Computer Science Canada

The War in Iraq

Author:  Martin [ Tue Jun 22, 2004 2:54 pm ]
Post subject:  The War in Iraq

Author:  Dan [ Tue Jun 22, 2004 6:09 pm ]
Post subject: 

war == bad

Stop the war, it should have not be started in the 1st place.

*sites back and waits for the flames*

Author:  Amailer [ Tue Jun 22, 2004 6:11 pm ]
Post subject: 

which sane person would like war??

Author:  Martin [ Tue Jun 22, 2004 6:28 pm ]
Post subject: 

It's not a matter of liking war. Unfortunately, with the world that we live in, war is sometimes a necessity. In World War II for example, we had no choice but to fight. Not fighting would have only meant waiting for our doom, and allowing countless others to die. When you are attacked, you have to fight back. So war in itself is not inherintly bad, it is only bad if it is fought for unjust causes.

Author:  Dan [ Tue Jun 22, 2004 10:11 pm ]
Post subject: 

The war can be as just as you whont it but going to war when it can be avoided is not good. I bevlie that there is almost allways an altrivie to war, just that it can be extreamly hard to find. Tho you are right that in some cases it is better to go to war and kill a few 1000 to save a few 1000000 but there is almost allways a better way.

Author:  Amailer [ Tue Jun 22, 2004 10:32 pm ]
Post subject: 

what if no country had an army Shocked
how will there be a war?

Author:  jonos [ Wed Jun 23, 2004 12:10 am ]
Post subject: 

Just because the war was wrong in the first place (said by you) doesn't mean that it should be abandoned. First of all, there would be violent anarchy and a power struggle between the remaining crazy-ass clerics wanting to impose their version of Sharia Law on Iraq. Second of all, there would be no aid for the poor Iraqi women and children and men. Thirdly, when things finally got worse, people would start blaming Bush for abandoning Iraq after promising to free them and stick with them, even though they themselves wanted him to pull it.

Also, that site should also not be used as a credible source either because:
a) Saying that Afghanistan is run by warlords is complete bullshit - thousands of American and Canadian troops are keeping order and Afghanistan is working towards elections.
b) The site implies that the US purposely only drops bombs on civilians which is also bullshit. Even if bombs are dropped on civilians they are from a) an isolated act of idiocy, b) those "civilians" harbouring terrorists, or c) those "civilians" are terrorists. Not to undermine the deaths of civilians, but unfortuneately war is hell and things like that happen as all the wars that have ever taken place can prove.


George Bush Junior announced that immediately after Iraq is taken over, it will be controlled by General Tommy Franks as a military dictatorship. Leaked documents have exposed details on the martial law that will be imposed.

This is hard to believe, but I remember seeing something about sarcasm on the site.


He promised food and healthcare to the Iraqi people. But since 1991's sanctions, over one million Iraqi civilians have died as a direct result of the American Led UN Resolution 1441. Over 500,000 of those were children.

So blame the US for the deaths of 1 million Iraqis because Saddam Hussein could not follow UN demands and look after his people?

Just some of the things I saw.

Anyways, I'd have to agree with you all the war == bad, but I think that it is necessary. I also think that our society should not move away from accepting war because when the aliens come we may have to make war upon them or defend ourselves.

Author:  Dan [ Wed Jun 23, 2004 1:42 am ]
Post subject: 

jonos wrote:

So blame the US for the deaths of 1 million Iraqis because Saddam Hussein could not follow UN demands and look after his people?

Not like the US flows the UN demands the genvia convetion, them saying not inavade, human rights stuff, ect.

And if we keeping going to war like this we will be long gone b4 the alines get here.

Author:  greenapplesodaex [ Wed Jun 23, 2004 6:23 am ]
Post subject:  reply

omg this shouldnt have happened at the first place
send a assasen or something, dont start a war, gosh...

Author:  G.I._Jane [ Wed Jun 23, 2004 10:34 am ]
Post subject: 

the war is just to get cheap oil i say let iraq solve there own problems

Author:  Dauntless [ Wed Jun 23, 2004 3:58 pm ]
Post subject: 

First of all, it's really nice to think that Iraq was just because of oil. Well, I for one think oil wasn't a big thing in this case. Oil is short term. Long term, I'd say the US wants control of the Middle East. If the weapons in Syria or whatever really came from Iraq, it'd be convenient if the countries of the Middle East could play hot potato with it until each and every one is "liberated".

Oil is the excuse for people who don't look into the problem.

And finally, the war in Iraq should be finished. It's not like the US could do any worse now. They've vowed the American lives, so if they gave up now the lives would have been wasted; they're in too far now. That is the price of their foreign policy.

Oh, and jonos... Teehee.
Just because the war was wrong in the first place (said by you) doesn't mean that it should be abandoned.

Sounds like the Liberal Federal Gun Registry eh?

Author:  SuperGenius [ Wed Jun 23, 2004 9:13 pm ]
Post subject: 

It was mentioned that World War II was nessecary, which isnt completley true. The future allied nations had many chances to pre-empt Germany, and although there would still have been fighting if we had attacked before Germany became too powerful, it would not be enough to be classified as a world war. Also the other axis nations probably wouldn't have started anything without Germany to support them. But as we failed to take action, Germany became too powerful and then war was nessecary.

Author:  Dauntless [ Wed Jun 23, 2004 9:16 pm ]
Post subject: 

Darkness said "In World War II for example, we had no choice but to fight." Does that clear it up for you?

Author:  SuperGenius [ Wed Jun 23, 2004 9:22 pm ]
Post subject: 

Darkness wrote:
In World War II for example, we had no choice but to fight.

I think you are not quite understanding. We had a choice to fight, or not. Initially we did not, and hitler gained power. If we had fought initially, the conflict would not have been called WWII. So theoretically, we had a chance to avoid WWII because if we had attacked in the mid-30s the conflict with Germany would not have been as severe.

Author:  Dauntless [ Wed Jun 23, 2004 9:28 pm ]
Post subject: 

So um...who's missing the point here? Having no choice but to fight is what Darkness said.

The choices you have presented are:

1)Fight now
2)Fight later (what actually happened)

? I guess it wouldn't have been called WW2.....or it may still. Big deal..

Author:  SuperGenius [ Wed Jun 23, 2004 10:21 pm ]
Post subject: 

I agree. It is a very big deal. After the treaty of Versailles the Allies were in complete control of Germany militarily. If we had not let them build up their armed forces (which we could have done relatively easily) millions upon millions of people wouild not have lost their lives. That is the difference.

Author:  Dan [ Wed Jun 23, 2004 10:24 pm ]
Post subject: 

While WW2 could have been avioded if they did not screw over germany so baddly affter WW1, since there econmny whent down hill so much affter WW1 they where forced in to taking ratical actacking witch alowed hittler to come to power. If they did not derstly there ecomeny so baddly affter WW1 hitter probly whould have never bean alowed to come to power by there own poleop. When your money is worth less then the papaer it is printed on you will do almost anything to keep your conorty alive and your famly feed.

Author:  SuperGenius [ Thu Jun 24, 2004 9:45 am ]
Post subject: 

Dan is right, if we had made the treaty of Versailles better we could have headed off WWII even earlier.

But as for the war in Iraq it seems to me like it is turning into another Vietnam for Washington. With the handover of power to come in less than a week I believe, either the Coalition will not be able to keep to their promises of turning control over (which is a sham anyways because they set up the interm government) or the country will enter into a state of complete anarchy. Even this week forigners are still being kidnapped and murdered by renegade militants. Also they are attacking Iraq's infastrure to try and turn the population against the Americans, and it is working. Some Iraqis have even said they prefered Saddam's rule over the American's, which is a sure sign that the 'war' in Iraq is not going well for the Americans. I put the word war in quotations because I believe that Washington did not classify this conflict as a war so they can avoid the constraints of the Geneva convention.

In conclusion, I think it was wrong for the coalition nations to become involved because they lost many of their young men's lives to little purpose. Iraq has some fundamental probems (chiefly different factions of Islam that don't get along well with each other) which can't be solved in anything resembling a short time.