View Poll Results: How justified is this war? - USA/UK v Iraq

Voters
188. This poll is closed
  • 90-100%     (this war is absolutely necessary - now)

    38 20.21%
  • 80-90%

    18 9.57%
  • 70-80%

    17 9.04%
  • 60-70%

    11 5.85%
  • 50-60%

    4 2.13%
  • 40-50%

    7 3.72%
  • 30-40%

    10 5.32%
  • 20-30%

    6 3.19%
  • 10-20%

    16 8.51%
  • 0-10%       (nothing justifies this war at present)

    61 32.45%
Page 1 of 11 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 315

Thread: How justified is this war?

  1. #1
    Senior Member Senior Member Wellington's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Den Haag, Netherlands
    Posts
    1,442

    Default

    As we have all now heard the arguments for and against the USA/UKs planned military action in Iraq, and as it now looks as if it's going to be a certainly, I'm curious as to how justified people think it is.

    Perhaps a spread of opinion will give a better idea of how pursuasive the arguments have been.

    For the record, my vote lies firmly in the 0-10% range.

  2. #2
    The Lordz Modding Collective Senior Member Lord Of Storms's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Paisley,Florida
    Posts
    2,302

    Default

    I am not for anything that has do to with loss of life, But it seems inevitable after all the macho posturing by both sides now it will all come to a head and innocents will suffer, It could be argued that either side could have backed down Saddam insane oops hussein could and might (I doubt it) take Bush offer to leave and avoid a conflict. But I think pride will rear it's ugly head and for that many will suffer. It is a sad time for humanity...
    Taking life one day at a time!

  3. #3
    Member Member Exile's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    938

    Default

    Interesting poll. War is coming. Let's hope it ends quickly, with the least possible amount of devastation.

    [edit] 80-90%



    - All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing. Edmund Burke

  4. #4
    Member Member Cedrik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Chile
    Posts
    35

    Default

    A simple question. USA will attack IRAK because Irak is not respecting a UN resolution. But will USA respect if the UN does not support the attack??
    Answer: NO

  5. #5
    Master of Few Words Senior Member KukriKhan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Posts
    10,415

    Default

    Good to see a political opinion topic in the Entrance Hall to give Junior Patrons a chance to voice their opinions - thanks Wellington; really.

    Remember the forum rules: no blatant flaming, personal attacks, or opinions that disagree with the mods (
    Be well. Do good. Keep in touch.

  6. #6
    Member Member SirGrotius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Philadelphia
    Posts
    233

    Default

    Cedrik,

    The UN has not passed a resolution banning an attack on Iraq, it was just extremely unlikely that one authorizing military action would have been passed. Furthermore, in the strictest technical sense (so I've heard), previous UN resolutions on the subject of iraq (older ones, perhaps from '91) still hold, and they authorize the use of force for disarming iraq. This, of course, does not mean using force is the best solution, but saying that the US and Britain (and Spain&#33 are directly violating a UN resolution is wrong.
    "No Plan survives Contact with the Enemy."

  7. #7
    Member Member Herodotus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    165

    Default

    Check this out, it explains the real reason for the war.

    http://www.heavengames.com/cgi-bin....42,0,10

  8. #8
    vrijbuiter Senior Member Rob The Bastard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    1,319

    Default

    KukriKhan...it is kind of entertaining

    Now...where did I store those bellows...

    Bring Back Buck

  9. #9
    Wait, what? Member Aelwyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    837

    Default

    Seriously....I'm on the fence with this one. I am from the U.S. My biggest objection to the war, is the person who is spearheading it. I seriously don't agree with a person who has a worse GPA in college than I....reguardless of the college it is....since he didn't get himself into it. And honestly, I'm not a genious. There are many others more qualified and more down to earth that could make much better decisions. If Bill Clinton said it was necessary to go to war (if he was still President) then I would consider it much more necessary. True, Clinton gets credit for many good things that he had no influence over, but honestly he was much better. The sheer fact that our president is GWB seriously embarrasses me. He acts as if his actions couldn't fail, simply because he is not smart enough to recognize his own faults. Many dominating forces have been eventually overtaken....I doubt the Romans ever thought Rome wouldn't be a dominating world power. And I can seriously see George W. Bush as the reason that the U.S. loses its handle over its own destiny. Not that it will for sure happen, but he's putting it in jeopardy. Why not assassinate Sadhaam? Harder than it sounds yes, and illegal to order from here, yes, but repeal the order Gerald R. Ford signed (and he's coincidentally from the same city as me...he from East Grand Rapids, I from Grand Rapids). And then just go after him. I think assassination would end better than a war.

  10. #10
    Wait, what? Member Aelwyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    837

    Default

    Opps...sorry for the long post, but forgot to add the other side, like I always do. On the other hand, Sadhaam is seriously evil not only to other countries, but also to his own people, so he DOES need to be removed from power. I just wish that war wasn't necessary to do it.

  11. #11
    Senior Member Senior Member Longshanks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    1,484

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] (Cedrik @ Mar. 17 2003,22:26)]A simple question. USA will attack IRAK because Irak is not respecting a UN resolution. But will USA respect if the UN does not support the attack??
    Answer: NO
    Only 2 wars have ever been carried out with the approval of the Security Council, the Korean War and Gulf War Part One. Plenty of wars have been carried out without UN approval including the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the French wars in Algeria,Vietnam, the 7 day war, Panama, Grenada, the Falklands War and the interventions in Kosovo and Yugoslavia.

    Its really not that big of a deal if the US goes to war without the UN, as most wars are fought without approval of the security council. IMO the intervention in Kosovo and Yugoslavia was a just war, carried out to protect civilians from genocide. They were carried out without UN approval, because some nations would rather sit on the fence and do nothing. UN approval is not a determining factor on whether or not a war is a just.

    BTW I answered 90-100%.

  12. #12

    Default

    The sad thing about it is that those who want to start the war are trying to justify it with reasons of humanity (or at least self defense).
    Not a single war I can think of has been fought for these reasons. Quite a number of them was fought in the name of these reasons. So something doesn't fit here.
    If the US wouldn't want to wipe out Iraq just for the oil and dollars, they would have to fight wars against about 70% of all countries in the world. Due to the above reasons. Why don't they march into Africa and end all these cruel dictatorships? Why exactly Iraq? Why Afghanistan? Why Iran? Because they already control the oil in Africa.
    My question to all you americans out there: why did you elect ####### president ??? (well I know he's not actually elected...)
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    I'm gonna live forever....
    ... or die trying...
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

  13. #13

    Default

    I can't see any reason for this war. Saddam was an American puppet; they sold him much of the stuff they want to disarm.

    American puppet gone bad? Let them deal with it.
    Ja-mata TosaInu

  14. #14
    Senior Member Senior Member Lord Krazy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Elephant Free State
    Posts
    1,638

    Default

    The best place for war is in games.
    I don't agree with this war.
    The fact the second resolution was droped because it
    did not have support of the UN shows
    I'm in the Majority of world opinion.
    So much for Democracy
    The British Government has proved their word
    worthless after pledging not to go war without
    a second resolution.So if they can not be trusted
    to do what they say I can't trust the reasons they give for
    their actions neither.The fact that the U.S. government
    has been caught out with lie after lie after lie
    and tried to strongarm poorer countries with economic
    threats and by using the British secrect service
    to spy on these countries governments to
    blackmail them. This makes me wonder why
    a person that considered the rule of law
    and Democracy and freedom of choice, as the
    backbone of civilisation, could support such tactics?
    I mean let's face it you can't invade another country
    in selfdefence.They have to attack you first remember.

    When you play mtw and the ai takes one of your regions,
    do you consider it selfdefence on behalf of the computer
    because it knows you are going to attack sometime in the future?

    You could apply that logic to anyone sure.

    LK




  15. #15
    Slapshooter Senior Member el_slapper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Taverny, France
    Posts
    1,343

    Default

    OlÚ, LK. War is cool on my PC. Not in truth.

    I voted 10/20 because this guy is really a bad guy. But he has done nothing worse than MR Kim - wich is more dangerous IMHO. Last point, each time a major power tried to bring some order to this region, it finished bad. I don't see why USA could make better(even if I hope so).
    War is not about who is right, only about who is left

    Having a point of view upon everything is good
    Having a view upon every point is better

  16. #16

    Lightbulb

    I didn't vote. Personally, I think it's too hard to answer a question such as this. Now, if you had asked Do you think this matter of war and peace has been handled in a justifiable, appropriate way? then I would say, Not at all.
    Ignoranti, quem portum petat, nullus suus ventus est. -Seneca, Epistulae Morales, VIII, 71, 3

  17. #17
    Member Member Knight_Yellow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    3,261

    Default

    Dont actualy belive it but i agree with longshanks

    British Army: be the best

  18. #18
    Senior Member Senior Member Wellington's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Den Haag, Netherlands
    Posts
    1,442

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] (Brutal DLX @ Mar. 18 2003,07:03)]I didn't vote. Personally, I think it's too hard to answer a question such as this. Now, if you had asked Do you think this matter of war and peace has been handled in a justifiable, appropriate way? then I would say, Not at all.
    Fair point.

    However, the purpose was to try and ascertain in as open a manner as possible (ie - without offering pre-conceived choices) how comfortable individuals felt with the situation.

    The world is'nt made up of blacks and whites. Everything is a shade of grey - including peoples opinions. By offering just a percentile range based on justification (for want of a better word) I just maybe people would offer a better indication of how people really feel about this without having to examine too closely why.

    The question might well have been phrased how comfortable do you feel about this war. I suspect the results would not have been significantly different.

    Welly

  19. #19
    Senior Member Senior Member econ21's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    9,651

    Default

    I really don't know about this war.

    We know many people will die. Hopefully not too many but in the worst case may be 100,000 or more, as in the official US estimates of Iraqi dead from the last Gulf War. The fact that the dead may be predominantly Iraqi soldiers in no way reduces the significance to me of such appalling loss.

    I don't believe the stated justifications in terms of weapons of mass destruction and terrorism. My impression is that inspections and containment can deal with the former; that it is unlikely Saddam is in league with Al Qaida and that a backlash against invasion may increase, not reduce, the threat of extremist Islamic terrorism.

    And yet, Saddam's regime is loathsome and if I were an Iraqi - with my present views, but living in Iraq - I'd be cheering the Allies on. Freedom is worth fighting for. However, this is something for a country's own citizens to take up. Where they don't or can't rebel, it is not clear that foreign powers should intervene. In some cases - eg the Rwandan genocide - the possible humanitarian benefits may so outweigh the cost of intervention, there is an overwhelming case for regime change. Kosovo is another possible example. However, on reflection, the Iraq case is not in the same class and indeed for this reason is not the official reason for the war.

    I guess writing this leads me to the conclusion that the war is unjustified. I'll vote 20-30 but I wish the Allies a swift victory.

  20. #20

    Arrow

    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] (Wellington @ Mar. 18 2003,13:37)]Fair point.

    However, the purpose was to try and ascertain in as open a manner as possible (ie - without offering pre-conceived choices) how comfortable individuals felt with the situation.

    The world is'nt made up of blacks and whites. Everything is a shade of grey - including peoples opinions. By offering just a percentile range based on justification (for want of a better word) I just maybe people would offer a better indication of how people really feel about this without having to examine too closely why.

    The question might well have been phrased how comfortable do you feel about this war. I suspect the results would not have been significantly different.

    Welly
    I know what you were trying to say, but since you didn't do in a non-misunderstandable way I had not choice but to abstain. For the record, I don't feel comfortable about any war, even if I were on the winning side, or completely unaffected by it.
    Ignoranti, quem portum petat, nullus suus ventus est. -Seneca, Epistulae Morales, VIII, 71, 3

  21. #21
    Legitimate Businessman Member Teutonic Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    My legitimate mansion bought with legitimate monies.
    Posts
    5,777

    Cool

    I don't think it really matters what we all think, because it's about to happen anyway

  22. #22
    Member Member Swordsman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    106

    Default

    I don't think we've been given enough facts to decide yet. Both the U.S and British gov't's (and some Congressmen on on Intel Committee) have said Iraq has WMD. No conclusive evidence has been offered publicly, so it's a good faith issue at this point. So depending on your political viewpoint to begin with, you will tend to believe
    1) There IS no evidence.
    2) There is evidence, but we're not going to compromise inteligence sources.

    If Clinton were still in power, there is no doubt that such evidence would be produced, sources be damned. But Bush is a different animal, and doesn't seem to feel the need to make decisions based on polls. BTW, you Bush-bashers (esp. from other countries) are a scream considering Clinton disgraced the presidency, dodged the draft, dissed the military, etc.

    I don't believe we will get any warm fuzzy feelings until AFTER the war. If WMDs are found and paraded about, I think the vast majority of folks will feel we dodged a bullet. On the other hand, if they are NOT found it will raise serious questions as to the premise of why we went to war in the first place.

    The UN is useless. It's a good place to talk, but you simply cannot expect any action.

    So I voted 70-80%-- 'cause as much as I'd like to, I do not blindly trust the gov't in this matter. But my gut tells me they WILL find WMD there.

  23. #23
    Corporate Hippie Member rasoforos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Athens, Greece
    Posts
    2,713

    Default

    Is any country with WMDs, proof of them been used , president not elected by the majority , human rights violations , racial discrimination , rejection of hague international court and the U.N considered a justifiable target for war? Because if it is so i know 2 of them...

    Is there actually ANY argument the U.S government used to justify this war that does not apply to them as well?
    Αξιζει φιλε να πεθανεις για ενα ονειρο, κι ας ειναι η φωτια του να σε καψει.

    http://grumpygreekguy.tumblr.com/

  24. #24
    Member Member Knight_Yellow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    3,261

    Default

    rasforos all but 2 wars whent without UN support so imk gonna say that going against the UN is no big deal.

    British Army: be the best

  25. #25
    Member Member Heraclius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Greece (where my heart is)
    Posts
    1,018

    Default

    by attacking Iraq I am afraid that the US is leading itself down a long and dangerous path. I don't know what the future holds but it could easily contain attacks on US soil by Muslim terrorists, a large economic recession, many long time US allies becoming disillusioned and disgusted with America etc, etc. I can't help but agree with Blair's minister who just resigned, when he said that if the hanging chads had gone the other way in Flordia and AL Gore had been elected President this war would not be happening.
    Heraclius you are just being a silly Greek...-Galestrum

    The early bird may get the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese.

  26. #26
    Senior Member Senior Member Wellington's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Den Haag, Netherlands
    Posts
    1,442

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] (Heraclius @ Mar. 18 2003,11:06)]I can't help but agree with Blair's minister who just resigned, when he said that if the hanging chads had gone the other way in Flordia and AL Gore had been elected President this war would not be happening.
    Three British Government ministers have now resigned.

    I've been watching the debate in the House of Commons (on TV of course) and was struck by a comment from one of the Labour MPs.

    Quote -

    If the USA wants to lead the World, then they'd better find a World leader

  27. #27
    Corporate Hippie Member rasoforos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Athens, Greece
    Posts
    2,713

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] (Knight_Yellow @ Mar. 18 2003,11:05)]rasforos all but 2 wars whent without UN support so imk gonna say that going against the UN is no big deal.
    is that all you kept from my post??? none of those things is a big deal if the U.S does it, however if someone else does it then its a reason for war. Nice doublethink and boublespeak by Mr Bush ....
    Αξιζει φιλε να πεθανεις για ενα ονειρο, κι ας ειναι η φωτια του να σε καψει.

    http://grumpygreekguy.tumblr.com/

  28. #28
    Member Member Swordsman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    106

    Default

    You're probably right-- if Gore had been elected I'm sure we would still be conducting focus groups and polls


    For the record, you guys DO realize that our presidential elections aren't by a simple majority, right? That (for better or worse) we have this thing called the Electroal College? That big states have a lot more impact than little ones?

    Kinda funny that no Democrat complains that all the electoral votes of a huge state like California consistently goes Democrat regardless of how close the vote might be.

    For good or bad it's our system. Bush won with support of a ruling by our highest court (Also hilarious that people would discount the Supreme Court in favor of a partisan-packed State Supreme Court). He's our President-- get over it and move on with your lives.

  29. #29
    Member Member Knight_Yellow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    3,261

    Default

    huh?


    well if im a puppet of bush ur a puppet of shirac or rather sadham.

    British Army: be the best

  30. #30
    Member Member Tora's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Shropshire,UK
    Posts
    186

    Default

    [QUOTE]Is any country with WMDs, proof of them been used , president not elected by the majority , human rights violations , racial discrimination , rejection of hague international court and the U.N considered a justifiable target for war? Because if it is so i know 2 of them...

    Is there actually ANY argument the U.S government used to justify this war that does not apply to them as well?

    Now you come to mention it.....

    Do as I say, not as I do (Book of More Cliches Than You Can Shake a Stick At. Chapter 5, verse 21. Courtesy Rev. Dubya Bush of the Latter Day Morons.)
    "St Juniper once said, 'By his loins shall ye know him and by the length of his rod shall he be measured.' The length of my rod is a mystery to all but the Queen, and a thousand Turkish whores, but the
    fruits of my loins are here for all to see. I have two sons, Henry and.... another one.
    Step forward, Harry, Prince of Wales."

    ( King Richard in Blackadder)

Page 1 of 11 12345 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO