Printable View
Well that's good then? "Yes, Mr Bush, Sir: we agree with you - but we have no money, or men. Oh, Sir would you still increase trade with us afterwards?"Quote:
A coalition is a group of countries that have the same opinions on Iraq. They provide support for the cause!!!!
Face it - it's corrupt, and about money. This 'coalition' is a farce. Two countries fought and continue to lose men in Iraq. UK, and US. It[is, in the essence that actually means something, a bilateral action.
And what do you think the opposition behind the war in Iraq was motivated by? The need or want for peace? Nope it was all for oil and money. The countries like France, Germany, and Russia that so opposed the war didn’t oppose it due to moral reason but for monetary ones. The big oil contracts, development rights, and defense contracts. Now tell me if you think peace at the expense of mass graves, torture, and rape is less heinous?Quote:
Originally posted by yrwyddfa
Well that's good then? "Yes, Mr Bush, Sir: we agree with you - but we have no money, or men. Oh, Sir would you still increase trade with us afterwards?"
Face it - it's corrupt, and about money. This 'coalition' is a farce. Two countries fought and continue to lose men in Iraq. UK, and US. It[is, in the essence that actually means something, a bilateral action.
Saddam just by his nature of being the most evil dictator on the planet should have been cause enough to remove him from power. Keeping a man like this in power just so you can have cheap gas and defense contracts is the true evil.
X
I agree.Quote:
And what do you think the opposition behind the war in Iraq was motivated by? The need or want for peace? Nope it was all for oil and money. The countries like France, Germany, and Russia that so opposed the war didn’t oppose it due to moral reason but for monetary ones. The big oil contracts, development rights, and defense contracts.
No I do not.Quote:
Now tell me if you think peace at the expense of mass graves, torture, and rape is less heinous?
Once again, I agree. However, this violates the principle of self-determination - we have to have some agreement of law somewhere - and unfortunately, in this case, this is where it's at.Quote:
Saddam just by his nature of being the most evil dictator on the planet should have been cause enough to remove him from power. Keeping a man like this in power just so you can have cheap gas and defense contracts is the true evil.
Xanith, why didn't Reagan attack Iraq in the 1980s when he was known to be using chemical agents on his own people (and the Iranians)? Why was it right now, but not then?
He was a bad person, but he wasn't as bad as some of the other people out there, and we seem to be ignoring them.
Do we fear WMD? Do we attack those we fear will sell them? Yes to the first question, but not really to the second. So far we have attacked Iraq, a country that had chemical weapons, and other programs, but did not appear to have biological or nuclear capability. To say that we did this for purely moral reasons is kind of silly considering that we chose the weakest enemy that was the most unlikely threat to our country.
So why did we attack Saddam? Was he just convenient? We ignored his earlier transgressions, and he wasn't very high on the list of threats.
If this is the case then we should be frightened of ourselves, and plunge ourselves into civil warQuote:
Do we fear WMD? Do we attack those we fear will sell them?
We did that once....without WMD. It provided loads of entertainment for future reenactments. May have done a few other things, too.
There are quite a few reasons:Quote:
Xanith, why didn't Reagan attack Iraq in the 1980s when he was known to be using chemical agents on his own people (and the Iranians)? Why was it right now, but not then?
1) Back in the 1980’s Iraq didn’t pose a known threat to the United States or their interests.
2) Back in the 1980’s Iraq didn’t have 17+ UN Resolutions against it calling for the total disarmament of WMD programs and were not in violation of the afore mentioned Resolutions.
3) Back in the 1980’s Iraq was actually thought of as a buffer between the radical Iranian government and the spread of radical fundamentalism, which was considered a greater threat to the regions stability.
4) Back in the 1980’s there was no widespread threat of global terrorism. 9/11 pretty much changed the world and how people viewed terrorist organizations. No longer was terrorism thought of as being in some country you can’t even find on a map, it was brought home to homeland United States. The danger of WMD getting in the hands of any terrorists by such nations as Iraq greatly increased the risk of such an attack here in the US.
It’s not the US government’s duty to right wrongs and take down every dictator in the world. I think everyone would agree on this. It’s when the US interests and its people are threatened should the US act to do something. It was in the world’s interest to take down Saddam. Just because Iraq was able to buy off support from France, Germany, and Russia in the UN into not backing the UN Resolutions that they themselves signed that called for “serious consequences” to occur if Iraq refused to comply with UN Resolution 1441 doesn’t mean the US/UK and other nations should roll over and not do what has to be done.
You are wrong in your assertion about Saddam Hussein. He was the top mass-murdering dictator alive on the planet and earned the distinction of being one of the greatest monsters of all time. I suggest you do a bit more research into dictators both past and present. You will be surprised at some of the well-known dictators from the past that Saddam has passed in terms of brutality and murder.Quote:
He was a bad person, but he wasn't as bad as some of the other people out there, and we seem to be ignoring them.
Your assumptions about Saddam’s biological and nuclear capability are in error. In 1981 the Israelis bombed a nuclear reactor in Iraq given to them by the French so even in the early 1980’s Saddam was attempting to develop a nuclear bomb. Saddam’s biological programs are also well known. I honestly can’t see how you can sit there and pretend that they didn’t exist when these programs were known to exist by many intelligence organizations and defectors from Iraq.Quote:
Do we fear WMD? Do we attack those we fear will sell them? Yes to the first question, but not really to the second. So far we have attacked Iraq, a country that had chemical weapons, and other programs, but did not appear to have biological or nuclear capability. To say that we did this for purely moral reasons is kind of silly considering that we chose the weakest enemy that was the most unlikely threat to our country.
And I never said we did this for purely moral reasons. I said that if you threw out any other reason you didn’t believe like the WMD, terrorist threats, non-compliance with UN resolutions you would have left the mass graves, torture chambers, state sponsored rape and murder left to make you feel better about things.
Why did we attack Saddam? I see you are one of those people who have forgotten all about the UN resolutions. In all the media hoopla it seems a great many people have forgotten the 12+ years of non-compliance and the 17+ UN Resolutions that placed Iraq in this position. For me it all boils down to following through on what you are saying. The UN has and will fail in this regard. They failed in Bosnia, they failed in Rwanda, and they failed in Iraq. Just because the UN has failed doesn’t mean the US/UK and others shouldn’t follow through and do what must be done.Quote:
So why did we attack Saddam? Was he just convenient? We ignored his earlier transgressions, and he wasn't very high on the list of threats.
We are not the world’s police. It’s not the job of the US to punish those who do wrong the US governments sole responsibility is to protect its sovereignty and its people. The UN should be responsible for keeping the peace around the world. However, the UN has a long history of failure to follow through and a failure to do anything about the mass murdering dictators and genocides occurring around the world.
Everyone in the UN agreed that Saddam was in non-compliance with the Gulf War cease-fire that was reached in 1991 (read each and every one of the UN resolutions passed against Iraq and you will see this). The final resolution called for “serious consequences” to occur if Iraq did not cooperate. The UN inspectors themselves stated up until the coalition went into Iraq that they had not fully complied with UN resolutions. Non-compliance = serious consequences and serious consequences means a resumption of the 1991 war against Saddam for its invasion of Kuwait. It really is rather simple if you read the UN Resolutions against Iraq and the terms of the suspension of hostilities in the 1991 war.
All that aside, one thing that cannot be denied is just how much of a monster Saddam was. That is why I had made the point of saying that you people who choose not to believe the other reasons for going to war would find a spot of comfort in getting rid of the top mass murdering dictator alive today.
X
Xanith- About the four points you list, I felt that Bush didn't make the case for #1. I felt that his information was largely fabrications and wishful thinking. As it turns out, both he and Blair are now getting heat for sexing up the threat assesment (they get the heat, regardless of who was responsible). Point #2 you discuss better towards the end of your post. I agree with points #3 & 4, except that I would say that in #4 we didn't see the threat. The potential was still there, we just weren't paying attention. I don't consider either #3 or #4 to be adequate justifications, however true.
Should we attack others when our interests are at stake? That is the justification of any murderous dictator. After all, Saddam was quite correct to attack the kurds using that justification. We wouldn't be attacking others (and aren't) when the others have the ability to fight back strongly. This is the justification of a bully. We will beat you up if you annoy us, but only if you can't really fight back. As an American I'm not proud of that position. Having studies history extensively, I'm really bothered by that justification, since it has been used as the excuse for some of the most heinous attrocities throughout history. Will we do better?
Saddam probably isn't even in the top 10 for murderous dictators of all time. He's a petty leader who has confined his killing to a very limitted area. There are dozens of them active currently. He does have the benefit of longevity (partly with our help) that has allowed him to rack up some sizeable numbers, but he's not in the class of a Hitler, Stalin, or Pol Pot. He probably barely makes the level of Idi Amin (and I'll leave out some religeous leaders).
How can I pretend a WMD didn't exist when the program was known? I don't have to. Of course Saddam was trying to build a nuclear weapon, we probably have some people in this state who are trying to build one. They can't, and neither could Saddam. There isn't any evidence that he ever built one, or even came within several steps of one. Did he want to? Sure. Could he? Not yet. Would it make a difference if he had one? No. That last statement might be a bit of a surprise, but we already have nukes in the hands of an islamic state that is far less stable and more radical than Iraq ever has been (Pakistan). We will probably soon see nukes in the hands of a country that has a history of being willing to sell such things (N. Korea). Iraq with a nuke would be bad, but worse things already exist.
Nobody has ever successfully used bio warfare. The potential is pretty bad, but it may be far more difficult than we know.
We should forget about all those UN resolutions. We have been delinquent for years in paying our dues to the UN. Now, when they won't act, we use their resolutions as justification for war. We like them when it is convenient, and don't like them when it is inconvenient. There would be far more resolutions against Israel (there may be anyways), if we weren't vetoing them. Furthermore, it's quite disingenuous of you to claim that the resolution calling for serious consequences was a justification for war. Anybody who was following the political maneuvering leading up to the passage of that resolution would be aware that the administration wanted it worded as a trigger for war, but realized it would never be passed in that form. Therefore, wording was found that did not mention or suggest war, because had it done so, it would not have passed. Therefore, the UN would not have passed a resolution that specifically allowed the actions taken. To say "Oh, but they passed one that could be re-interpreted that way." is simply to ignore the reality of the vote. If they were willing to "interpret" the resolution as allowing war as a consequence, why were they unwilling to say that?
To sum up: We only use the UN resolutions when they can be justification for a course of action we wish to take. The resolution you cite as justification for war was written the way it was specifically because war was not an interpretation acceptable to the UN. They didn't support the war.
If the UN won't act on it's own resolutions, it is not our business to do it for them. Bush was a bully, and Bush wanted a war. He did whatever it took to get it, and now we are all paying for it. The death toll rises, the debt gets higher, the surplus is gone, no WMD have been found, Saddam hasn't been found (yet), and there is no good solution in sight for Iraq.
I don't think that Iraw posed a threat to the mainland US do you? I suspect it is more to do with US interests (whatever they may be) . . .Quote:
) Back in the 1980’s Iraq didn’t pose a known threat to the United States or their interests.
Actually no. There are such things as a civilian nuclear program. The shift from civilian nuclear fuel and weapons grade is a (very) big oneQuote:
Your assumptions about Saddam’s biological and nuclear capability are in error. In 1981 the Israelis bombed a nuclear reactor in Iraq given to them by the French so even in the early 1980’s Saddam was attempting to develop a nuclear bomb.
I think that you'll find that Israel has the most outstanding UN resolutions (y'know about killing civilians etc) Why didn't you attack Ariel Sharron - he is a known (and convicted) war criminal?Quote:
I see you are one of those people who have forgotten all about the UN resolutions.
I hope you see the dualism in your argument here.Quote:
We are not the world’s police
Every resolution can be used for any method. They are written that way deliberatly by all people involved. It allows any action to be taken based on the situation. The US and UK were perfectly legal in this war just as France, Russia etc were perfectly able to be against the action.Quote:
To sum up: We only use the UN resolutions when they can be justification for a course of action we wish to take. The resolution you cite as justification for war was written the way it was specifically because war was not an interpretation acceptable to the UN. They didn't support the war.
If the UN won't act on it's own resolutions, it is not our business to do it for them. Bush was a bully, and Bush wanted a war. He did whatever it took to get it, and now we are all paying for it. The death toll rises, the debt gets higher, the surplus is gone, no WMD have been found, Saddam hasn't been found (yet), and there is no good solution in sight for Iraq.
You are a member of the UN and it was to protect your country from WMD's getting into the wrong hands. So the US/Uk etc did have the right to attack Iraq.
The UN has a tendancy to stand back while people get killed. I dont ever recall the UN stopping Saddam kill thousands of people before so why the f*** should they bother now? Lets face it when you look at what attrocities have occurred since the founding of the UN you can see what a big failiure the UN is!!!!:( :(
Yea lets take them all on!!!! What a jump back one minute you are against war the next you talk about how we should have blown somebody else up!!!!:mad: :mad:Quote:
I think that you'll find that Israel has the most outstanding UN resolutions (y'know about killing civilians etc) Why didn't you attack Ariel Sharron - he is a known (and convicted) war criminal?
Israel has recently been co-operative and Saddam could have been but wasnt hence the difference. Israel has many resolutions against it and is currently complying with them (To my knowledge) :) :) :)
Your all the same one minute your against war the next you talk about how the US and allies should have attacked somebody else!!!! :mad: :mad: :mad:
Finally the penny drops YOU CANNOT HAVE ONE WITHOUT THE OTHER. EVERY JUSTIFICATION FOR TAKING OUT SADDAM CAN BE APPLIED ELSEWHERE.Quote:
Your all the same one minute your against war the next you talk about how the US and allies should have attacked somebody else!!!!
So how do you want it. Do we attack the world, or do we accept that any moral or political justification that you may come up with can be applied elsewhere and as such is nonsense (as we haven't gone to war with anyone else)
YOU cannot have it both ways. But I'm glad you see the point, now.
I dont see how Israel and Iraq are the same. Iraq with Nuclear weapons would be very dangerous for the west. Israel on the other hand is no threat. They tend to have a sense of reason (A strange one but hey) they wont fire nukes randomly. Would Saddam have anything to lose?? NO he had no respect or any real friends in the outside world!!!
Taking out Saddam was because he was perceived as a threat. Taking out Israel would be wrong because they are no threat. I hope you see what my point is?
Attacking somebody who is a threat is different to attacking somebody who has a few resolutions placed on them. Because Saddam refused to co-operate and prove he was no threat it had to be presumed he was a threat. He would not negotiate he would not surrender and he wouldnt tell us where half his arsenal had vanished to. If you ask Israel they are likely to co-operate because they have sense!!!
I WANT IT ONE WAY!!!!
to be safe just like everyone else. Those who threaten us get it back 2 fold. Is a very cruel world out there and dont you forget it. Dont think by letting it pass without intervention will keep you safe because its a sure route to your demise!!! Iraq was seen as a threat so it was removed in the only true option available. Now we need not worry about Saddam because the mad man is more or less powerless as he no longer has a true army to do his dirty work.:mad: :mad:
But you said . . .Now you sayQuote:
Israel has recently been co-operative and Saddam could have been but wasnt hence the difference.
I think that you should clarify.Quote:
Taking out Saddam was because he was perceived as a threat. Taking out Israel would be wrong because they are no threat. I hope you see what my point is?
:D
It really is a shame that most people are buying into arguments and charges being presented by the BBC and the New York Times. I almost have to laugh at the BBC accusing Blair of “sexing up” the threat assessment of Iraq when they themselves have proven to file false and misleading reports of their own about the war (as well as the NY Times). I personally take everything the BBC and the New York Times (among other so called “news” organizations) with a grain of salt, knowing that every story is working for an agenda and can easily be viewed as slanted and possibly totally false given their past history of reporting.Quote:
Xanith- About the four points you list, I felt that Bush didn't make the case for #1. I felt that his information was largely fabrications and wishful thinking. As it turns out, both he and Blair are now getting heat for sexing up the threat assesment (they get the heat, regardless of who was responsible). Point #2 you discuss better towards the end of your post. I agree with points #3 & 4, except that I would say that in #4 we didn't see the threat. The potential was still there, we just weren't paying attention. I don't consider either #3 or #4 to be adequate justifications, however true.
The UN should have handled Iraq and failed to do so for over 12 years. I would have liked to see the world deal with the problem that was Iraq however as usual the UN failed (Bosnia, Rwanda, and now Iraq are just the latest UN failures). Should the US/UK and others have sat on the sidelines and continued to watch Iraq defy UN sanctions for another 12 years? Should the US/UK and others have allowed Iraq to buy off support from France, Germany, and Russia with defense contracts, oil deals, and drilling rights? I’m sorry but its not like everything wasn’t tried to get Iraq to comply for over 12 years. You are making it sound as if the US/UK and others decided over night that Iraq must go, it was building for years and just because the UN was crippled to inaction by 3 counties who were obviously bought off doesn’t mean the rest of the world shouldn’t have dealt with that murderous dictator Saddam.Quote:
Should we attack others when our interests are at stake? That is the justification of any murderous dictator. After all, Saddam was quite correct to attack the kurds using that justification. We wouldn't be attacking others (and aren't) when the others have the ability to fight back strongly. This is the justification of a bully. We will beat you up if you annoy us, but only if you can't really fight back. As an American I'm not proud of that position. Having studies history extensively, I'm really bothered by that justification, since it has been used as the excuse for some of the most heinous attrocities throughout history. Will we do better?
I am proud at what was done inside Iraq. I am proud of my country and proud of our military. The people in Iraq now have an opportunity to be free. It’s so easy to sit back and hope a problem goes away. You said you have studied history extensively, why don’t you tell me what happened when a small time dictator from a shattered country was left alone and placated, when the surrounding countries decided it would be best not to enforce old treaties and resolutions, and to accept the assurances of this leader that he didn’t have the capability nor desire to invade or attack his neighbors? Do you remember this small time dictator called Hitler and what happened when the world decided that inaction was the best course of action?
I’m so positive you would have been one of the people in the crowd cheering Neville Chamberlain as he proclaimed he had achieved “peace in our time”. You would have been so convinced and gratified that all was well and that things were settled with Hitler through diplomacy. You claim to be a scholar of History yet you do not learn from past mistakes. You cannot leave a dangerous dictator alone to his own devices and just wait and hope that things will be ok. Millions of lives could have been saved had Europe decided to take Hitler down before he could be such a threat. No one figured Hitler could have done what he did. Why make that same mistake with another murderous dictator like Saddam? Tell me why you refuse to learn from the mistakes of the past. Studying History is useless if you don’t learn from it.
X
Who is to say that if you had your way and inaction was the policy that Saddam might have had time to reach such numbers as Stalin and Hitler? Saddam has already shown that he has no problems invading his neighbors and using gas warfare on his neighbors as well as his own people. I don’t know about you but Saddam with nuclear weapons doesn’t exactly set my mind at ease.Quote:
Saddam probably isn't even in the top 10 for murderous dictators of all time. He's a petty leader who has confined his killing to a very limitted area. There are dozens of them active currently. He does have the benefit of longevity (partly with our help) that has allowed him to rack up some sizeable numbers, but he's not in the class of a Hitler, Stalin, or Pol Pot. He probably barely makes the level of Idi Amin (and I'll leave out some religeous leaders).
If Israel thought Saddam couldn’t make a bomb they wouldn’t have destroyed that reactor in 1981. It’s well known that Saddam was close to making a bomb. It is now known that Iran has similar capabilities. UN inspections have revealed bomb grade material found in Iran. Still think it was impossible for Saddam? It feels that you seem willing to accept inaction and actually allow Saddam to produce a bomb. How safe would we be then?Quote:
How can I pretend a WMD didn't exist when the program was known? I don't have to. Of course Saddam was trying to build a nuclear weapon, we probably have some people in this state who are trying to build one. They can't, and neither could Saddam. There isn't any evidence that he ever built one, or even came within several steps of one. Did he want to? Sure. Could he? Not yet. Would it make a difference if he had one? No. That last statement might be a bit of a surprise, but we already have nukes in the hands of an islamic state that is far less stable and more radical than Iraq ever has been (Pakistan). We will probably soon see nukes in the hands of a country that has a history of being willing to sell such things (N. Korea). Iraq with a nuke would be bad, but worse things already exist.
You are correct that countries already have nukes that are already a threat not just to the US but also to their neighbors. They have leaders that could actually use such weapons, which is indeed a scary thought. This is why the world must stand united against such a threat. Politics must be put aside for the common good; I never see this happening however. This is why the US/UK and others must be prepared to deal with such things alone. I honestly don’t think the UN can do anything to stop the spread of nuclear weapons. They can’t even agree on simple things.
What you fail to realize is that the US is acting out of their own interests in the UN just as every other nation is. The US is no different than say France, India, or the UK. This is why the UN is such a failure. Someone tries to do something they feel is right and gets blocked by another nation because they have personal interests that will be effected if that something happens. Same thing happened with Iraq. France, Germany, and Russia saw all those exclusive oil deals, drilling rights, and defense contracts going down the tubes if Saddam was removed from power. This is why they blocked any action that would remove him from power. They cared nothing for peace or even getting rid of his WMD programs as long as they were able to get cheap oil and lucrative defense contracts. Is that the side you want to ally with?Quote:
We should forget about all those UN resolutions. We have been delinquent for years in paying our dues to the UN. Now, when they won't act, we use their resolutions as justification for war. We like them when it is convenient, and don't like them when it is inconvenient. There would be far more resolutions against Israel (there may be anyways), if we weren't vetoing them. Furthermore, it's quite disingenuous of you to claim that the resolution calling for serious consequences was a justification for war. Anybody who was following the political maneuvering leading up to the passage of that resolution would be aware that the administration wanted it worded as a trigger for war, but realized it would never be passed in that form. Therefore, wording was found that did not mention or suggest war, because had it done so, it would not have passed. Therefore, the UN would not have passed a resolution that specifically allowed the actions taken. To say "Oh, but they passed one that could be re-interpreted that way." is simply to ignore the reality of the vote. If they were willing to "interpret" the resolution as allowing war as a consequence, why were they unwilling to say that?
Read ALL of the Resolutions not just 1441. You will find it full of justifications for the resumption of hostilities against Iraq. Just because certain UN members were bought off doesn’t mean the rest of the nations of the world have to stand idly by and let Saddam not comply with the conditions he agreed to too stop the 1991 war against him. Remember if Saddam refused to comply hostilities could be resumed. As far as I know he didn’t fully comply with the UN resolutions, even the UN inspectors said that. Therefore it is logical to conclude that after 12+ years of non-compliance of UN resolutions hostilities can and were resumed resulting in the removal of Saddam from power and the freedom of the Iraqi people. It is rather easy to understand and follow.
No one wants to support war. But when is enough enough? And the countries that didn’t support the war were the ones who had the most to lose by Saddam getting removed from power. Should we allow a murderous dictator to remain in power and defy 17+ resolutions set forth by the world community just so France, Germany, and Russia can have cheap gas and defense contracts? Is that a good reason not to go to war, cheap gas and defense contracts? As soon as we removed our troops from Kuwait Saddam would have kicked out the UN inspectors again and we would start the whole silly game over again. Something had to be done. Leaving Saddam alone was far too dangerous especially in these times. I wouldn’t be willing to risk allowing Saddam to build his power base up again. I am glad he is gone and I am glad Iraq is now free.Quote:
To sum up: We only use the UN resolutions when they can be justification for a course of action we wish to take. The resolution you cite as justification for war was written the way it was specifically because war was not an interpretation acceptable to the UN. They didn't support the war.
All Saddam had to do was comply with the UN Resolutions and there wouldn’t have been a war. It was in Saddam’s hands not Bush’s. Had Saddam complied with UN resolutions no one in the world would have supported action against Iraq, me included. Bush had the guts to say, no more. You have had 12 years to comply now we are giving you one final chance. Saddam didn’t take that chance, its too bad but Saddam brought this war upon himself.Quote:
If the UN won't act on it's own resolutions, it is not our business to do it for them. Bush was a bully, and Bush wanted a war. He did whatever it took to get it, and now we are all paying for it. The death toll rises, the debt gets higher, the surplus is gone, no WMD have been found, Saddam hasn't been found (yet), and there is no good solution in sight for Iraq.
Today was the first day in 8 days that a US soldier died. It seems that things are dying down. As far as the debt goes compared to GNP the debt isn’t altogether the highest it has ever been. It has more to do with the recession and the inability to control fiscal spending. The economy is turning around and as more and more people begin to find work again I think we will see the debt gradually lower. The surplus you mentioned can be attributed to the tech-boom during the Clinton administration. As we all know now it was a false bubble that finally had to burst but hopefully in the future the economy can be based on real growth and not growth on paper alone. The WMD question still hasn’t been answered to my satisfaction. However from what I have heard there were ongoing programs and weapons that were destroyed in secret as well as some that were hidden, only time will tell the complete story. And I highly doubt Saddam will remain un-captured/not dead forever. It’s really only a matter of time before we get him as well. Also I don’t see how you can say there is no good solution in Iraq. It took years to rebuild Germany and Japan after WWII I don’t see why you expect it to happen overnight in Iraq.
X
As can any media organisation and publisher. What matters is whether you trust the source of your information. Incidentally, Xanith, what's your source's?Quote:
I personally take everything the BBC and the New York Times (among other so called “news” organizations) with a grain of salt, knowing that every story is working for an agenda and can easily be viewed as slanted and possibly totally false given their past history of reporting.
Actually, as you correctly infer, the UN has failed to deal with any serious world issue; as did the League Of Nations before it. So, Xanith, what makes Iraq so special to warrant a preemptive strike?Quote:
The UN should have handled Iraq and failed to do so for over 12 years
A typical agressive stance. The 9/11 disaster was appalling for the sheer amount of innocent people it killed- around 3000 I believe. A shocking and devastating statistic.Quote:
I am proud at what was done inside Iraq. I am proud of my country and proud of our military
How many civilians were killed in Afghanistan :http://www.cursor.org/stories/civilian_deaths.htm
around 3000 so far
How many civilians were killed in Iraq:http://abcnews.go.com/sections/night...asualties.html
around 2400 so far
This collateral damage exceeds the number killed in 9/11. If the 9/11 tragedy was a shock, then why isn't the sheer number of civilian casualties killed recently in UK/US agressions a shock? Is this OK? Are you proud of this Xanith?
Well, that's alright then ! (Is it ok for your people to die then (as long as it's not too many. How many is too many?))Quote:
Today was the first day in 8 days that a US soldier died. It seems that things are dying down
A very convenient stand from someone who supports preemptive military action - an act that has never been done before by a modern western state. (it is preemptive as we didn't disarm Iraq, we utterly invaded Iraq.)Quote:
Tell me why you refuse to learn from the mistakes of the past
Exactly!! Not you, not Bush. not Blair. But just in case, eh, we'll flatten the country.Quote:
Who is to say that if you had your way and inaction was the policy that Saddam might have had time to reach such numbers as Stalin and Hitler?
Rather like mustard gas in the 1st/2nd world war (UK and US) Nuclear weapons in 2nd world war (US) Chemical tests on civilians (UK/US) Biological antidote tests on civilians (UK/US) You seems to forget that there are still people alive today that have experienced the atrocities handed out by the UK, and the US. He who casts the first stone . . . .Quote:
Saddam has already shown that he has no problems invading his neighbors and using gas warfare on his neighbors as well as his own people
Let's go invade America, then. She is the only country that has actually used a nuclear arsenal against a foreign state. And YES - it is a scary thought that America (and Britain) are nuclear powers (and Israel, but that's another story)Quote:
They have leaders that could actually use such weapons, which is indeed a scary thought. This is why the world must stand united against such a threat
Yes, it is: do you not understand that America, and Britain agreed to a rewording that specifically denied that a serious consequence meant war. That was the last one passed before the war, and thus stands as the UN position. One that UK/US have illegally ignored.Quote:
It is rather easy to understand and follow.
When is Sharron going to be tried for warcrimes, anyway? Oh I forgot he already has, and has been found guilty, and is continuing to oppress his neighbours . . .Quote:
Should we allow a murderous dictator to remain in power and defy 17+ resolutions set forth by the world community
Free from Saddam. Under fear of terrorist reprisals, and UK/US rule. Sounds free to me?Quote:
I am glad Iraq is now free.
This is a great quote! You mean like Bin Laden, then?Quote:
And I highly doubt Saddam will remain un-captured/not dead forever. It’s really only a matter of time before we get him as well
Incidentally:
Imagine I have a neigbour who is a convicted murderer and has been set free after 30 years in prison.
Now, I have just found out that he owns a knife.
Is it OK to go and kill him before he kills me? He has already shown a trend towards murder (he has been convicted of it) And now he owns a weapon that could easily be used for murder.
So I send the police around. They give him a warning."Don't use the weapon"
Eventually the police go around and demand that he hands over all that can be construed a weapon.
But I've found out that he still owns a cheese knife.
That's it - I am now justified in trashing his house, killing his family, and finally killing him.
Make sense?
Your arguments can be used to support any violence against any people. If you believe Saddam was a threat, then that's ok, but I don't believe he was a significant threat to anybody except his immediate neighbors, certainly not to the US.
I notice that you've changed most murderous to "could have become". He couldn't. He lacked the industry or population to take on even a third rate country successfully. He beat tiny Kuwait that doesn't have the population for even a good security squad, but he failed against Iran. He had no problem invading his neighbors, except that they could, and did, beat him. Every invasion he attempted (there were two) cost him dearly. Would he have tried a third? Maybe.
Oh yeah, I'm sure he won't remain 'not dead' forever. The death rate is still one per person.
It will take a long time to rebuild Iraq, but it may take forever to create a free and democratic Iraq. If we were to allow majority rule right now, Iraq would become another Iran, with all the problems associated with that. The majority is heavily shiite muslim, just like Iran. If given the vote, the population will vote along religeous lines.
I get my information from a multitude of sources including the afore mentioned BBC and New York Times. One must look at all sides and try to sift through the obvious rhetoric and slant that publications put on things. I mentioned those 2 particular publications due to the fact they have been accused and proven publishing misleading and false stories.Quote:
As can any media organisation and publisher. What matters is whether you trust the source of your information. Incidentally, Xanith, what's your source's?
Conclusion of what began in 1991 is hardly what I call preemptive. Iraq failed to comply; they were given 12 years and 17 chances. They failed to abide by the conditions of a cease-fire therefore hostilities were renewed. Not preemptive as you put it just taking things to their logical conclusion.Quote:
Actually, as you correctly infer, the UN has failed to deal with any serious world issue; as did the League Of Nations before it. So, Xanith, what makes Iraq so special to warrant a preemptive strike?
I’m not that ignorant to believe that innocent people don’t die in war. Maybe in your clean cut video game world the good guy always wins without any innocents dying but this is the real world. The shear numbers of civilians that died in WWII would probably shock and horrify you. Had these numbers been put forth by the media as they are today it is likely Hitler/Germany would still be in control of Europe today due to the fact people like you would be bemoaning and lamenting the civilian casualties. I’m still proud of what was done in Iraq and in Afghanistan because I am not so naive as to believe there can be a bloodless war without civilian casualties.Quote:
A typical agressive stance. The 9/11 disaster was appalling for the sheer amount of innocent people it killed- around 3000 I believe. A shocking and devastating statistic.
How many civilians were killed in Afghanistan :http://www.cursor.org/stories/civilian_deaths.htm
around 3000 so far
How many civilians were killed in Iraq:http://abcnews.go.com/sections/night...asualties.html
around 2400 so far
This collateral damage exceeds the number killed in 9/11. If the 9/11 tragedy was a shock, then why isn't the sheer number of civilian casualties killed recently in UK/US agressions a shock? Is this OK? Are you proud of this Xanith?
What also you fail to mention is the number of innocent people died at the hands of the Taliban and Saddam….how many more innocents would have died if action wasn’t taken? Would you feel proud of more innocents dying under the heel of Saddam? For someone who cares so much about the loss of innocent life you seem to casually and conveniently forget about mass graves and torture chambers pretty easily.
Just countering the old…. its turning into a bloodbath/quagmire/Viet Nam thing. I remember when there was some stiff resistance going on during this war and it was people like you who were crying the same thing. A week later the war was over. I love it how you people are quick to jump on how bad things are going this second but refuse to take a look at the big picture.Quote:
Well, that's alright then ! (Is it ok for your people to die then (as long as it's not too many. How many is too many?))
And obviously 1 death is to many but the US didn’t earn its freedom from you chaps over there in jolly old England by not making sacrifices which includes the ultimate sacrifice of life. Freedom isn’t free maybe you are taking for granted your own freedoms and the sacrifices of the people who came before you. People fought and died just so you can have and express your opinion about things in this forum. How much is your freedom worth?
We did what had to be done due to the failure of Saddam failing to comply with UN resolutions. Saddam was given 1 last chance. He didn’t take that chance. Therefore resumption of the 1991 war was called for. Sorry but that’s hardly preemptive. To me it is a logical conclusion.Quote:
A very convenient stand from someone who supports preemptive military action - an act that has never been done before by a modern western state. (it is preemptive as we didn't disarm Iraq, we utterly invaded Iraq.)
Yeah we should just wait and see like we did with Hitler aye? That sure showed him huh.Quote:
Exactly!! Not you, not Bush. not Blair. But just in case, eh, we'll flatten the country.
Yeah maybe you should go hang your head in shame. After all years and years of colonialism by England should make you feel very ashamed. The US is only a few hundred years old we have yet to catch up to the atrocities of your nation who has been around quite a bit longer. And I don’t believe gas warfare was used in WWII. It was outlawed after WWI. This argument is pretty much DOA due to the fact that every nation in its past has done one thing or another that wasn’t exactly kosher. But feel free to wring your hands in be ashamed of where you are from. I am proud to be an American and a supporter of George W. Bush our president.Quote:
Rather like mustard gas in the 1st/2nd world war (UK and US) Nuclear weapons in 2nd world war (US) Chemical tests on civilians (UK/US) Biological antidote tests on civilians (UK/US) You seems to forget that there are still people alive today that have experienced the atrocities handed out by the UK, and the US. He who casts the first stone . . . .
Again taking into context the time in which the weapons were first used. People use this tired old argument again and again as they try to relate it to now rather then put into context when these weapons were used. Using these weapons at this time was perfectly justified and I believe a benefit. Now people understand how truly horrible these weapons really are and why their proliferation should be stopped. You must live your life in terrible fear if you are afraid of the US/UK having nukes. After all they possess a stockpile with enough bombs to kill all of us 20 times over.Quote:
Let's go invade America, then. She is the only country that has actually used a nuclear arsenal against a foreign state. And YES - it is a scary thought that America (and Britain) are nuclear powers (and Israel, but that's another story)
So far you are ashamed to be where you are from and you live your life in fear. Must be a horrible existence for you I feel sorry for you.
Like I have said before if you read ALL of the UN resolutions you would understand that 1441 was Iraq’s last chance. Despite what the French, Germans, and Russians wanted because of what they would lose (oil contracts, drilling rights, and defense contracts). What was done was what was called for in the resolutions despite the intentions of those other bought off nations.Quote:
Yes, it is: do you not understand that America, and Britain agreed to a rewording that specifically denied that a serious consequence meant war. That was the last one passed before the war, and thus stands as the UN position. One that UK/US have illegally ignored.
Beats me. Why doesn’t the same body that found him guilty try to bring him in and we will see what happens huh? And what does Israel have to do with Iraq? Aside from Saddam launching a few skuds their way during the first Gulf War.Quote:
When is Sharron going to be tried for warcrimes, anyway? Oh I forgot he already has, and has been found guilty, and is continuing to oppress his neighbours
Reprisals? You’re kidding right. Terrorist attacks would have continued with or without an invasion of Iraq. I know you are all busted up inside that most of the people in Iraq approve of what was done and that most terrorist attacks going on in Iraq now are from foreign fighters who have filtered across the border. Personally I think its great. All the terrorists are coming to Iraq so we can capture or kill them. I would rather have them go up against the armed military rather than flying planes into buildings.Quote:
Free from Saddam. Under fear of terrorist reprisals, and UK/US rule. Sounds free to me?
Well so far Bin Laden hasn’t launched another attack inside the US yet and it’s been 2 years. Al Queda has been seriously hurt by operations in Afghanistan and around the world. He could dead, he could be alive what I care about is that terrorist organizations are being dealt with.Quote:
This is a great quote! You mean like Bin Laden, then?
X
Wow, Xanith, you live in a different world than I do. Those look like facts, but in a twisted alteration. However, you got a bit patronizing on some of them.
I realize conservatives see the world in a different way, but the patronizing tone was fairly offensive. Might I ask how extensively you have traveled? America is one country, there are many more. I have visited very very few of them, and since I tend to visit on foot, I doubt I will ever visit very many. However, I am more concerned about how we act as neighbors to the world. Many of our past actions are inexcusable from the standpoint of other nations.
I have no love for terrorists, but killing thousands of civilians is not a good thing, whoever does it. We killed thousands and you brush it off as acceptable colateral damage. Do you not see the flaw in that? If we had used a nuke on Baghdad to kill Saddam (or even Osama, even though he wasn't there), there would have been far higher casualties. Would that have been acceptable colateral damage? Not to me. Why is it different what we are doing now? We are bombing the living snot out of whatever people we happen to be attacking. The reason for this is not to limit killing civilians, it is to limit the possibility of the opponents killing US soldiers. This isn't some kind of humanitarian rationale, it is political. Bush wouldn't be allowed to have his wars if hundreds or thousands of US soldiers were dying in a matter of days. Therefore, we make extensive use of bombs. They may be smart relative to WWII bombs, but they still can't tell a civilian from a soldier as effectively as a soldier could. Bombs pass the dying to the civilians, and away from the soldiers. That's good politics.
Should we have let Saddam keep on killing? Why not? We allow it to go on all over the world under one dictator or another. We will continue to allow it to go on in the future. You make it out that Saddam was different. I agree, but the difference I see is that he had something that friends of our president could make money from: oil. We would ignore the middle east if not for oil, just like we ignore Africa.
Xanith; you really live in a sorry state of affairs. You justify civilian deaths like it is just a sideshow to American foreign policy. When confronted with an argument you find either difficult to follow you avoid it.
It is the rhetoric of people such as you that ensure that oppressive foreign policies continue to come to fruition.
The last resolution that the UN made about Iraq is the context. So why the others. Elsewhere on this thread I've listed appaling American acts in UN abusing their veto to support state terrorism and to avoid strenghtening human rights. I guess you would deem this out of context, too - but to the rest of the world it is another nail in the coffin of American foreign policy.
You clearly state that the use of (or potential use of) WMD is a cause of concern. But any parrallels used you say is taken out of context. The only country in world history to kill 100,000 civilians in one go is America. Your mindset is prepared to kill 1000's of innocent people for the implementation of it's foreign policy - and then tell the world it's for their own good. How does that work, then? How can you even attempt to justify it?
Your abstract of morality is clearly based on the concept that the biggest boy in the playground must be right because he's bigger. You justify state-sponsored terrorism (what did the civilians in the recent conflict have to do with Saddam?)
You continue to arm Israel whilsts Israel continues to segregate and violate the human rights of the Palestinians (check out the number of UN res for that, then) You continue to ignore dictators around the world that abuse human rights. You continue to support, and arm Pakistan (who continue to sponsor terrorist acts in Kashmir, and India) You must live with your head up your own a**e.
America used to feel safe, once, waving it's big stick around the world. I would have hoped at least one positive to come out of the recent atrocities would be an introverted look at oneself. I know now that I am mistaken.
You do not see that war is unacceptable unless it is to defend an agression. Saddam did perform acts of agression against his own people; but this can hardly be a justification as there are leaders the world over doing the same thing today - but America chooses not to wave it's big stick to intervene in that one.
I can see of no justification that you state, Xanith, that cannot be applied elsewhere. You are not consistent in either your beliefs or your facts. You justify civilian deaths in the context of a war that you simply cannot justify soundly.
Saddam could have told us what happened to the unaccounted weapons but he didnt co-operate. Therfore he is a threat, he potentially had hidden weapons and he wasnt cooperating.Quote:
Clarify
Israel has accounted for all there weapons (that we know of) and is co-operating. You seem to forget the Palestinian terrorists started the past 2 or so years of skirmishes not Israel!!! Hence no immediate threat.
Didnt think it was that hard to understand :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
You have an attitude of 'Its not my problem i am not being killed for no reason' and yet you moan when somebody attempts to stop it. There is no pleasing some people!!Quote:
You do not see that war is unacceptable unless it is to defend an agression. Saddam did perform acts of agression against his own people; but this can hardly be a justification as there are leaders the world over doing the same thing today - but America chooses not to wave it's big stick to intervene in that one.
Your saying we should attack all those we dont like you are worse than us, and yet you criticise us!!!!:mad: :mad: :mad:
No I'm not. It's the point that I'm making. I'm very pleased you raised it.Quote:
Your saying we should attack all those we dont like you are worse than us, and yet you criticise us!!!!
YOU CANNOT HAVE IT BOTH WAYS.
If you use a justification for war - whether moral, or political you must use that judgement uniformly and apply that judgement to all nations.
YOU (those that support the recent agressions) DO NOT APPLY YOUR PRINCIPLES UNIFORMLY.
If you can state, to me, a unique justification of why Saddam has been singled out above all other nations, then I will understand.
As yet, no one seems capable of this.
Glad to see that you see the dualism in your arguments though; I felt I was banging my head against a brick wall.
'bout time too.
Saddam was
A) Not co-operating
B) Not accounting for loads of weapons
C) Thought to have nuclear weapons
D) Thrown out weapons inspectors
E) Violated human rights
F) Violated resolutions passed against him
No other country had / has these problems. Many other countries are being watched or talked to.
You assume Saddam was like any other country. We dont want global war we want protection against nutters like Saddam. Apparently you are happy with Saddam until he comes knocking on your door with a large arsenal of weapons. :) :) :)
P.s The feeling of banging your head against a brick wall is mutual :D :D :D
a - America is not cooperating (Kyoto, UN etc)Quote:
Saddam was
A) Not co-operating
B) Not accounting for loads of weapons
C) Thought to have nuclear weapons
D) Thrown out weapons inspectors
E) Violated human rights
F) Violated resolutions passed against him
No other country had / has these problems. Many other countries are being watched or talked to.
b - America will not allow independent inspections for it's WMD stash despite calls at the UN security council for the same.
c - America is known to have nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons
d - see (b)
e - more specifically:In 2001, the United States was voted out of the United Nations Human Rights Commission and the International Narcotics Committee. This shows, from one aspect, that it is extremely unpopular for the United States to push double standards and unilateralism on such issues as human rights, crackdowns on drug trafficking, arms control and environmental protection
f - has the power of veto so doesn't get resolutions passed against her.
America fits the criteria. WHEN DO WE INVADE!
US voted from Human Rights Commission :http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/05/03/us.human/
US signs but fails to ratify UN Convention on the Rights of a Child
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conven...s_of_the_Child
Only Somalia fails to do so as well (which means every country in the world has signed, and ratified)
Furthermore:
http://www.unicef.org/crc/faq.htm#009Quote:
Q: Who has not ratified and why not?
A: The Convention on the Rights of the Child is the most widely and rapidly ratified human rights treaty in history. Only two countries, Somalia and the United States, have not ratified this celebrated agreement. Somalia is currently unable to proceed to ratification as it has no recognized government. By signing the Convention, the United States has signalled its intention to ratify – but has yet to do so.
As in many other nations, the United States undertakes an extensive examination and scrutiny of treaties before proceeding to ratify. This examination, which includes an evaluation of the degree of compliance with existing law and practice in the country at state and federal levels, can take several years – or even longer if the treaty is portrayed as being controversial or if the process is politicized. For example, the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide took more than 30 years to be ratified in the United States and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, which was signed by the United States 17 years ago, still has not been ratified. Moreover, the US Government typically will consider only one human rights treaty at a time. Currently, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women is cited as the nation's top priority among human rights treaties.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2000/ma...-m12_prn.shtmlQuote:
The United States appeared Wednesday, May 10 in front of the United Nations Convention Against Torture in Geneva in its first appearance before the body since ratifying the convention six years ago. The human rights group Amnesty International filed a 45-page report with the UN committee that documented specific cases where the US has violated the international pact.
Amnesty International stated, “Since the United States ratified the Convention Against Torture in October 1994, its increasingly punitive approach towards offenders has continued to lead to practices which facilitate torture or other forms of ill-treatment prohibited under international law.”
http://www.icomm.ca/carecen/page36.htmlQuote:
The report highlighted the role of the United States in supporting the Guatemalan military. According to the report "the United States government and U.S. private companies exercised pressure to maintain the country's unjust socio-economic structure. In addition, the United States Government, through its constituent structures, including the Central Intelligence Agency, lent direct and indirect support to some illegal state operations. " According to a Truth Commission aid cited in the New York Times, the United States government had knowledge that the Guatemalan government was engaged in genocide and continued its support.
It was an election you idiot!!!
They werent voted out they just werent voted back in. They were not thrown out for violating human rights and if you look at what people beleive is the reason for them not getting it then you would realise it has nothing to do with individual human rights.
Oh for fu**s sake read them
They havent turned it down and will probably sign it but they must check no conflicts occur with their laws. Remember they run to the declaration and CANNOT violate it :) :)Quote:
By signing the Convention, the United States has signalled its intention to ratify – but has yet to do so. The United States undertakes an extensive examination and scrutiny of treaties before proceeding to ratify. This examination, which includes an evaluation of the degree of compliance with existing law and practice in the country at state and federal levels, can take several years – or even longer if the treaty is portrayed as being controversial or if the process is politicized
And the UN voted which way?
Every country has violations by single members such as police officers. In this case it is condemned by the country and the offender is breaking the law.
It goes without saying that almost every country in the world has committed human rights violations.
I want to make it absolutely certain that I am not anti-american, or anti-semitist.
I believe that the UK (my country) is just as much as fault as any other (and in some cases, such as Iraq, and the Palestine issue - more at fault)
I reckon that the foreign policies of most countries of the world leave a lot to be desired.
Equal rights is now at the forefront of peoples minds unlike some years ago when violations were caused. I hope we never see these governments do appalling things again but lets face it they could all be doing it behind our backs :( :( :(
I reckon they all do it behind our backs.
Western governments only have any sort of power they have now because of exploitation of less powerful governments and their peoples over that last 200 years.
Every single one of them.
Bod:
I take it you deem that non-ratification of international treaties acceptable behaviour in the face of the international community?
And btw before you call people idiots re-read some of your posts.
LOL i know i am an idiot :D :D :D
The point of agreeing is not to follow everyone else but make up your own mind that is democracy what you are saying is America should have just rafitied the agreement witout actually makeing a honest decision.
Thats the way democracys and organisations like the UN will collapse :) :) :)
NO. That is not what I am saying. I am questioning the amount of time it takes to ratify some of the treaties; it would appear that the US (in some cases) have no intention of ratifying these treaties.Quote:
The point of agreeing is not to follow everyone else but make up your own mind that is democracy what you are saying is America should have just rafitied the agreement witout actually makeing a honest decision.
I do not know this as a fact; but unfortunately - this is the way it looks.
Besides: would you agree that only US, and Somalia check the details thoroughly?
You have to admit; it does look bad.
America is in many ways a large group of countries as the laws are different in each state and so all must be checked.
Somalia had the biggest disadvatage with not having a government and all :D :D :D
it doesnt look good i agree but then why push them to a decision would that not also violate their right to vote by forcing a decision?
I thought i read another article that says they have ratified that agreement?? :confused: :confused:
I don’t justify civilian deaths as I said I am a realist. In a war civilians are going to die. However the US military has taken extreme precautions in insuring that civilian casualties do not occur. No country in history has taken such precautions to assure that innocents don’t die. And when last I checked I have answered every point brought forth by you. If you wish to have a debate about a specific subject start a new thread about it and I will be happy to respond.Quote:
Xanith; you really live in a sorry state of affairs. You justify civilian deaths like it is just a sideshow to American foreign policy. When confronted with an argument you find either difficult to follow you avoid it.
Oppressive to whom? And I don’t use rhetoric, I assemble the facts and I present my argument to the best of my ability.Quote:
It is the rhetoric of people such as you that ensure that oppressive foreign policies continue to come to fruition.
You listed those out of context yes. You never stated why the US vetoed them. Behind every banner there is a story and you failed to list that. So unless you gather all the facts as to WHY the US vetoed those resolutions your list becomes just a facade. Seek the facts behind each and every one of those UN resolutions that were vetoed before putting forth your indignant outrage.Quote:
The last resolution that the UN made about Iraq is the context. So why the others. Elsewhere on this thread I've listed appaling American acts in UN abusing their veto to support state terrorism and to avoid strenghtening human rights. I guess you would deem this out of context, too - but to the rest of the world it is another nail in the coffin of American foreign policy.
As I have said before and will say again so you understand. No country in the history of the world has been more careful about not inflicting civilian causalities than the US. The US military does this to a point that even puts its own troops in harms way for the sake of preserving innocent civilian life. I want you to tell me if you think war is ever justified if 1 innocent civilian can possibly be killed. Was World War II justifiable? Should we have not booted Hitler out of Europe for the sake of innocent civilian lives? Should we not have bombed German infrastructure and factories because civilians could have been killed?Quote:
You clearly state that the use of (or potential use of) WMD is a cause of concern. But any parrallels used you say is taken out of context. The only country in world history to kill 100,000 civilians in one go is America. Your mindset is prepared to kill 1000's of innocent people for the implementation of it's foreign policy - and then tell the world it's for their own good. How does that work, then? How can you even attempt to justify it?
What do civilians have to do with any war? Is war ever justifiable? Is freeing a people who’s dictator piled them up in mass graves and torture chambers justifiable? Is leaving the Iraqi people under the boot of Saddam with many many more dying under his rule than have died in the invasion of Iraq and would continue to die a better scenario to you? Are you the kind of person who will sit idly by while hundreds of thousands more die in Iraq to be later found in mass graves due to your inaction?Quote:
Your abstract of morality is clearly based on the concept that the biggest boy in the playground must be right because he's bigger. You justify state-sponsored terrorism (what did the civilians in the recent conflict have to do with Saddam?)
Everyone is selling arms to Israel. And when last I checked Palestinians were blowing themselves up on busses and in cafe‘s and killing innocent woman and children. For someone who seems to be so concerned with the deaths of the innocent where is your outrage at those terrorist groups who are killing innocent Israeli civilians?Quote:
You continue to arm Israel whilsts Israel continues to segregate and violate the human rights of the Palestinians (check out the number of UN res for that, then) You continue to ignore dictators around the world that abuse human rights. You continue to support, and arm Pakistan (who continue to sponsor terrorist acts in Kashmir, and India) You must live with your head up your own a**e.
Pakistan is helping the US root out terrorists and therefore is an uneasy ally at the moment. Aide to Pakistan is hardly anything compared to countries like Israel and Egypt. The US is hardly arming Pakistan as you put it. Besides you don’t want the US going after terrorists in other countries why would you want them to do something about the ones attacking India? Isn’t that India’s problem?
Yeah you are mistaken about a great many things.Quote:
America used to feel safe, once, waving it's big stick around the world. I would have hoped at least one positive to come out of the recent atrocities would be an introverted look at oneself. I know now that I am mistaken.
It’s the UN’s job is it not to stop things such as this? The UN is a total failure in this regard, just look at how many died in Rwanda while the UN stood by and did nothing. If the UN is a total failure who is going to do something about these kinds of things? You solution of, well it happens everywhere so lets just let them all die solution is hardly that answer don’t you think?Quote:
You do not see that war is unacceptable unless it is to defend an agression. Saddam did perform acts of agression against his own people; but this can hardly be a justification as there are leaders the world over doing the same thing today - but America chooses not to wave it's big stick to intervene in that one.
Maybe in your mind it is not justifiable. In my mind it based solely on freeing the Iraqi people from under Saddam. Even you cannot deny the mass graves or torture chambers that were found. Even putting aside WMD, terrorist connections, and defiance of UN resolutions you are still left with the undeniable freedom of the Iraqi people from death, torture, and rape at the hands of Saddam. Can I justify war simply on that context alone? Yes I can. And for you with all your concern of innocent life seem to not even care about what Saddam did and would still be doing to his people because hey it happens everywhere right? And why should we do anything to save anyone. Your so-called concern for innocent civilians is nothing more than a political tool. You sir are the one who is not consistent in your beliefs or facts.Quote:
I can see of no justification that you state, Xanith, that cannot be applied elsewhere. You are not consistent in either your beliefs or your facts. You justify civilian deaths in the context of a war that you simply cannot justify soundly.
X
Every situation is different and must be delt with differently. When last I checked the world was a dynamic and ever changing place not a strict and uniform never changing place. Maybe go back to banging your head against a brick wall maybe it will knock some sense into it :)Quote:
Originally posted by yrwyddfa
No I'm not. It's the point that I'm making. I'm very pleased you raised it.
YOU CANNOT HAVE IT BOTH WAYS.
If you use a justification for war - whether moral, or political you must use that judgement uniformly and apply that judgement to all nations.
YOU (those that support the recent agressions) DO NOT APPLY YOUR PRINCIPLES UNIFORMLY.
If you can state, to me, a unique justification of why Saddam has been singled out above all other nations, then I will understand.
As yet, no one seems capable of this.
Glad to see that you see the dualism in your arguments though; I felt I was banging my head against a brick wall.
'bout time too.
X
Xanith
Which war has solved what?
Why is war against Saddam justified?
Just so I can see your point of view. No rhetoric - just facts. Please.
I don't need to - I read your posts . . .Quote:
Maybe go back to banging your head against a brick wall maybe it will knock some sense into it
Good to know my posts have knocked some sense into you :)Quote:
Originally posted by yrwyddfa
I don't need to - I read your posts . . .
X
By all means, feel free. Bring the whole lot of ya!!!Quote:
Originally posted by yrwyddfa
America fits the criteria. WHEN DO WE INVADE!
C'mon chaps:
What are the justifications for war. Let's not pontificate. Let's not wallow in soliliquy.
What are the justifications?
Her Sovereign Majesty Queen Elizabeth II will resume a monarch's duties over all states, commonwealths and other territories.Quote:
By all means, feel free. Bring the whole lot of ya!!!
To aid in the transition to a British Crown Dependency, please comply with the following acts:
1. Look up "revoke" in a dictionary
2. Learn at least the first 4 lines of "God Save the Queen"
3. Start referring to "soccer" as football
Tax collectors from Her Majesty's Government will be with you shortly to ensure the acquisition of all revenues due (backdated to 1776).
:D :D
All UK Citizens will now be refered to as lord or lady!!!
:D :D :D :D
I have put forward the justifications countless times
ABOUT SADDAM
HE WAS A POTENTIAL THREAT TO MILLIONS OF LIVES AND WAS THUS REMOVED. HE WAS A ****** OF THE HIGHEST DEGREE. HE WAS A HEARTLESS, BRUTAL DICTATOR WITH A WONDERFUL PLAN OF WORLD DOMINATION.
HE WAS REMOVED FOR HUMANITARIAN AND WORLD STABILITY REASONS.
think thats putting it simply dont you :) :) :)
Sounds like the plot to a James Bond film . . .Quote:
HE WAS A POTENTIAL THREAT TO MILLIONS OF LIVES AND WAS THUS REMOVED. HE WAS A ****** OF THE HIGHEST DEGREE. HE WAS A HEARTLESS, BRUTAL DICTATOR WITH A WONDERFUL PLAN OF WORLD DOMINATION.
Everyone is a potential threat.
Yes that's absolutely correct. Everyone is a potential threat...equally. Everyone has the same ability and resources available to them. Everyone has previously used biological weapons on their own people.Quote:
Originally posted by plenderj
Everyone is a potential threat.
Everyone is a potential threat.
Absolutely BRILLIANT!!!!
:rolleyes:
:rolleyes:
I have to say (and I feel that I have given enough time to the pro-war lot) that all the talk on this page has been:
Reactionary:
Argument against the concern over the war; not justification for it
Defensive:
Reacting to any anti-war stance as a slur upon their country, and getting rather upset about it.
Conditional:
By this I mean justifications like 'might have done' 'probably would have' 'might be' 'potential' which is no basis for any argument.
Now - we know the following:
Saddam invaded another country
Saddam possessed weapons of mass-destruction
Saddam avoided, and ignored UN demands
Saddam killed countless thousands of his own people, as well as oppressing 100,000's more.
So as many of you have said this puts Saddam on this list of all time bad dictators.
Now, on the world stage, this does not distinguish Saddam from some other nations who fulfill this criteria in part or in full.
So, I ask, if the war against Iraq was justified (by one of the afore-mentioned reasons) why are we not at war with other countries that are guilty of the same? Or are there other reasons that I missing?
It is this question that has consistently been avoided and the pro-war lobby have failed to provide any clear answer
I doubt there is one.
So you're suggesting that we either:
A. Start a war with every dictator that has acted the same way that Sadaam has. Sounds reasonable.
or
B. Stand by idly and allow these things to continue and not attack anyone.
This is my point exactly: you have still not answered any of my questions in a satisfactory manner. How do you hope to convince anyone of your arguments?
If you can soundly answer these questions - I will back your case; but, to me, it seems as if you cannot.
I now have to add the term:
Avoidance:
Failure to address any issue of concern
to the list of tactics used by the pro-war lobby
I don't have a stance. I'm not answering any questions. I'm not trying to convince people with my argument. I'm not justifying anything (read my last post, jerky)
I'll add this to the stance of the anti-way lobby:
Failure to read properly :rolleyes:
I support my country. You don't. I could care less what you support. I don't concern myself with things I can't control. My buddy is over there wrecking some stuff. As long as he comes home in one piece (alive), I'm a happy guy. You should care less, as well. You won't be so stressed out.
I should retract something. I care about some things that I can't control. Take, for instance, the Michigan/Notre Dame game tomorrow. I have no control over the outcome. But oh boy will I be upset if Michigan loses. Also, I'd like to see the Lions go into Green Bay and win a game at Lambeau Field for once. That would be a great weekend. I hope I golf well on Saturday...of course I have control over that. I hope my fantasy football team does well. These are the things that are really important. These are the types of things that you should spend your time on.
Go Blue!
I'm an American. Don't hate me cause you ain't me.
If you can name another country that invaded a neighbor and was then attacked by an international coalition to drive them out, then had conditions placed on them for the suspension of hostilities that were ignored by said country for over 12 years, with 17 UN resolutions saying they were in violation of those conditions then I would say lets invade them as well.
I want your list of countries that you feel have been guilty of the same thing.
The reason Saddam was not toppled in 1991 was that he promised to rid his country of ALL WMD’s and the programs that make them and provide the proof of their destruction. According to UN inspectors and ALL UN resolutions passed since the end of the conflict in 1991 stated that the country of Iraq was not in compliance with that agreement (read the resolutions and transcripts of UN inspectors). Therefore non-compliance = resumption of hostilities. Iraq was given more than enough time to comply and even given one final chance that they didn’t take. The time came to act and just because the UN was unable to act (no surprise there) doesn’t mean the rest of the world shouldn’t act.
I hardly think the countries that were bought off by Iraq like France, Germany, and Russia through oil deals, drilling rights, and defense contracts should use their position in the UN to keep a murderous dictator in power for cheap gas and defense contracts do you? Don’t tell me you are so naive as to believe that these countries were actually for a peaceful resolution to this conflict do you? They wanted to protect their economic advantage and interests by keeping a murderous dictator in power. This is the real outrage in the Iraq situation that is conveniently overlooked by the anti-war crowd.
What was done in Iraq was a logical progression of Saddam’s stonewalling and failing to come clean about his WMD programs. Saddam brought this on himself when a coalition of nations got together and finally said 12 years and 17 resolutions is enough. Either come clean about your WMD programs and prove you have destroyed these weapons as you promised to do in 1991 or we are going to come in there ourselves and disarm you by force. Saddam failed to take his final chance therefore this war was a necessity. What more of an explanation do you need? Seems rather simple that even you can understand it.
Of course the bonus in all this is removing one of the most brutal dictators of all time responsible for the deaths of around 1 million people. You anti-war people love to bring up the small amount of civilian causalities in these wars, which by the way the US and coalition forces have taken extreme precautions to minimize these casualties to the point of putting their own forces in danger just to avoid killing an innocent. Yet you seem to conveniently overlook the mass graves and torture chambers that Saddam inflicted on his own people. If you were so concerned for the loss of innocent life you would have applauded the invasion of Iraq because now the most brutal of all dictators that was alive on the planet has been removed from power.
Your assumption that all situations should be dealt with in the same way is totally illogical. You would have a point if we lived in a world that was unchanging and if every situation was completely the same including all set of circumstances surrounding that situation. But we live in an ever-changing world in which policies and doctrine must change to fit the particular situation.
Different situations have a different set of circumstances surrounding it and therefore must be dealt with differently. You cannot apply the same doctrine or policy to a different set of circumstances because it wouldn’t work. Your argument about how if you do one thing in Iraq you must do the same thing in North Korea is totally erroneous because your logic assumes an unchanging world in which all circumstances are the same. Therefore your argument is made null and void due to the fact the world is a dynamic place and every situation is different. It is a rather simplistic and crude attempt at making your point that doesn’t work at all due to your unrealistic and false assumptions. Sorry, keep trying though.
X
This is the justification for war, then? You only need to say this - not babble on like an old woman.Quote:
According to UN inspectors and ALL UN resolutions passed since the end of the conflict in 1991 stated that the country of Iraq was not in compliance with that agreement (read the resolutions and transcripts of UN inspectors). Therefore non-compliance = resumption of hostilities
Can you tell me then, that this is your justification for war? Forgot the short stories; there are no prizes for fiction, here.
What WMD in iraq? WMDs... anyone?
I have as well as the governments involved have stated what they think the justifications for war were before this conflict even began. You however don’t care to believe nor do you care to feel as if the plight of the Iraqi people was significant to warrant an invasion therefore there is really no point in restating what I have already posted.
As far as my rather lengthy posts go they are simply to counter your flawed and unrealistic logic you have presented in your case. You have failed time and time again to answer my questions and counter-points but instead have built on your flawed case specious conclusions that I have poked so many holes in as to render it so much swiss cheese.
I suggest you should maybe listen to a little less of the BBC and attempt to garner a different point of view that is not so obviously slanted and tainted with an anti-war agenda. I hope this post is sufficiently succinct and to the point as to not confuse you. I wouldn’t want to confuse you more than you already seem to be.
X
I think that you will find that you cannot (and perhaps will not) present your case clearly. Forgot the counter-points, forget the argument. If you wish to make a case - present it clearly without the 'stop listening to the BBC' 'You're this, and you're that'Quote:
As far as my rather lengthy posts go they are simply to counter your flawed and unrealistic logic you have presented in your case. You have failed time and time again to answer my questions and counter-points but instead have built on your flawed case specious conclusions that I have poked so many holes in as to render it so much swiss cheese.
Please.
I'm interested in what you have to say - but you seem unable to say it.