No WMDs in Iraq

Yeah ah I think OrdinaryGuy is just trying to get the point across that Saddam was as brutal as Hitler not who was a better murder or conquerer and I don't really think it matters.

You don't judge a mans sadistic nature by how many people they murder, its judged on your actions against humanity.

It don't matter if he murdered 10 inocent people, a 1,000 or 5,044,000 for example. He was a brutal and sadistic dictator and a threat to humanity, and that threat was put in his place and justice will be served.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Xcoder
There is something called autonomy, thats the base of the western thought

And the US has done nasty crimes too, they sold the chemical weapons to Saddam and they trained Bin Laden.

---

Well lets get a few facts straight.
1st off we gave weapons to IRAQ to fight IRAN for a good cause.

2nd we have strong policies against bio weapons and thats why we don't have them ourselves. *** would we give them to IRAQ?

3nd we didn't train Bin Laden... We trained and helped Afganistan fight the Russians.

What it sounds like your saying is that we gave weapons to IRAQ so they could kill the kurds and attack isreal and Kuwait and we also trained Bil Laden so he could then start his own training camps and train people to fly planes into buildings and kill thousands of americans. Are you serious?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Shaggy Hiker
OrdinaryGuy, did you get your question answered, and do you care who answers it? If you can answer no to both of those, I'd like to answer it.

Saddam was nowhere near as bad as Hitler.

Whenever we try to demonize some dictator, be it Saddam, or Bush, we liken them to Hitler. Interesting isn't it? Our measuring stick is Hitler. The measure will never be Saddam, and for very good reasons. Hitler's acts were unusual in their ruthlessness, and he was unusual in his reach. He said "kill these groups", and they were killed by the millions. He said "conquer these countries", and many countries were conquered.

In contrast, Saddam attacked Iran and got his ass kicked. He attacked Kuwait (ooh, tough guy), and got his ass kicked. He tried to build a reactor, and Israel bombed it out of existence. He killed thousands, but probably not millions, and it was largely in a clumsy "they are in my way" fashion, rather than a pre-meditated persecution.

In short, Saddam was bad, but comparing him to Hitler is an exercise in pure hyperbole.

---

So you mean you'd prefer to be burried alive rather than gassed?
I was reading how Saddam's son Uday use to torture atheletes if they didn't perform well in international events.

My point is that his regime committed acts that were no less brutal that hitler's. I personally feel sick when I read about his crimes against his people.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by OberCanober
Well lets get a few facts straight.
1st off we gave weapons to IRAQ to fight IRAN for a good cause.

2nd we have strong policies against bio weapons and thats why we don't have them ourselves. *** would we give them to IRAQ?

3nd we didn't train Bin Laden... We trained and helped Afganistan fight the Russians.

What it sounds like your saying is that we gave weapons to IRAQ so they could kill the kurds and attack isreal and Kuwait and we also trained Bil Laden so he could then start his own training camps and train people to fly planes into buildings and kill thousands of americans. Are you serious?

---

are you mad? *** are you talking about the 'GOOD CAUSE', Im now worried of the kind of answers Im getting here...

Regarding the second point, in the 80's the US was in fact supporting Saddam's regime. US provided the chemical weapons to fight Iran, which Saddam used against, not to forget he also used them against the shiites.

'US trained and helped Afghanistan', of course! this is just another thing that blows in US face, now this training is used against US, I know Bin Laden is saudi, but he was part of the resistance against the Russians.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Xcoder
Regarding the second point, in the 80's the US was in fact supporting Saddam's regime. US provided the chemical weapons to fight Iran, which Saddam used against, not to forget he also used them against the shiites.

---

Bullsheit! You need to do some research. The US did not give Saddam Chemical weapons to fight anyone dumarse. Know what you are talking about before you start spewing garbage. Chemical weapons are very easy to make. Saddam didn't need any help from the US. The only thing he needed was a delivery system for his chemicals. If you think SCUD rockets are made in the USA you are an idiot. (BTW he used Mustard Gas on the Kurds and Shiites) Mustard Gas has been around for almost 100 years and is very simple for any Chemist worth his weight to make.

Quote:

---

'US trained and helped Afghanistan', of course! this is just another thing that blows in US face, now this training is used against US, I know Bin Laden is saudi, but he was part of the resistance against the Russians. [/B]

---

Again, know *** you are talking about before you open you mouth. Bin Laden was still in Saudi Arabia and didn't have the balls to tangle with the Soviets when they were invading Afghanastan. The only thing Bin Laden did was send some of his daddys money to Afghanastan. Wow, mabe the next time Russia decides to invade someone, the US shouldn't teach them how to defend themselvs. Training the freedom fighters in Afghanastan didn't cause us any greif. They can be trained all they want and they can tell that to the next cruise missle that falls on their well trained arses. Besides, The remenants of the US trained Afghan freedom fighters are not the problem. AlQaeda is.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Xcoder
are you mad? *** are you talking about the 'GOOD CAUSE', Im now worried of the kind of answers Im getting here...

Regarding the second point, in the 80's the US was in fact supporting Saddam's regime. US provided the chemical weapons to fight Iran, which Saddam used against, not to forget he also used them against the shiites.

'US trained and helped Afghanistan', of course! this is just another thing that blows in US face, now this training is used against US, I know Bin Laden is saudi, but he was part of the resistance against the Russians.

---

Well for your information the Geneva Protocal of 1925 condemned the use of Chemical Weapons. The United States ratified this protocol in 1974. The United States didn't become involved in the IRAN-IRAW war until 1987. The IRAQ-IRAN war started off as a dispute over a waterway initiated by a first strike from IRAQ. After the first strike IRAN retaliated and said they will never stop until IRAQ is toppled. Durring the war both IRAQ and IRAN were killing each other citizens in attacks thats why we got involved.

As for the Afghannistan war we supported the mujahidin who lead the resistance against Russia. Al Qaeda even at that time was a known terrorist organization. Bin Laden was in Pakistan durring the AfganWar helping finance and train soldiers to fight in the war for the mujahidin. So yes he was part of the resistance but he didn't become opposed to the US until the Persian Gulf War in 1990.

So before you speak on issues you know nothing about, you might want to get your facts straight.

We assisted Iraq to some extent, and turned a blind eye on their use of chemical weapons. We are currently ignoring other ruthless dictators that we find helpful.

I read about some of the stuff Saddam's sons did. I have also read extensively about the Russo-German war. It always amazes me that people like that exist, but they do. In fact, they are out there now, all over the world. The real difference with Iraq is neither the scope, nor the severity of the atrocities committed by Saddam. The difference is that we are hearing about them. Of course people are appalled, who wouldn't be....ok, maybe Saddam wouldn't be, but among decent folks. We are told about his atrocities because Bush wanted his war. We are not told about others, like Uzbekistan, because Bush currently needs them. He can count on us to be outraged at outrageous acts, but I would argue that he is cynically manipulating that to back his desired actions.

On the other hand, I doubt this country can long afford even the wars we have, let alone go after the dictators we currently ignore. Afghanistan is returning to the state it was in before the war. The training camps are coming back, the Taliban is becoming stronger, and our influence is waning. We shouldn't have gotten into Iraq until we had won in Afghanistan.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Shaggy Hiker
Afghanistan is returning to the state it was in before the war. The training camps are coming back, the Taliban is becoming stronger, and our influence is waning. We shouldn't have gotten into Iraq until we had won in Afghanistan.

---

And where did you obtain this information?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by yrwyddfa
How many people did Saddam kill in those 12 years? Yet the US, and UK (and indeed most of the other states of the world) stood back a wrote more bits of paper. It's a bit rich to rely on those bits of paper, now; and definately a lot ironic. Even to state that 'We went in to make the world a safer place, so we're right' Well you didn't make it safer for the thousands of Iraqis who died in those 12 years did you? I have say that you speak very clearly for someone sitting down . . .

---

The reason we take action now is because we finally have a president with balls to take down a tyrant instead of a president who was just getting laid by his overwhieght secratary :D

Quote:

---

We assisted Iraq to some extent, and turned a blind eye on their use of chemical weapons. We are currently ignoring other ruthless dictators that we find helpful.

---

I didn’t know the US was the only country in the world. This should read the UN turned a blind eye much the same way they did in Rwanda as they sat on their hands and watched 500,000 people die.

Quote:

---

I read about some of the stuff Saddam's sons did. I have also read extensively about the Russo-German war. It always amazes me that people like that exist, but they do. In fact, they are out there now, all over the world. The real difference with Iraq is neither the scope, nor the severity of the atrocities committed by Saddam. The difference is that we are hearing about them. Of course people are appalled, who wouldn't be....ok, maybe Saddam wouldn't be, but among decent folks. We are told about his atrocities because Bush wanted his war. We are not told about others, like Uzbekistan, because Bush currently needs them. He can count on us to be outraged at outrageous acts, but I would argue that he is cynically manipulating that to back his desired actions.

---

You should read more about history maybe you will learn something from it, there is evil in the world and you can be like a Winston Churchill and want to confront it or like Neville Chamberlain and use appeasement and containment and hope it all goes away.

And what were Bush’s desired actions? You seem to know a great deal of the Presidents motivation in going to war. Why not share what you think. I sure hope you have something better than wanting to control the oil or finish what his father started.

Quote:

---

On the other hand, I doubt this country can long afford even the wars we have, let alone go after the dictators we currently ignore. Afghanistan is returning to the state it was in before the war. The training camps are coming back, the Taliban is becoming stronger, and our influence is waning. We shouldn't have gotten into Iraq until we had won in Afghanistan.

---

I don’t know how many other dictators out there in the world currently have 17+ UN Resolutions passed against them and were in violation of a cease-fire maybe you can provide a list? I don’t know where you are getting your information about Afghanistan either. Also I cannot believe someone can be so naive as to think change in Afghanistan, a country that was essentially in ruins, could be changed in a short amount of time without any problems.

X

Quote:

---

I don’t know how many other dictators out there in the world currently have 17+ UN Resolutions passed against them

---

Sharron for a start.

Discombobulating again Xanith? What a surprise :(

Quote:

---

Originally posted by yrwyddfa
Sharron for a start.

Discombobulating again Xanith? What a surprise :(

---

And here I thought Israel was a democracy. I didn’t realize it had changed to a dictatorship. And what cease-fire are they in violation of? The whole quote was " I don’t know how many other dictators out there in the world currently have 17+ UN Resolutions passed against them and were in violation of a cease-fire "

Maybe saying it 2 times will allow you to fully understand my question. Sounds as if you are the one who is "discombobulated".

X

So let's get this right then:

In order to go to war you must

(i) have a significant number of UN resolutions against you
(ii) you must be arbitrarily determined to be a dictator as ascertained by Xanith of VBForums.com; that being determined being a function of your political status, not your actions on the international stage

?

So let's get this right then:

In order to go to war you must

(i) have a significant number of UN resolutions against you
(ii) you must be arbitrarily determined to be a dictator as ascertained by Xanith of VBForums.com; that being determined being a function of your political status, not your actions on the international stage

?

( I thought I'd say it twice so you don't get too confused with what we're actually talking about here)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by yrwyddfa
So let's get this right then:

In order to go to war you must

(i) have a significant number of UN resolutions against you
(ii) you must be arbitrarily determined to be a dictator as ascertained by Xanith of VBForums.com; that being determined being a function of your political status, not your actions on the international stage

?

( I thought I'd say it twice so you don't get too confused with what we're actually talking about here)

---

If you read the resolutions against Iraq I think it will explain everything. All of them continue to state that Iraq has been in violation of a cease-fire for the 1991 Gulf War. This includes the last resolution passed against Iraq 1441. That resolution also mentions “serious consequences” will take place if Iraq still continues to not fully comply with the 1991 Gulf War cease-fire.

My assertions have nothing to do with it nor do the number of UN resolutions, it is what is contained within those resolutions that is relevant. I would think backing what is stated in those resolutions would be the logical thing to do or people might begin to think the UN and their resolutions mean nothing. So what do you think?

If you can point out Resolutions passed against Israel that state they are in violation of a cease-fire and that serious consequences will occur if they don’t comply then yes I would be in favor of using force be it Israel or any other country.

X

Quote:

---

And where did you obtain this information?

---

Man, I'm not around enough to participate in this. I have never been to Afghanistan, and I don't expect to get there (long bloody walk, and a bit wet on the way). My news sources are whatever I read in the magazines (Time, mostly, for news), and whatever I hear on NPR.

The first and last sentences were opinion. The middle (and only substantive) sentence comes from those sources. I deliberately avoided mentioning al whatever, for the simple reason that I can't spell the foolish thing. There isn't a great deal of reporting on Afghanistan, but the reports are consistent. The Taliban is resurgent in the south, with aid organizations pulling back. I have heard reports that al whatever is rebuilding training camps (smaller scale, and perhaps mobile) along the Pakistan border. How credible is this? Reasonably, since it is internally consistent.

I feel that we shouldn't allow this to happen. Iraq should have waited. As bad as Saddam was, we could deal with him diplomatically. At worst, we could have dealt with him the same way we have dealt with Castro. However, that may not be true in Afghanistan. If we lose the hearts and minds of that country, we will lose the hearts and minds of Pakistan as well. Some might say that we already have, but I feel the game is still afoot there. Losing Pakistan to radical forces would be far more severe a threat (they have existing nukes) than Saddam ever would have been (he basically attacked two neighbors and lost). Our interests lie more in a healthy and stable Afghanistan than in a friendly Iraq.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Shaggy Hiker
I feel that we shouldn't allow this to happen. Iraq should have waited. As bad as Saddam was, we could deal with him diplomatically.

---

Just two words... Bad Intelligence. Heheheee

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/edi...04/021104.html

Actually, no intelligence at all, unfortunately.

I've always been amused when people talk about faulty intelligence used by Bush. Isn't that what people have been saying about him all along? I wonder that they can all say it with a straight face.

Saddam was a dictator. He would not touch Democra*y with a barge pole. He killed his own people. He lied. He is pure EVIL.

Agreed. Except the evil part. Lucifer is a little more intelligent, being the fallen one and all that.

The point is the world is not one big famiy. Not yet. There is no such thing as a Political "Church of the Believers", at least not yet. Invasion/Violence/War is acceptable only when directly threatened with physical violence, against either oneself or one's loved ones. That is what any democratic national constitution, bill of rights, etc., says.

The U S of A is a Democracy, or so it claims, and I have no reason to doubt her on that. Iraq/Saddam did not pose any direct violent threat to either her or any of her loved ones. Not in 2003. And therefore invading Iraq and/or deposing Saddam is unacceptable.

And to all of you who argue the Churchill/Chamberlain angle, Sir Winston took upon himself to protect his motherland and her friends and allies, only and only when Hitler decided to go after "peace". That is "a piece of Poland, a piece of Holland, a piece of France", not during the years before when Hitler was campaigning or when when he was in power and building Gas Chambers and making the Jews pariah in their own homes. Only when a direct danger was seen to the Kingdom and its estates as well as its allies, was there a motivated and spirited attack on Hitler and Germany and the other Axis powers. So much the better.

Bring every single piece of earth under one Flag and then we'll be one against the Ferengi. Until then, you and I are individuals and separate legal and political entities with each having no claim over the "Right" and the "Good" any more than the other.

Regards

KayJay

Actually, we're a republic.

Ferengi? Hehehe... I'm a non-fanatical fan as well. Hey, maybe we can all get together and start a new religion?

There is always a problem in the soundness of argument when one pulls supporting ideas from Star Trek, Lucifer, Demoracy, "Bill of Rights", Iraq-Saddam, WWII, Jews' pariah, the philosophical disparity of goodness in reality within the frame of an A4 page.

What is the premise of the whole argument. Invasion of Irag is bad? President Bush is bad? His deputies and support staff are Morons? America is bad and walks in the borderline of her own Evilness? May be i'm insane and unable to comprehend issues?

This is a highly complex issues where facts are often clouded with opinions. It is too easy to wrap the Iraq issue into a tight ball.

The point i am making is:
--------------------------------
If we are arguing the validity of the invasion of Iraq while entitling ourselves to believe in our opinions, how do we know we are making any sound reasoning?

It goes something like this - because i used a reference to "Ferengi" in my argument, i am much able (and logical) in analyzing the issues surrounding Iraq and America's problem juxtaposition to folks in whitehouse, the intelligence communities around the world and professional analysists in various international think tanks.

This is my contention:
----------------------------
In the absence of concrete facts, it is too easy assume and steadfast believe in our own ideas. It is like because i can't see what is in that dark alley, there must be something there.

My positions are these:
------------------------------
- I disagree with President Bush's policy because unilateralism is dangerous, the formulation of their policies is potentially flawed, and Bush Doctrine - Preemptive Measure is potentially more dangerous than Saddam or any WMD.
- Is the recent Iraq War detrimental for the Iraqis? The transitional Short-term: yes, Medium and Long-term have the potential to be more good than bad but i'll leave that for the historians in years to come.
- I believe Wars are fundamentally bad (life, materially, economically, philosophically) but i also believe that the Iraq problem is not about Pax Americana because the world has moved beyond periods of colonisation in our fabric of history.
- Do i hate and throw rocks at "America" for the Administration's action. NO because i believe there are FEW other places in this world that has governing systems that makes career politicians and leaders more accountable and has the most peaceful ways to remove them. How many books on governments have we studied in order to truly understand systems of government, the dynamism of domestic politics in formulating policies and diplomacies?

It is always too easy to read opinions from the pages of books and magazines and pawn them as our own if not as supporting elements. How certain are we in the correctness of our views and beliefs?

WHAT do i know of the world? I'm just a programmer in a programmer's forum. We don't have to be accountable in what we speak-of because we're not on the stage being scrutinized by intelligentias, erudites and smartasses.

The greatest danger to humanity is her ignorance and depth of arrogance. Sometimes, brilliant people wears a coat of intellectual arrogance in what looks like commoner's cloth in other fields of studies. Our brilliance in one area does not translate to others. Take AQ Khan and scientists who sold secrets to the Soviets in the Varona Project as examples of people who mistook technical brilliance for political wisdom. Sometimes, it just seems more reasonable to me to ask what i don't know than declaring what i know (even though they might be full of taradiddles)

God! Ferengi?! Just don't get me started on Star Trek. :bigyello:



"I don't know what I may seem to the world, but, as to myself, I seem to have been only like a boy playing on the sea shore, and diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me."

"Ferangi" is from Hindi, yes its an Indian word, which literally means "white colour" and/or "other colour" which means "foreigner".

My point is simple, and you have just skipped past it. Yes, your points are valid. no doubt. My point is equally valid. You, the US of A, are not us. Not yet. We, the rest of the world, are not you, Not yet. Therefore, even if we are a hemmeoraging Oedipal discomfort in the fundament, you have no right and/or duty to invade/kill/use violence, etc. as long as any of us do not pluck so much as a single hair off your head. Al Qaeda? Ok. Afghanistan/Taliban? Explicit support and statements to the detriment of the US of A. Ok. Iraq/Saddam Huessein in 2003? Absolutely not Ok.

Simple. I am not harming you. I do not say I will harm you. You stay out of my way.

And as far as "the Administration" vis-a-vis the "the Population" goes, it's a moot point. The US of A is a democracy and a republic. The people are responsible for choosing the "Administration" or its Leader. Therefore the people are accountable for their choice. You chose GWB, even if you did not vote for him. That's the ballot box for you. You live, out of choice, in such a society. Good for you.

But you cannot wash your hands off the "Administration's" actions. Its done in your name and you have sanctioned it. You are culpabable.

Regards

KayJay

Quote:

---

That resolution also mentions “serious consequences” will take place if Iraq still continues to not fully comply with the 1991 Gulf War cease-fire.

---

Indeed it does! But what does the phrase 'serious consequences' actually mean?

Well, as you're the expert, Xanith, on the UN resolutions :rolleyes: then you will know that the original wording was 'all necessary means'

This change (surprise, surprise) was demanded by France, and Russia specifically to avoid a conclusion of war. Furthermore, your own ambassador to the UN (John Negroponte) was against the change because it wasn't enought to sanction war.

How can you continue to misrepresent recent history?

http://www.channel4.com/news/2003/03.../16_legal.html

If you guys want a good place to debate politcs you should try this forum.

http://www.americanforum.net

Quote:

---

Originally posted by yrwyddfa
Indeed it does! But what does the phrase 'serious consequences' actually mean?

Well, as you're the expert, Xanith, on the UN resolutions :rolleyes: then you will know that the original wording was 'all necessary means'

This change (surprise, surprise) was demanded by France, and Russia specifically to avoid a conclusion of war. Furthermore, your own ambassador to the UN (John Negroponte) was against the change because it wasn't enought to sanction war.

How can you continue to misrepresent recent history?

http://www.channel4.com/news/2003/03.../16_legal.html

---

I never said I was an expert on UN Resolutions the only special thing I did was actually read them. It was agreed by all nations that Iraq was still in violation of the cease-fire signed in 1991. As you point out the only difference was in how to deal with Iraq’s non-compliance. France and Russia wanted to maintain Saddam’s regime due to extensive oil and defense contracts afforded to those two countries so its no surprise they didn’t want a war to remove him.

My argument is rather a simple one to understand and not based on whether my country is going to get cheap oil, lucrative defense contracts, money from skimming off the oil for food program, or payoffs in the form of oil stipends. Iraq was in violation of a cease-fire for 12 years, Iraq was given a final chance to comply with that cease-fire with Resolution 1441, Iraq decided not to fully comply with the cease-fire hence the resumption of hostilities.

France and Russia (and Germany) opposition to the war had nothing to do with wanting peace and stability in Iraq. It was all about money and how to oppose (create a counter to) the dominance of US power in the world. Many fell into line with this kind of thinking not because they actually cared about the Iraqi people or peace in the Middle East but because if the US wanted it, it must be bad so we must oppose it.

X

Quote:

---

If you read the resolutions against Iraq I think it will explain everything. All of them continue to state that Iraq has been in violation of a cease-fire for the 1991 Gulf War. This includes the last resolution passed against Iraq 1441. That resolution also mentions “serious consequences” will take place if Iraq still continues to not fully comply with the 1991 Gulf War cease-fire.

---

This, to me, strongly implies reasoning for war; especially taking into account the context of your other posts.

I have simply pointed out that the resolution was watered down specifically to avoid the path to war

Do you disagree with this?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by yrwyddfa
This, to me, strongly implies reasoning for war; especially taking into account the context of your other posts.

I have simply pointed out that the resolution was watered down specifically to avoid the path to war

Do you disagree with this?

---

I will agree that wording was deliberately changed to a vague “serious consequences” in Resolution 1441 rather than putting in something that specifically called for war. As I have mentioned in my last post this was because France and Russia did not want to remove Saddam due to the economic and political value.

However Resolution 1441 did affirm that Iraq was still in non-compliance with previous resolutions including the cease-fire agreement. If you read the cease-fire agreement you will find that the cease-fire hinged upon compliance with all conditions less resumption of hostilities would continue. Because Resolution 1441 still affirmed this non-compliance a case for resumption of hostilities could be made based on the cease-fire agreement.

I am sorry if you misunderstood. My point was not that Resolution 1441 called for war, but rather the reaffirmation of non-compliance with the cease-fire contained within Resolution 1441 made the case for war after 12 years of doing nothing.

X

Quote:

---

I am sorry if you misunderstood. My point was not that Resolution 1441 called for war, but rather the reaffirmation of non-compliance with the cease-fire contained within Resolution 1441 made the case for war after 12 years of doing nothing.

---

But the US, UK et al were all signatories to a resolution that was watered down specifically to avoid the consequence of war.

Even if this does not specifically prevent war, it is a fact that these nations agreed to a resolution that originally failed to ratify when war was guarenteed under it's original draft, and was only ratified if the signatories agreed that the consequenc of Iraqi non-compliance was not necessarily war; therein only after a full security council meeting.

I find it hard to stomach that some nations seek to underpin their aggressive foreign policies claiming that it was 'all agreed in the UN, anyway' when in fact it's all mistruth, misdirection, and complete unpalatable crap.

Quote:

---

But the US, UK et al were all signatories to a resolution that was watered down specifically to avoid the consequence of war.

Even if this does not specifically prevent war, it is a fact that these nations agreed to a resolution that originally failed to ratify when war was guarenteed under it's original draft, and was only ratified if the signatories agreed that the consequenc of Iraqi non-compliance was not necessarily war; therein only after a full security council meeting.

---

I don’t think you understand my point, if you read all successive resolutions after the cease-fire they ALL state (including the last one 1441) that Iraq was still in non-compliance with that case-fire. The cease-fire hinged on Iraq FULLY complying with what was contained within the agreement. The WORLD agreed that Iraq was still in non-compliance (cite all resolutions passed against Iraq after the cease-fire). The UN also failed to do anything in Rwanda and 500,000 people were slaughtered, does that mean that because the UN didn’t intervene it was the correct thing to do? The UN dragged its feet on Bosnia as well and it took NATO to do something about it. Was the UN right to let the slaughter there happen as well?

Quote:

---

I find it hard to stomach that some nations seek to underpin their aggressive foreign policies claiming that it was 'all agreed in the UN, anyway' when in fact it's all mistruth, misdirection, and complete unpalatable crap.

---

The only disagreement was how to deal with Iraqi non-compliance. One side wanted inspections in perpetuity with nothing to back it up while the other wanted to give Iraq a final chance to comply under the threat of force. It’s funny how Iraq with troops on their borders still did not fully comply with the original cease-fire, one has to wonder how Iraq would ever come into compliance with inspections without anything to back it up if they didn’t comply even under the threat of force.

I find it hard to stomach as you put it that other nations hinge their foreign policies by propping up mass murdering dictators all for the sake of cheap oil, defense contracts, and building up their own power base to counter another country.

My point is clear.

1441 specifically avoided a path to war which is what the signatories agreed to. 1441, as you say, did point out that non-compliance was an issue; but the summary is that 1441 did not litigate for war.

As 1441 summarised 12 years of non-comliance one would expect 1441 to be an overall statement of the stance of the signatories.

So what about the previous resolutions? In my opinion, and apparently the world legal opinion: in the context of issuing a declaration of war against Iraq: irrelevant - even your UN ambasador complained that 1441 closed the legal reason for war.

Which is also why we heard of so soooo many other flimsy excuses to go to war (WMD etc etc)

I don't know what your point is: but my point is clear. Arguing that non-compliance of a UN resolution gives the right to war is plainly wrong (and misguided)

Incidentally USA propped up Saddam just as much as France, Germany, and the UK did. Times change (as do allies) - and a whole host of other dictatorships with a massive blood cost associated (so no 'holier-than-thou' bull****, please)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Xanith
...............I find it hard to stomach as you put it that other nations hinge their foreign policies by propping up mass murdering dictators all for the sake of cheap oil, defense contracts, and building up their own power base to counter another country. [/B]

---

So did I and so do I!

Quote:

---

Originally posted by KayJay
So did I and so do I!

---

Good to see you speak out against the French and Russians then. Good for you.

X

Quote:

---

Originally posted by KayJay

But you cannot wash your hands off the "Administration's" actions. Its done in your name and you have sanctioned it. You are culpabable.

---

And we the people support our administration's decision to oust Saddam. I support most of Bush's policies.

You are blinded by your hatred towards the US. I ask you one simple question, do you believe Saddam was justified in burrying people alive, torturing them, etc. He had the most brutal regime of this century. I can't imagine you support this sick minded *******

Bart, to answer your question, absolutely not. Saddam was not justified in gassing and killing. At all.

I repeat, that is not the point. And you repeat, that is the point. O-bla-di-O-bla-da....

There are three options. "The Good Thing to do", "The Right Thing to do", "The Easy Thing to do". Preferrably, I'd like to see all three in the same thing. But should there be different actions for each of the above, I'd choose the "Right" first, and then the "Good" and finally the "Easy" way out.

Iraq - 2003. The Right thing to do was to continue with inspections and wait for Mr. Blix to come back with a firm answer/question, continue sanctions, promote political isolation to force internal change. Libya is a good recent example. So was South Africa. The Easy way out would have been to push the whole matter under the carpet, again, and play for time, again. The Good thing that could have been done was to ensure removal of Saddam Huessein and demolish any WMD that may be in existence.

You chose to do the Good thing. Congratulations. But, I do not accept the "Good" over the "Right/Correct". In this case the two are mutually exclusive.

Hence my continued hankering in stating that I beileve that the Invasion of Iraq in the Spring of 2003 is not acceptable, given clear evidence that Iraq did not pose an immediate and direct threat to either the "Western Civilization" or any other "Civilization" and/or "Uncivilized bunch of Home Eructus", outside the legal and constitutional ambit of the Iraqi Government, notwithstanding the fact that "law" and "constitution" in Iraq under Saddam was not the same as "law" and "constitution" as is generally known in the Occident.

Oh! and I do not hate the U. S. In fact I do not hate. Actually, I only hate "Hatred".

Quote:

---

You are blinded by your hatred towards the US. I ask you one simple question, do you believe Saddam was justified in burrying people alive, torturing them, etc. He had the most brutal regime of this century. I can't imagine you support this sick minded *******

---

The arrogance of this statement is unbelievable.

To believe, specifically, that we are talking about the US, is quite simply wrong. Many countries went to war against Iraq; indeed, many nations lost their men in such a war.

I reckon that you ought to remember that there are over 250 nations in the world, the US being only one, and consisting only of around 5% of the world's population (c 300m)

****.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by KayJay
Bart, to answer your question, absolutely not. Saddam was not justified in gassing and killing. At all.

I repeat, that is not the point. And you repeat, that is the point. O-bla-di-O-bla-da....

There are three options. "The Good Thing to do", "The Right Thing to do", "The Easy Thing to do". Preferrably, I'd like to see all three in the same thing. But should there be different actions for each of the above, I'd choose the "Right" first, and then the "Good" and finally the "Easy" way out.

Iraq - 2003. The Right thing to do was to continue with inspections and wait for Mr. Blix to come back with a firm answer/question, continue sanctions, promote political isolation to force internal change. Libya is a good recent example. So was South Africa. The Easy way out would have been to push the whole matter under the carpet, again, and play for time, again. The Good thing that could have been done was to ensure removal of Saddam Huessein and demolish any WMD that may be in existence.

You chose to do the Good thing. Congratulations. But, I do not accept the "Good" over the "Right/Correct". In this case the two are mutually exclusive.

Hence my continued hankering in stating that I beileve that the Invasion of Iraq in the Spring of 2003 is not acceptable, given clear evidence that Iraq did not pose an immediate and direct threat to either the "Western Civilization" or any other "Civilization" and/or "Uncivilized bunch of Home Eructus", outside the legal and constitutional ambit of the Iraqi Government, notwithstanding the fact that "law" and "constitution" in Iraq under Saddam was not the same as "law" and "constitution" as is generally known in the Occident.

---

The war in Iraq was fought on two basis:
1) WMD
2) Iraqis being murdered, tortured, the terrible living conditions (while they have the second largest oil reservers), etc

Firstly, I do not believe any intelligence was bended to suit the politicians. Whatever intelligence the government had, they believed that Iraq posed a threat and I believe in those conclusions to. There may not be direct evidence that WMD existed, but their is piles of evidence about possible WMD programs including a nuclear program. Saddam was in the pursuit of nuclear weapons and this every intelligence agency in the world agrees upon. They had missiles that violated UN regulations. They have scientists who admit they used to work in clandestine programs, etc.

Possible Nuclear weapons and the clear intent of Saddam to develop WMD is enough of a threat for me to urge our government to get rid of him. The United Nations was not avble to pass a bill because obviously Saddam would never attack France, Russia, China, etc. But given the fact that Saddam and the US are such terrible enemies, I wouldn't doubt that he would try doing anything he could whether its giving a radiological or chemical weapon to a terrorist or directly hurling a missile at us. I'm afraid of him and I'm glad he is gone. I don't care what the world or the United nations think when it comes to my security

And of course, the pathetic violation of human rights. Have you ever thought of the families of thousands of people who were slaughtered under his regime. And there is nothing you could do about it?

I've not seen a single reason why this war is not justified. But of course, the anti-US feeling these days will make people come up with the most absurd ideas like "stealing oil", etc.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by yrwyddfa

The arrogance of this statement is unbelievable.

To believe, specifically, that we are talking about the US, is quite simply wrong. Many countries went to war against Iraq; indeed, many nations lost their men in such a war.

I reckon that you ought to remember that there are over 250 nations in the world, the US being only one, and consisting only of around 5% of the world's population (c 300m)

****.

---

if I am arrogant I wonder what you should be classified in

Iraq posed a threat to the US, not the entire world. And thus we have the right to get rid of it. Read my post above

Quote:

---

Iraq posed a threat to the US, not the entire world. And thus we have the right to get rid of it. Read my post above

---

I don't know what your geography is like, but Iraq did not pose a direct military, or financial risk to the US. At all.

You cannot justify war on the basis that the guy you're after killed, and tortured lots of people (however horrific that fact actually is) because

(i) There are many more people doing exactly the same but are 'friends' of the coalition - so we don't invade them
(ii) Various modern nations sanction telling someone that they must die, keeping them in prison for obscene amounts of time, and then killing them through a rather painful process (potassium chloride used to stop the heart in a lethal injection scenario is a caustic acid injected directly into the veins; which in some cases is only preceded by a paralysing drug - so you get to feel all the pain) Arguing that human beings deserve this (because due-process has been served) would be synonymous to Saddam claiming it was within his right as leader to invoke whatever 'due process' his regime saw fit.
(iii) Every modern nation has done exactly what Saddam did; murder, torture and general ruling by fear. We do not invade each other.
(iv) Abusing peoples human rights is rife amongst nearly every nation in the world today.

Kettle Pot Black?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by OrdinaryGuy
..............
on the whole, the above are fair enough, but

I don't care what the world or the United nations think when it comes to my security

---

You are convinced of a clear and present danger from Saddam/Iraq in 2003. Since you already are so fixed in your conviction, the above quote takes care of us debating, once and for all.

Cheers and good luck and a happy safe life.

Regards

KayJay