compulsory sale of unwanted services. But Colombia isn't.) Americans love drugs. Middle-schoolers through assisted living, black, white, blue collar, guttural lawyers in pricey turtle-neck sweaters, funny-looking urbanites, suburbanites with the little bag in the closet, country boys cutting ditchweed, growing hydroponic, cooking that righteous crank. It's one of the biggest businesses in America. We'll pay any price, risk jail, do anything for our drugs. The cartel is just a service industry. Half the country wants them, and the other half doesn't have to take them. Why do we expect other countries to let us bomb their peasants to solve our problem? If we have to poke our nose everywhere, could we at least stop being the Moral Nanny? Somebody said (me, actually) that the Brits fight for empire, the French for la gloire de la France, the Russians to steal watches from the wounded, and the Americans for mommyish moral causes. Spare me. It's embarrassing. Europe fought world wars to get the Germans off its back. We fought The War to End All War, and then to Make the World Safe for Democracy. The Soviet Union was the Evil Empire, and now Iraq and Korea are the Axes of Evil. (Whether this refers to malintentioned hatchets or indicates that the White House doesn't know that points can't be lines is unclear.) I don't want to be a Manichean baby-sitter. Americans may need to get out more. I recently heard that ferret-like little man in the White House trying to give a speech about Iraq and how we're going to liberate Iraqis and it's for their own good and they ought to welcome us like rich relatives bringing free stuff. Any day now. Can't we put George back into his storage box in Roswell? Last time we were in Iraq, we killed 125,000 of their men, or some other wholesome number, wrecked the country, set up an embargo that starves 60,000 of their children to death a year, and established an aerial occupation of lots of their country. But they're going to welcome us because George has good intentions. We're from the government, and we're here to help you?. Why are we embargoing Cuba? When the Soviets wanted to put runways and missiles there, it made sense. Now we're making life miserable for perfectly decent Cubans because we don't like that tiresome gas bag with the beard. Yes, I know. We're really doing it because Castro runs an oppressive communist tyranny. Like China, with whom we trade like starving encyclopedia salesmen. Consistency and churchy moralism go so well together. I give up. It's beyond me. Fred Reed has burried himself in Mexico refusing to save the world any longer. But he can still be read at his FredOnEverything.net |
| 03/06/03 at 03:10:25 |
| jannah |
| Re: The Other Side of the War Debate |
|---|
| Dude |
| 02/26/03 at 18:35:05 |
| Sorry, but that is an absolutely brutal read. Just a suggestion: if you're going to post a long article like that, at least take the time to properly edit it as the author intended, with proper sentence and paragraph structure. That is just painful. Another suggestion: let's make a new policy around here of only posting original thoughts, and start a new thread just for articles and links. Looking at the new threads, nearly every one is a link or copied article, and few are actual opinions or insights. |
| Re: The Other Side of the War Debate |
|---|
| yunus |
| 02/26/03 at 23:58:05 |
| I dont think that the US government even has the right to criticize other nations for commiting acts of terrorism. The US seems to be involved in circular logic and moral relativism in regards to its foreign policy. The fact is that the US has carried out war crimes (according to former Attorney General Ramsey Clark who wrote a book on the subject i highly suggest you read it) against the people of Iraq during the first Gulf War by destroying necessary infastructure such as water purification systems and other civilian targets. According to Chomsky if the prinicples of the Nurmberg trials were applied today then ever US president would be hanged. Further more the US says that Saddam is a evil man (which I believe he is) because of his killing of the Kurds. The fact is the US has absolutly no concern for the Kurdish people with US support arms and aid Turkey has killed thousands of more Kurds in the 90's then Saddam ever has. What right does a country (the US) who has killed more innocent civilians then any other country in the world since 1945 have a right to criticize another governement for their wrong doings when the US has never apoligized to the people of the countries it has terrorized or payed reporations for damages it has inflicted. The US is the only country in the world which has been convicted of International terrorism by the World Court for its actions against the soverign country of Nicaragua. After the courts decision the US did not comply with its ruling and continued to terrorize the people of Nicaragua a country that has never threanted the US This Is a country which funds terrorist and has a terroist training base in Georgia called the school of the Americas whose graduates have killed thousands of innocent people in south and latin america The US is a country which used biological warfare against its own people (the native Americans) and exterminated millions of them So I say what right does our government have to criticize any other nation. When it has never made amends for its actions. The US has no credibility that it will liberate the people of Iraq when you look at this nations history. Further democracy in America is a joke we live under a Tyranny of a minority. The governement imposes rules on us that are meant to serve the elite and corporations while it lets it own people starve in the street instead of apporpiating funds from our ridicoulisly high war budget to help people. Our governement cares more about profit and the rich then what is good for humanity. Also I want to know what kind of democracy the US will bring to Iraq will it be more like the Pinochet one we brought to Chile or like the one of the Shah that we brought to Iran? |
| 02/27/03 at 00:02:12 |
| yunus |
| Re: The Other Side of the War Debate |
|---|
| panjul |
| 02/27/03 at 00:11:58 |
| Saddam Hussein has had his Rhineland. In 1991, he invaded Kuwait, a peaceful, democratic, state that could not pose a military threat to anyone, let along the huge Iraqi army. Kuwait was not a doemocracy at that time and neither is it one now. It has a semi-functional parliament now, but it is far from a democracy. The shots are mostly called by the ruling royal family. (I'd also like to point out that they don't allow women to vote and as a woman i find that highly insulting!) Kuwait was not acting peaceful and that's why Iraq invaded Kuwait. Kuwait was pumping Iraqi oil, and the way it was doing that was by putting it's pumps slanted into the ground and they were sucking up oil from Iraq's side. |
| Re: The Other Side of the War Debate |
|---|
| Halima |
| 02/27/03 at 02:54:02 |
| What an arrogant person Dude is. Dude, you critize any post that does not agree with you or you do not agree with. Yet you expect your posts to be accepted, period. Everybody is expressing their opinions here. You do not have to like them. All you are showing is that you are a totally jaded American and you can not see beyond your nose. Wake up, Dude. We have the decency to accept that Saddam is not a saint. But we also diasgree with the notion of bombing a whole nation just because one person in the nation is a pain in the wrong place. There are plenty of Saddams in the world, from Africa to Europe to the U.S. So, branding Saddam a monster to be dealt with at all costs does not cut anymore. And if you are more educated than other people here, then you will be able to view a coin on both side and not only one side. In fact, you are not contributing anything worthwhile here. You are just raving about your shortsightedness and your luck of judgement. And yet you have the gall to talk about insight! What a croak! Cheers, Halima |
| Re: The Other Side of the War Debate |
|---|
| Dude |
| 02/27/03 at 10:52:51 |
| Wow Halima...you had me at "hello", you know. ::) I criticized the poster for his / her cut and paste job...nothing more, nothing less. Try reading it as it was posted. I'll say it again- painful. If people are going to post 10 page articles, at least do us the courtesy of properly spacing it out as the author intended. Going to the original link, in fact, I enjoyed the article. Who have you been saving this rant for? [quote]Dude, you criticize any post that does not agree with you or you do not agree with. Yet you expect your posts to be accepted, period. Everybody is expressing their opinions here. You do not have to like them. All you are showing is that you are a totally jaded American and you can not see beyond your nose. Wake up, Dude. We have the decency to accept that Saddam is not a saint. But we also diasgree with the notion of bombing a whole nation just because one person in the nation is a pain in the wrong place. There are plenty of Saddams in the world, from Africa to Europe to the U.S. So, branding Saddam a monster to be dealt with at all costs does not cut anymore. And if you are more educated than other people here, then you will be able to view a coin on both side and not only one side. In fact, you are not contributing anything worthwhile here. You are just raving about your shortsightedness and your luck of judgement. And yet you have the gall to talk about insight! What a croak! [/quote] First of all, I'm not American. Second, I haven't once shown support for the US in this impeding war. A couple of weeks back, I posted that [quote]I'm still trying to get off the fence, as far as if I favor war or not. I wholeheartedly agree Saddam needs to be removed, but I'm having a tough time, at this point, justifying the inevitable bombing of Iraq.[/quote] More and more, I'm finding myself against this particular war effort, actually. I don't see the point in bombing a third world country to get one man...now. Mainly, I don't believe that this particular country and leader are as high risk to North America as the media would have the Yanks believe. I feel that if they follow through with this attack, that they will just fuel the anger of any and all terrorist organizations out there that are anti-American. So having said all that, you’re little rant was mistimed, and misplaced. Why don’t you save it for a time when I actually take an unpopular stance? Be patient…you won’t have to wait long. |
| 02/27/03 at 10:56:51 |
| Dude |
| Re: The Other Side of the War Debate |
|---|
| Dude |
| 03/04/03 at 19:19:51 |
| Good satire...I thought we could all have a good laugh, even if we disagree. The Saddam and George show Ignoring the fact that George Bush declined Saddam Hussein's challenge to a televised debate, Tim Dowling exclusively reveals what could have happened had they met Tim Dowling Tuesday February 25, 2003 The Guardian Tony Blair, moderator: Welcome to the first televised debate between George W Bush and Saddam Hussein, live from United Nations headquarters in New York. We will begin with a brief opening statement from each of you. Bush: First of all I would just like to welcome my evil friend to the UN, one of the great American institutions for the propulsion of freedom throughout the world. Saddam: Thank you, Great Satan. I hope that in today's debate we may find some common ground between the Iraqi people's commitment to peace and human progress and America's desire to destroy the Middle East. Bush: Do I answer that? Blair: No. The first question is quite simply this: do you have any links with al-Qaida? Bush: I do not. Blair: The question is for President Saddam. Saddam: As I told Mr Tony Benn clearly and simply, if I had links with al-Qaida and I enjoyed those links then I would not be ashamed to tell the world, but since I am ashamed to tell the world of this, it follows that I have no such links. Bush: Neither do I. Blair: The second question is for Mr Bush. Mr Bush, if America and Iraq were to go to war tomorrow, who would win? Bush: That's easy. America, right? Saddam: Even I knew that one. Bush: That's because the great United American States of America are on the side of rightliness and Americanity, against an evil Axis of Evil made up of Iraq, North Korea and... how many are in an axis? Three? Blair: I think you're allowed as many as you like. Bush: OK, Iraq, North Korea and France. Saddam: I will tell you frankly and directly that Iraq is not part of any Axis of Evil. Bush: Who am I thinking of then? Irania? Blair: Let's move on. Saddam, are you willing to destroy your stockpile of Samoud 2 missiles in accordance with UN weapons inspectors' orders? Saddam: I explain to you now that if Iraq possessed these so-called weapons, we would never destroy them, but since we do not have any such weapons, we are happy to comply, even though these non-existent weapons certainly do not exceed the proscribed range of 150 kms. I've tested them myself, and we don't have any. Blair: The final question is for George Bush. Mr President, is there any way that Saddam Hussein can avoid war, and what steps must he now take in order to reach a negotiated solution? Bush: Listen to me. It's very simple. First Saddam must compile 200% with the UN inspectorers, and I mean activated compilation, not passivist compilation. Second, he must disarm fully, in keeping with UN revelation 1441 and the next one coming, 1441B, which will require him to disarm even more fully that. Then he must destroy all Samoud missiles and any other weapons of mass destruction he is found, or not found, to be possessive of, without being asked. Finally, there is one more task he must perform, which I am not at liberty to revulge. And even that will not be enough. Blair: The translator would like to take your answer home with him and work on it over the weekend. Bush: Fine, but we require nothing less than total disarmature. Saddam: OK. Blair: Sorry, but I'm not sure that "disarmature" is a word. I defer to the UN Keeper of the Dictionary, Mr Richard Stilgoe. Stilgoe: Yes, you can have disarmature. It means, "the action of disarming" according to the OED. Bush: Exactly. He must cut his own arms off. Saddam: If it means peace, I will do it. Bush: Too late. Stilgoe: Did you know that Saddam Hussein is an anagram of 'Demands a Sushi'? Saddam: Yes, I've heard them all. Bush: I don't eat sushi. Is there a fish option? Blair: I'd like to remind everyone at home that the Monica Lewinsky-Tonya Harding fight follows after the break. |
| Re: The Other Side of the War Debate |
|---|
| bhaloo |
| 03/05/03 at 02:42:39 |
| [slm] "Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people don't want war...That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country." - Hermann Goering, Commander-in-Chief of Luftwaffe, Hitler's second in control. |
| Re: The Other Side of the War Debate |
|---|
| jannah |
| 03/06/03 at 03:15:23 |
[quote] Sorry, but that is an absolutely brutal read. Just a suggestion: if you're going to post a long article like that, at least take the time to properly edit it as the author intended, with proper sentence and paragraph structure. That is just painful.[/quote] Sorry It's probably not the posters fault. It's because the anonymous posts come in a certain way through a form and sometimes cutting and pasting it in here messes up the format. [quote] Another suggestion: let's make a new policy around here of only posting original thoughts, and start a new thread just for articles and links. Looking at the new threads, nearly every one is a link or copied article, and few are actual opinions or insights. [/quote] I think articles are really good too, but sometimes I really don't understand why an article is pasted.. Just for info's sake? or ...? it would help if everyone could put a little intro at the top about if you like/don't like the article.. why ppl should read it here etc... cause all of us can go browse NYTimes etc but ppl like me are hoping other ppl do that and then just post the most relevant/interesting things here.. ;) |
Madinat al-Muslimeen Islamic Message Board |