What I can't understand is...

[simonm]

How come everybody has such strong, polarised opinions on the war with Iraq?

Personally, I can't make up my mind. Both sides of the argument have made good points and I can't see how people can only see this issue from such a one-sided perspective. :confused:

[plenderj]

Not all of it is one-sided.
A lot of the people aruging see valid points on both sides.

But there are a few with very extreme positions that time and time again resort to name calling and insinuation and what not and then things turn into a mess.

[MerrionComputin]

I'm the same - I'm kinda for some of the aims of the war but against using war to achieve them :confused: - sometimes I even argue with myself

[plenderj]

Originally posted by MerrionComputin
I'm the same - I'm kinda for some of the aims of the war but against using war to achieve them :confused: - sometimes I even argue with myself

People get commited for that you know ;)

[kedaman]

in practice those with strong opinions are those who post the most around here.

[MerrionComputin]

I've already been committed

[simonm]

I think that this is one of them issues that will be judged retrospectively. It will be deemed either a worthy success or a miserable failure depending on a variety of factors including:


How long it actually takes to complete the campaign
What the magnitude of both military and civillian casualties are
Whether or not the eventual changes will be broadly welcomed by the Iraqi people
Whether or not they do actually find concrete evidence of WMDs.


I think it's impossible to judge it at this early stage.

[simonm]

Kedaman
in practice those with strong opinions are those who post the most around here.
Good point...Those with the strongest opinions shout the loudest.

[kedaman]

what about terrorism? if the operation was successful would terrorism decrease?

[kedaman]

Originally posted by simonm
Kedaman

Good point...Those with the strongest opinions shout the loudest.
reminds me of the failure of democracy.

[simonm]

Kedaman
what about terrorism? if the operation was successful would terrorism decrease?
As I said in another thread, I think that it's impossible to measure with any degree of precision.

I mean, how much terrorism are we experiencing at the moment? Much of it is thwarted by security measures but we have no way of knowing how much.

[Maven]

Originally posted by simonm
How come everybody has such strong, polarised opinions on the war with Iraq?

Personally, I can't make up my mind. Both sides of the argument have made good points and I can't see how people can only see this issue from such a one-sided perspective. :confused:

The situation of Iraq is extremely complex so it is only to be expected to see various opinions.

[Maven]

Originally posted by kedaman
what about terrorism? if the operation was successful would terrorism decrease?

There will always be a problem of terrorism in every country of the world, nothing can change that. However the one thing that we can hope to accomplish is keeping certain kinds of support out of the hands of terrorist. The biggest current nightmare we have with Saddam is him giving terroist orgianizations chemcial and biological weapons.

[plenderj]

Originally posted by Maven
There will always be a problem of terrorism in every country of the world, nothing can change that. However the one thing that we can hope to accomplish is keeping certain kinds of support out of the hands of terrorist. The biggest current nightmare we have with Saddam is him giving terroist orgianizations chemcial and biological weapons.

There are far far more places that terrorists can get weapons.
They could even produce the weapons themselves - look at how drug dealers are able to prepare ecsctacy and heroin etc.

Irrespective of those weapons, there are lots of other ways to kill lots of people...

[kedaman]

Originally posted by Maven
There will always be a problem of terrorism in every country of the world, nothing can change that. However the one thing that we can hope to accomplish is keeping certain kinds of support out of the hands of terrorist. The biggest current nightmare we have with Saddam is him giving terroist orgianizations chemcial and biological weapons.
can you give me the motives behind the operation? If this actually was an attempt to decrease terrorism, are you ready to evaluate the success?

[Maven]

Originally posted by plenderj
There are far far more places that terrorists can get weapons.
They could even produce the weapons themselves - look at how drug dealers are able to prepare ecsctacy and heroin etc.

Irrespective of those weapons, there are lots of other ways to kill lots of people...

I'm more worried about a suicide bomber with Type VX straped around his balls then I am C4. lol

[Maven]

Originally posted by kedaman
can you give me the motives behind the operation? If this actually was an attempt to decrease terrorism, are you ready to evaluate the success?

There is several good reasons for going to this war. Are you asking what ties Saddam has to terrorist organizations? Why chemical weapons are dangerous? Be a little more specific. I could probably sit down and type a thick book on the goods and bads of going to war.

I believe this war will have an impact on terrorism in both short term and long term. I believe that in the short term it will probably raise the recuritment level of terrorism because of world opinion. Most of the raise in recuritment will be during the war and probably a short time afterwards. The real test of long term will be how we handle the rebuilding of Iraq. If we do the right thing then helping those people out will stablize the entire region and the level of terroism will decrease significantly.

Not going to war would also have an inpact on short term and long term levels of terrorism. We would not have that short term jump on terrorism recuritments. However in long term the recruitment level would continue and more then likely increase. We would have to contain Saddam and that kills people when we do that, they die slowly.

So the cost of inaction compared to action is: short term vs long term benifits.

[kedaman]

I'm not expecting you to justify war, just to give the motives behind the decision. Why? Because if the war is succesful then these motives are satisfied. If I remember correctly the president of US said that he wont accept any other outcome but success. What are the exact motives? Without specific motives he could twist out of failure.

[Maven]

Originally posted by kedaman
I'm not expecting you to justify war, just to give the motives behind the decision. Why? Because if the war is succesful then these motives are satisfied. If I remember correctly the president of US said that he wont accept any other outcome but success. What are the exact motives? Without specific motives he could twist out of failure.

The main reason for us going to war with Iraq is to get rid of the chemical and biological weapons in Saddams arsenal and to remove Saddams party from power.

[kedaman]

and why is that? what's the fundamental reason?

[Maven]

Originally posted by kedaman
and why is that? what's the fundamental reason?

There is many reasons for each one. The largest worry for me is: Saddam supplying terrorist organizations with checmial and biological weapons whom he has ties with. He could also use those weapons against other countries like Israel, kuwait, etc.

[Pc_Madness]

I've yet to see a decent argument agains t the war, so I have no reason to change me stance. :)

[KayJay]

Three points that need to be taken into consideration to reconcile or understand the opposing views (sometime violent and passionaite views) of the current Iraq situation

1) Geographic affinity of the respondents in these debates.
2) Age of the respondents
3) Level of interset in History (as opposed to the interest in the US of A and Iraq, just in this context)

1) Most people not living in the many (I stress, not all) occidental countries have experienced gruesome and prolonged bloodshed (many of their own doing :( ) in recent years (around 20 - 40 years). They tend to see the military might of a heretofore unassailable nation trying to "Walk Tall" after a horrendous barabarity struck right into its heart.

2) Rush of Blood, Patriotism, the will and the perveived need to be on the right side of the Right and Good and Correct

3) Unfortunately, its only when such "action" takes place, interest increases, otherwise, it all hunky-dory. It reminds of the NASA Co-ordinator's comments just immediately after the Columbia tragedy. He said its a pity and a shame that we remember and cry and praise the astraunauts only when such tragedies happen, not otherwise.

I leave it my colleagues here to judge me. :)

Regards

KayJay

[honeybee]

Originally posted by simonm
I think that this is one of them issues that will be judged retrospectively. It will be deemed either a worthy success or a miserable failure depending on a variety of factors including:


How long it actually takes to complete the campaign
What the magnitude of both military and civillian casualties are
Whether or not the eventual changes will be broadly welcomed by the Iraqi people
Whether or not they do actually find concrete evidence of WMDs.


I think it's impossible to judge it at this early stage.

If you think it's impossible to judge the effects of the war at this stage, I must say this war is also reckless, apart from whatever other things it is.

Any acts which result into deaths, whether military or civilians, human or non-human, must be thoroughly analysed beforehand to fathom the effects they will have, and should be resorted to only after establishing beyond doubt that despite the loss of life, they will achieve something significantly better. This war is based on fictitious claims and evidence. At the end of it, if you find that Iraq indeed didn't have any WMDs, can you get those dead men (on both sides) back? America is crying about the victims of 9/11 and their families. Does it not understand that the war on Iraq is another 9/11 on Iraq in the absence of any evidence? Just as 9/11 effects cannot be reversed, the effects of war cannot be reversed.

Then we go beyond this motive of the US put forth to the world and look at other issues. The US and the UK will have to foot the bill for this war. With their own economies having considerable problems without the war, they will find ways to meet the shortfalls. An easy solution is to use the oil in Iraq. The US and the UK will take over the oil production in Iraq, take out a major share of it for reimbursing their own expenses for war, and whatever is left may be utilised actually for Iraq. There's no guarantee that the oil revenues, to which Iraq was entitled, will be 100% spent on Iraq's rebuilding.

Tenders for rebuilding operations in Iraq were floated privately even before war had begun officially. The five major construction companies in the US which were asked to submit quotations have a strong political backing and influence. Thus the rehabilitation of the Iraqi people will not be entrusted to the UN, but to the US companies. Who, do you think, will profit from it?

It's not difficult to foresee what effects it will have on the world. The Kurds are trying to get a share of the land for themselves, the Turks have already invaded Iraq under the name of preventing the Kurds, and there may be a trifurcation of Iraq just to prevent further complications, which in turn will give rise to new complications.

Not to mention the effects of this war on the environment and the economies of several other countries in the world.

When you weigh all these repurcussions against the evidence provided by the US for justifying the war, you will realize how flimsy this evidence is. The US, considering all these implications, should at least have had the sense to provide substantial evidence.

.

[KayJay]

All said and done, its war and the strongest will win. Winners make the rules. Rules that will be made are by default against the losers. Losers wallow and stew in their hate and shame. Hate and Shame passes thro' generations. Generations later, someone says "All said and done....."

[BodwadUK]

ok

Turks have already invaded Iraq under the name of preventing the Kurd's

No they havent

Tenders for rebuilding operations in Iraq were floated privately even before war had begun officially. The five major construction companies in the US which were asked to submit quotations have a strong political backing and influence. Thus the rehabilitation of the Iraqi people will not be entrusted to the UN, but to the US companies. Who, do you think, will profit from it?

UN didnt want anything to do with it at one stage, oh and contracts arent restricted to USA or allies but anyone in the world can get them


[Quote[The US and the UK will take over the oil production in Iraq, take out a major share of it for reimbursing their own expenses for war, and whatever is left may be utilised actually for Iraq. There's no guarantee that the oil revenues, to which Iraq was entitled, will be 100% spent on Iraq's rebuilding.[/Quote]

More speculation



You have less evidence for your claims than the coalition has of WMD's. And you talk about those claims having no evidence:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Oh and the deal to stop the attack on Iraq was to provide details of ALL its weapons, did it do it??? NO :) :) :)

[honeybee]

Originally posted by BodwadUK
UN didnt want anything to do with it at one stage, oh and contracts arent restricted to USA or allies but anyone in the world can get them
Who told you the UN didn't want anything to do with it? The US didn't want the UN to do anything. The US hurried with plans about the war. And asking privately for tenders even before the deconstruction started is not a fair trade practice, is it? American government has made it clear that Russia will be kept out of the reconstruction. Invitation for tenders was sent only to the five US companies. It's still not out in the world officially. Therefore I don't believe the US wishes to involve the other nations in the rebuilding, apart from maybe sharing the expenses :rolleyes:

Read the details about the Bush Blair visit on BBC. Powell has clearly stated the UN will be kept out of the things.


The US and the UK will take over the oil production in Iraq, take out a major share of it for reimbursing their own expenses for war, and whatever is left may be utilised actually for Iraq. There's no guarantee that the oil revenues, to which Iraq was entitled, will be 100% spent on Iraq's rebuilding.

More speculation
On the contrary, it's highly likely. The US has never mentioned how the revenues will be utilized, and most likely it will be the US companies which will extract oil, at least till the point a true Iraqi government takes over. That means it will go through a US military rule and then a US civil administration. Anywhere between a couple of years to forever ....


Oh and the deal to stop the attack on Iraq was to provide details of ALL its weapons, did it do it??? NO :) :) :)
That, thanks to the US, we shall never know. :rolleyes:


.

[Pc_Madness]

Originally posted by honeybee
More speculation
On the contrary, it's highly likely. The US has never mentioned how the revenues will be utilized, and most likely it will be the US companies which will extract oil, at least till the point a true Iraqi government takes over. That means it will go through a US military rule and then a US civil administration. Anywhere between a couple of years to forever ....


Oh and the deal to stop the attack on Iraq was to provide details of ALL its weapons, did it do it??? NO :) :) :)
That, thanks to the US, we shall never know. :rolleyes:




Again, your speculating Honeybee.


I think you mean, "thanks to Iraq". It wasn't the US's job to list the Iraqi weapons, it was their own job, and they failed to do it.

[BodwadUK]

it's highly likely

So you are speculating again

UN didnt want anything to do with it at one stage, oh and contracts arent restricted to USA or allies but anyone in the world can get them
Who told you the UN didn't want anything to do with it? The US didn't want the UN to do anything. The US hurried with plans about the war. And asking privately for tenders even before the deconstruction started is not a fair trade practice, is it? American government has made it clear that Russia will be kept out of the reconstruction. Invitation for tenders was sent only to the five US companies. It's still not out in the world officially. Therefore I don't believe the US wishes to involve the other nations in the rebuilding, apart from maybe sharing the expenses


Not what i heard :) :) :)

Havent seen details on the meeting yet :) :) :)


Iraq did not declare some of the things found by Un weapons inspectors.

[simonm]

Honeybee

As I have said already, I am undecided about this war but I see some problems with your arguments:
Any acts which result into deaths, whether military or civilians, human or non-human, must be thoroughly analysed beforehand to fathom the effects they will have, and should be resorted to only after establishing beyond doubt that despite the loss of life, they will achieve something significantly better.
This is an unreasonable demand. How can we ever know "beyond all doubt" that war will not worsen the very situation we are trying to improve? If such a precursor were placed before any military action was taken, countries wouldn't even be able to defend themselves when attacked. No doubt, Hitler would have conquered the world by now as well.
Tenders for rebuilding operations in Iraq were floated privately even before war had begun officially. The five major construction companies in the US which were asked to submit quotations have a strong political backing and influence. Thus the rehabilitation of the Iraqi people will not be entrusted to the UN, but to the US companies. Who, do you think, will profit from it?
They would argue that it is only fair that companies from the countries in the coalition who actually footed the bill for the cost of this war should get the benefit of the contracts in the reconstruction of Iraq.
It's not difficult to foresee what effects it will have on the world.
Err...yes it is. How can you be so brash to claim that you can see what the long term effects of this war will be? Nobody can, let alone you with the limited resources and information at your disposal.

If you were as wise as you seem to think you are, you would realise that the future is very unclear and it is impossible to say with any degree of certainty what it will hold.
When you weigh all these repurcussions against the evidence provided by the US for justifying the war, you will realize how flimsy this evidence is. The US, considering all these implications, should at least have had the sense to provide substantial evidence.
What about the repercussions of not going to war? Have you considered those as well? Don't bother, it's a fruitless exercise.

I repeat, nobody can know what the repercussions will be.

[honeybee]

Originally posted by BodwadUK
So you are speculating again



Not what i heard :) :) :)

Havent seen details on the meeting yet :) :) :)


Iraq did not declare some of the things found by Un weapons inspectors.

It is yet to be determined if the questionable items found in Iraq did indeed threaten the US so much as to warrant a war. To me it only seems the US is using resolution 1441 and others as a means to achieve its own ends. No WMDs cited yet, no significant military strength found yet, thus there's no reason to believe Iraq could have posed an immediate and fatal danger to the US. Going by the circumstances, India has enough reason to nuke Pakistan, Palestine and its supporting Arab nations have enough reason to destroy Israel and more than half the world should be working out a "regime change" in the US.

Call it speculation, but the actions by the US government clearly don't seem to be stemming from a clean and honest intention.

.

[BodwadUK]

I know you constantly say the US but you seem to forget its a coalition of over 40 countries!!!!:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

Israel is constantly attacked by many small countries and yet has not attacked anyone.

I also recall America being critisised for attempting to help form peaceful nations through peaceful negotiations but they were got at for that as well!!!!!

Go on then what is their intentions in your view????


Now go on tell me in WWII Britain was going to nuke India (According to a mate of mine :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: ) :D :D :D :D

[honeybee]

Originally posted by BodwadUK
Israel is constantly attacked by many small countries and yet has not attacked anyone.
Don't tell this to anyone else. They will think you are nuts :rolleyes:

I also recall America being critisised for attempting to help form peaceful nations through peaceful negotiations but they were got at for that as well!!!!!
For example?

Go on then what is their intentions in your view????
As if it's secret :rolleyes:


Now go on tell me in WWII Britain was going to nuke India (According to a mate of mine :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: ) :D :D :D :D
Sorry, fabricating stories is not MY area of expertise :)


.

[BodwadUK]

Don't tell this to anyone else. They will think you are nuts


I am :D :D :D

i meant unprevoked


I also recall America being critisised for attempting to help form peaceful nations through peaceful negotiations but they were got at for that as well!!!!!


Israel and Palistine!!!! (i seem to have Iraq stuck in my head :D



Go on then what is their intentions in your view????

As if it's secret


Humour me!!!!

Sorry, fabricating stories is not MY area of expertise
Phew you are sane

[honeybee]

Originally posted by BodwadUK
I am :D :D :D

i meant unprevoked

You have to understand one basic thing: The Israel - Palestine, or the India - Pakistan, these conflicts have arisen out of a few contentious issues at the time of origin, being used for personal and political gains by leaders and now taking the form of violence.

Let's say the first stone was thrown by a Palestinian, the first act of violence was committed against Israel, Israel tried to strike back, and that led to a retaliation and counter-retaliation that has resulted into this bloody mess today. At the same time it's also possible that Israel fired the first bullet in the conflict. How can you determine that accurately? The answer is very difficult, if not impossible.

The only way to resolve such conflicts is for both sides to stop committing acts of violence against each other. Only when today, Israel and Palestine stop the violence from their own sides, can we hope for peace. And when you aim at stopping violence from your side, you must be prepared to take a few blows from the other side, not fight back each blow, and only then the other side will stop hitting.

Imagine you get into an argument with another man. After a verbal dual, you come to blows. In the midst of the fight, you realize the dispute cannot be resolved by fighting and you want to stop. What would you do, tell the other man to "stop fighting, else each of your blows will be dealth with a counter-blow", or simply keep defending yourself, only blocking his blows and not delivering any yourself? I believe the second approach will work in practice.

To resolve an argument, any argument, both sides must be ready to take a step back. I am afraid statements made by the Israeli PM do not indicate any willingness for this backstepping. Only when the Palestinians see the Israeli troops only defending their land and not invading the Gaza strip, for e.g., will they agree that Israel wants peace as much as Palestine. Saying that a bullet will be answered by a bullet will only invite them to fire more.

.

[BodwadUK]

Israel could have destroyed palestine by now. They have better technology :D :D :D :D


Seems more is going into Israel than out. They have made reasonable requests for palestinian government to stop terrorists but the government does nothing. The conflict is between Israel and Terrorists that could be supported by the Palestine government and this makes it VERY difficult for Israel to defend itself. :) :) :)

[honeybee]

Originally posted by BodwadUK
Israel could have destroyed palestine by now. They have better technology :D :D :D :D


Seems more is going into Israel than out. They have made reasonable requests for palestinian government to stop terrorists but the government does nothing. The conflict is between Israel and Terrorists that could be supported by the Palestine government and this makes it VERY difficult for Israel to defend itself. :) :) :)

Just like these, the acts of a repeated invasion of the Gaza stip by Israeli armed forces cannot be called "unprovocative". India has suffered a lot at the hands of militants and suicide and other bomb attacks. We didn't invade Pakistan.

That's exactly what I meant by simply blocking the other's blows and not dealing fresh ones of yours. For e.g. why can't the Israeli government declare and observe a one week ceasefire in which it will not attack any Palestinian property or personnel?

Sri Lanka has successfully used it against the LTTE group. And their conflict was much much worse than Israel - Palestine or anything else. When they declared ceasefire, they observed that it really was a ceasefire. It shows you are sincere and honest about your intentions. After all action speaks more than words.

.

[BodwadUK]

This i believe has been tried in Israel but no agreement could be made after this and (like Northern Ireland) it just fell back down again.

America and the UN have tried repeatedly to stop the terrorists restarting that war but the terrorists have one goal. They will not negotiate (Israel Arent much better) and Israel will not stand Idly by while Palestine attacks them. Israel want the terrorists out which is understandable. :) :) :) :)

[honeybee]

I don't think the Palestinians don't want peace. True, there will be some hot-headed groups, but that doesn't mean Israel should only be waiting for some provocation to react more violently.

Once you reach a ceasefire agreement, you can start talks with the opposite party and that will at least take some time to materialize. So far I think all the ceasefire agreements have been unilaterally broken because of one or another violent act from the other side. Which, needless to say, must stop.

.

[Xanith]

Originally posted by simonm
Honeybee

As I have said already, I am undecided about this war but I see some problems with your arguments:

This is an unreasonable demand. How can we ever know "beyond all doubt" that war will not worsen the very situation we are trying to improve? If such a precursor were placed before any military action was taken, countries wouldn't even be able to defend themselves when attacked. No doubt, Hitler would have conquered the world by now as well.

They would argue that it is only fair that companies from the countries in the coalition who actually footed the bill for the cost of this war should get the benefit of the contracts in the reconstruction of Iraq.

Err...yes it is. How can you be so brash to claim that you can see what the long term effects of this war will be? Nobody can, let alone you with the limited resources and information at your disposal.

If you were as wise as you seem to think you are, you would realise that the future is very unclear and it is impossible to say with any degree of certainty what it will hold.

What about the repercussions of not going to war? Have you considered those as well? Don't bother, it's a fruitless exercise.

I repeat, nobody can know what the repercussions will be.

Excellent post Simon. I have some of the same thoughts and I was actually against any conflict in Iraq in the beginning and I still worry about what the outcome of this war is going to be.

X

[BodwadUK]

I agree the only solution is a ceasfire but it just isnt happening is it!!! Terrorist groups are breaking it up whenever things are going well :) :) :) :)

[honeybee]

It won't be successful if Israel is looking for the slightest chance to break the ceasefire.

Imagine this: the terrorists have been striking in the form of suicide bombers. By invading Gaza and Palestine and killing a few of their soldiers or civilians won't punish the real culprits. It will merely "teach them a lesson". There is no 100% guarantee that if Israel stops these revenge attacks, the suicide bombings will surely stop. But there is 100% guarantee that if Israel retaliates the bombings will continue. The only sensible way is not to retaliate, because there's still some chance it may succeed. Have you ever seen Israel observing restraint, not invading the Gaza or making inflammatory speeches for even one whole week? Maybe it would work, but the people are just not willing to give it a try.

.

[BodwadUK]

Maybe i am wrong but i thought they had tried this in the past and were very restrained. :confused: :confused:

[honeybee]

Originally posted by BodwadUK
Maybe i am wrong but i thought they had tried this in the past and were very restrained. :confused: :confused:

Maybe they didn't try long enough? Even I don't know exactly.

I do wish, however, that Israel should take a leaf out of India's book and our government take one from Israel's book. We have lost thousands of lives and property and suffered innumerous losses on account of militancy but our government does not go beyond sternly-worded condemnation messages and appeals to the international community to tell Pakistan to stop supporting infiltration.

I think if Israel exercised the kind of restraint we have, and if we invaded Pakistan every week, went upto Islamabad and fried Musharraf's ass every time there was a massacre in the valley, maybe, just maybe we could see a better world :p

.

[Pc_Madness]

I think you'll find that some groups don't want to see an end to the fighting, be it because they just want a fight, or there making a profit off the attacks.

[KayJay]

Originally posted by Pc_Madness
I think you'll find that some groups don't want to see an end to the fighting, be it because they just want a fight, or there making a profit off the attacks.
Can't believe that I'm saying this! Hell must surely be freezing over! But Pc-Madness, looks like Ur Right, though just this once

[Pc_Madness]

Kayjay, **** you. :)

[KayJay]

LOL :D ;) :p

[Pc_Madness]

:D

[BodwadUK]

The worst thing is some people really really enjoy fighting and killing, gives them an feeling of power :( :( :( :(

[honeybee]

Originally posted by BodwadUK
The worst thing is some people really really enjoy fighting and killing, gives them an feeling of power :( :( :( :(

The biggest power is the power to decide on other people's lives. To decide whether someone will live or die. That's the biggest corruption by power.

There being only one superpower now, matters are much much worse :(

.

[BodwadUK]

Saddams the onw who is deciding who lives and who dies in his country so i cant see how being a super state causes any corruption.

The fact that Saddam kills his own whenever they disagree means that he is the culprit here and your attempted argument fails!!!!!!! ;) ;) ;)

[Arc]

Originally posted by Pc_Madness
I've yet to see a decent argument agains t the war, so I have no reason to change me stance. :)

I couldn't agree more. THe only arguments i've seen against war are

1) You'll cause more terroism. To that i say, yah in the short term and also, so what?

2) You'll kill innocent civillians. Granted killing innocent civillians is a terrible thing, there's no way we could ever kill as many as Saddam has and would continue to kill if we left him in power. He has killed HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of his own people.


So far in the war we have killed maybe 100. Those 2 bombs dropped in the market places are now being blamed on Iraqs own millitary... it seems thier Anti Aircraft fire is coming down and landing on thier own people.

So it seems that so far the Iraqis have killed more innocent civillians than the Coalition has.

Ahh yes but here comes the argument of.."Well if you werent over there they wouldn't be shooting at you", wel to that i say, Talk to Saddam, he's the one that refused to cooperate with the U.N.

[honeybee]

Originally posted by BodwadUK
Saddams the onw who is deciding who lives and who dies in his country so i cant see how being a super state causes any corruption.

The fact that Saddam kills his own whenever they disagree means that he is the culprit here and your attempted argument fails!!!!!!! ;) ;) ;)

Whether Saddam kills his own people or not is bloody nothing of the US business. No other country pokes its nose in the internal affairs of the US judiciary system. You don't want nobody to question the misjudgements of your courts, do you? Saddam is the judiciary in Iraq and the US is nobody to question his decisions.

*sigh* But that's for someone who knows what living by the rules is :rolleyes:

.

[honeybee]

Arc, you just proved you are an ignorant and arrogant stupid git.

The main reasons against war are:

1. The US has no authority to unilaterally declare war. If you keep saying it's a continuation of the Gulf War, gimme a UN resolution explicitly authorizing the use of force by the US. Unless you give me that this war is ILLEGAL.

2. The reasons cited by the US are so far baseless. There's no evidence of Iraq having WMDs. There is no evidence of Iraq posing an imminent threat to the US. And I am using the entire security council of the UN to make these two statements. No single nation has backed you up in saying Iraq has WMDs. Those who back you are backing you only because you are a superpower, not because Iraq has WMDs.

3. Freeing the Iraqi people is none of your business. Your president is a miserable **** who doesn't know how to rebuild his own economy, and the US military has got loads of unused Tomahawks and Cruise missiles which will be useless in a couple of years, so why waste the chance to use them up ?

.

[FantastichenEin]

No other country pokes its nose in the internal affairs of the US judiciary system.

Really? Perhaps you should do some research.

1. The US has no authority to unilaterally declare war. If you keep saying it's a continuation of the Gulf War, gimme a UN resolution explicitly authorizing the use of force by the US. Unless you give me that this war is ILLEGAL.

So the war is illegal because you say so? You must be some lawyer.

[BodwadUK]

What Saddam does is murder!!!!!! :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

1. The US has no authority to unilaterally declare war. If you keep saying it's a continuation of the Gulf War, gimme a UN resolution explicitly authorizing the use of force by the US. Unless you give me that this war is ILLEGAL.

You can declare war on anyone it is just a matter of wether anyone backs you or your enemy that matters. No leader has ever been arrested for starting a war :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

So you recon it was none of our buisness to stop the murdering of the Jews by the Nazis. We should just have left them should we????

All i see is very scared Iraqi people. Many seem happy to see soldiers but then they say they love Saddam. They are scared of what happened before. Now its started we cannot stop it because of what Saddam might do to any that HE decides were unloyal to him!!!!!!:mad: :mad: :mad:

[honeybee]

Originally posted by BodwadUK
What Saddam does is murder!!!!!! :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

...

So you recon it was none of our buisness to stop the murdering of the Jews by the Nazis. We should just have left them should we????

...

All i see is very scared Iraqi people. Many seem happy to see soldiers but then they say they love Saddam. They are scared of what happened before. Now its started we cannot stop it because of what Saddam might do to any that HE decides were unloyal to him!!!!!!:mad: :mad: :mad:


I shall only say one thing: Unilateral invasion of the country is NOT the answer to the above. And don't forget that the US started using that propaganda when it decided to go ahead without the support of the UN. The only points it raised in the UN were the WMDs and a possible non-compliance with resolution 1441, both of which have been satisfactorily addressed by the UN inspectors.


Originally posted by BodwadUK
You can declare war on anyone it is just a matter of wether anyone backs you or your enemy that matters. No leader has ever been arrested for starting a war :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

That's arrogance. It shows you don't have any sense of justice, any respect for rules and you want to exercise your will in every situation. Saying no leader has ever been arrested for war doesn't justify the war.

.

[honeybee]

Bodwad, if you are comparing Saddam's atrocities with the Nazi massacre of the Jews, let me point out that you can force the UN to take action against Saddam for human rights violation. The US has not been empowered to carry out unilateral military strikes. It must and it MUST have UN authorization.

Deciding who's loyal to him and who's not is at the sole discretion of Saddam. I think it's much worse when the US president talks of "you are with us or you are with them" than when Saddam decides if someone is loyal to him or not. Also this decision is the outcome of the Iraqi judiciary process. I have never heard of any nation attacking the US for any decision by any US court of law which it thinks is not right.

Or are you implying if a US court gives a ruling in case of a person another nation may call it injustice and call for a military attack against the US?

.

[BodwadUK]

Maybe you dont understand the difference between what is a fact and what is considered 'the right thing to do'. The fact is

You can declare war on anyone it is just a matter of wether anyone backs you or your enemy that matters. No leader has ever been arrested for starting a war

the right thing to do is



DISCUSS IT AND COME TO AN AGREEABLE SOLUTION




So you recon it was none of our buisness to stop the murdering of the Jews by the Nazis. We should just have left them should we????



I am saying that we had to intervine then even though you seem to think we never should.


So you think that a system that is not supported by the people should be used on the people!!!! Murdering 50,000 ir whatever people in Basra was a massacre not a punishment for a crime!!!!!:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:


Global Human rights give people the right to a fair hearing (Hell even Saddam would). The people of Iraq have been poor ever since Saddam put his hands on that country why should we let many people suffer for one giant ***** of a man!!!!!!!!!!! :( :( :( :(

[BodwadUK]

wow this site has a swear filter!!! I never knew that :D :D :D :D

[honeybee]

You are directly saying that might is right. :(

.

[BodwadUK]

Diplomacy failed!!!!! :( :( :( :(