Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

America has a right to force their views apon iraq?

  1. Dec 21, 2004 #1
    who here actually believes america has a right to force their views apon iraq?...yes they need their systems cleaned out but who says america should be the one to do it? well...america did as far as i can see...america showed the world that their were problems in iraq and when the world said what can we do about this america said well do something...and since no one has the resources to stand up ageanst america no one does....this is my view..in short..please let me know of your views.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Dec 22, 2004 #2
    "Despair is a lie we tell ourselves". Courage people, think about what we can do and start doing it, in a persistent way. Stopping every once in a while to review the result and modify accordingly. I shall not despair.
     
  4. Dec 22, 2004 #3
    I will offer you two bits of advice, and I'm trying to be polite here:

    1> Try the search feature out.As you can imagine, this topic has been beaten to death. Have a new view point? feel free to share it.

    2>Try using some proper grammar and puncuation. You don't have to be perfect, but atleast try! Half ellipsis, no paragraphs, and no capitalization is making your post a pain in the ass to read.
     
  5. Dec 22, 2004 #4
    Greetings Phatmonky, I think

    1) King has very ably intimated to us a new (emotive) view point, namely the new level of despair and hopelessness he had had as of his writing, and

    2) by using precisely the punctuation marks you mentioned, he is able to put across the decoherence, occassioned no doubt by choked feelings, quite effectively.

    :biggrin: I try to learn from you :biggrin:
     
  6. Dec 22, 2004 #5
    I am sorry about the grammer...english is my second language and i struggle with grammer alot. again sorry.
     
  7. Dec 22, 2004 #6
    Just ignore phatmonky, he doesn't get out much (out of this forum that is) :tongue2:

    He's right, however, that this topic has been covered pretty thoroughly, but here's my thoughts on it one more time:

    Iraq was in bad shape other than just politically. They had been under UN sanctions for ten years that had placed them in a deep economic depression. They still had not fully recovered from the first Gulf war and they were struggling under a tyrantic dictator, who blamed the USA for all of his country's problems. Iraq under Hussein sponsored and applauded terrorist efforts against the USA, refused to submit to UN inspections in a timely manner (as dictated by the conditions of the ending of the first Gulf war). Diplomacy had failed, hatred directed at the USA was growing.

    I believe that freeing Iraq of that dictator was necessary.
     
  8. Dec 22, 2004 #7
    I laughed :smile:

    My point is that I would LOVE to engage in more Iraq conversation, particularly if it allows me to post something that hasn't been posted a million times. Simply trying to cut off the grammar problem early on. I have an opposing view point to the original poster, which could be good for some debate, but don't want to spend X pages trying to decipher his intended message.
     
  9. Dec 22, 2004 #8

    Understandable. You're welcome to come and post as much as you want. No apologies needed, just trying to give you a heads up.
     
  10. Dec 22, 2004 #9
    Basically right or wrong is dependent on where you sit, America attacked and destroyed the Hussein's kingdom because he might have gotten nukes and biochemical missles and he might aid terrorists and that's enough of a threat for the leaders and Intelligence officials of the U.S. to go against the U.N. and commit a lesser wrong to solve a greater possible wrong. Is this right or wrong? I don't know I don't have all the information, there is probably very little in this world that is purely right or wrong, but I do believe that if Americans had all the honest facts(not the disinformation and personal opinions) that they would have made a better decision than any one person could make or small group of elected could as to going to war, this might seem naive but if they didn't make the decision they wouldn't feel as obligated to carry it through or to reap or pay for the consequences. There are so many lies in politics it's difficult to believe anything they or the press say anymore, everyone's got a slant on something, for the greater good of course.
     
  11. Dec 22, 2004 #10
    Kingofthedamned, here's some Fodder for this fire:
    I'm just going to go ahead and run the gamut here...In a Q&A format.


    Sanctions were working, we should have given them more time. Why didn't we?

    There were two de facto solutions to Iraq. Leave Saddam in power with sanctions until he cooperated fully or remove him.
    Those that wish to leave sanctions care little about the pragmatic effects on human life, or they are ignorant of them.
    I present sanction results on the Iraqi populous:



    (Iraqis deaths from 1991-2003)-(Iraqi deaths from 2003-present)=X

    If X => 0 THEN
    WAR = RIGHT
    SANCTIONS = WRONG
    GOTO END
    ELSE
    IF X < 0 THEN
    WAR = WRONG
    SANCTIONS = RIGHT
    END IF
    END

    We could further extrapolate potential deaths from leaving Saddam in power and it would lend even more support to invasion.
    It seems everyone,except the complete nutters, think that Saddam was a bad man who needed to be taken care of. The argument often comes over whether the war came too soon. Not even including Saddam's actions before sanctions, I feel there is ample evidence supporting a war. This is due to the result it will have for Americans, Iraqis, and the world.

    I can bring the entire situation down to a moral issue of "Is it morally right to take lives if it saves many more?"
    This is the crux of the argument, despite the many attempts to rationalize peoples' emotions with 'facts' that are innaccurate.



    Wasn't the war illegal???

    David Ackerman, American Law Division, would be slow to say the war is illegal.
    http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cach...ternational+law+legal+-illegal&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

    As it stands, the UN has no defining guidelines on preemption. No ruling body has found the war to be illegal, and none will. International law needs to be addressed before making such bold claims that so many ignorant have made. The reality is that the war is legal until there is a law against it. Preemption falls in the UN's pathetic description of self defense. The USA needs to assist in leading the charge to define self defense clearly.

    That's nice phatmonky, but why do YOU support the war???

    Keep in mind that even David Kaye says that there was evidence of WMD programs in Iraq, but they had been slowed dramatically by sanctions. The intent was still there.
    WMD or not, the questions have to be -

    How long would it take before a system of containment, funded primarily by the US, take to break Saddam, or future leaders', resolve to develop WMD?

    On a longer timeline would containment have worked at all, considering programs were still being developed and only time was against them?

    Is containment (over a democratic Iraq)better or worse for the Iraqi people?

    Is containment (over a democratic Iraq) better or worse for the United States?

    Is containment (over a democratic Iraq) better or worse for the rest of the world?

    Is the refusal to go to war worth the possibility that WMD are being developed, or already are developed?



    After pondering this all I come to the conclusion that the answer to "should we have gone to war" is an unequivocal 'yes'. There have been no other alternatives that end with:

    -a liberation of an oppressed people
    -a new trading partner
    -a new security partner
    -the ability to hold a nation, not just one man, accountable for it's actions
    -the knowledge that Iraq is fully in compliance with the original ceasfire guidlines
    -a catalyst for democracy in the region

    The only other real alternative put forth thus far is containment and inspections.
    After 13 years this accompolished none of the above, not even the original goal of simply knowing that Iraq is, in fact, in compliance with the original ceasefire agreement.


    But muslims will hate us if we go into Iraq!!!
    Someone explain how the Iraqis would be less likely to turn to fundamentalist islam if we had continued to starve them of food and medical supplies
    How would our bases, to contain Saddam, in Saudi Arabia become less antagonizing if we had left Saddam in power??

    Seems the only thing that can stop Fundamentalism is money and sovereignty. It also seems neither of those would be possible for the common Iraqi if Saddam was in power.



    Oh you neo-con nut you!! I bet you want to have man love with Bush because you support the Iraq war!

    Actually, here's a list I made one time about the things that should have been done differently, right off the bat:




    That should be enough to answer your question regarding my opinion, and get the party rolling :smile:
     
  12. Dec 22, 2004 #11

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Unfortunately, the US is has to do it because we're the only ones who will. And because we can, we should.

    The UN has shown its impotence on countless situations where force was required: Rwanda and Yugoslavia are two good recent examples. "Never again" has been replaced by "if I don't look at it, it didn't happen."
     
  13. Dec 22, 2004 #12
    I have another code:

    Sd= iraqis killed by saddam regime
    Sa= iraqis killed becouse of sanctions
    Wa=killed by the war

    If Sd > Sa + Wa then
    If Sa => Wa THEN
    WAR = RIGHT
    ELSE
    sanctions=right
    end if
    elseif Sd < Sa then
    Sanctions=Wrong
    elseif Sd < Wa then
    WAR=Wrong
    elseif (Sd * 10) < Sa then
    Sanctions= Genocidal
    Elseif (Sd * 10) < Wa then
    War = Genocidal
    else if (sd * 10) < Wa + Sa then
    USAGOV=Genocidal
    END IF
     
  14. Dec 22, 2004 #13

    Gokul43201

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Two objections :

    (1) The value of X depends on when the 'present' is. So the code is not time independent. To compare number of deaths in a 12 year period with those in a 2 year period is meaningless. So, really, this code is useless until about 2015; unless you change the definition of X to mean "difference in number of deaths per year". That would render the code usable now...but "ouch!"

    (2) The code is attempting to provide justification, on the basis of a single factor - an oversimplification of the problem, and a poor one at that. Going by just this one factor, the US could colonize all of the third world and improve conditions everywhere (while suffering, itself). While this would be a great, and altruistic act, it still does not justify such an action by any reasonable standards.
     
  15. Dec 22, 2004 #14

    Gokul43201

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    It's a pity there's only one data point for 'before the sanctions'. Now there's no statistical basis upon which to evaluate a difference between before and after. Still, I believe there was a difference.

    But is it fair to say that this difference was entirely due to the sanctions alone ? Could there not be other reasons ? Devastation to the economy from having to wage a war against the rest of the world; damage to infrastructure and the attendant cost of recovery; possible effects of DU...in fact I could produce that same list and conclude that it is proof of the effects of DU. That would be shoddy reasoning woudn't it.

    I'm not denying that the sanctions were killing people in Iraq, but the proof provided is incomplete, at best, and smells more like negligent insincerity..
     
    Last edited: Dec 22, 2004
  16. Dec 22, 2004 #15

    Gokul43201

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Here's what i think :

    1 - a fair, and valid reason, but it was not the motivation (also add Myanmar, Zimbabwe, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan and many others to this list. Afghanistan ? Yes, Afghanistan was not invaded because it's people were oppressed, but luckily for its people, it's leaders were stupid.)

    2 - not a justification for war, but an added bonus

    3 - nearly the same as 2, but this is a better reason because it affects global security

    4 - good reason, but the means of executing this (specifically, whether it takes a war to hold a nation accountable) are not implicit

    5 - A violation of the ceasefire requirements should alone justify the war, strictly from a legal point of view. But try selling that to the people.

    6 - this is fairly speculative. It may catalyze other reactions as well.


    Here's what I take objection to :

    1) misleading the people (mushroom clouds, al qaeda links, aluminum tubes, no disclosure of expense or time-frame)

    2) the "you better make the case for the war 'cause we've made up our minds" attitude. The war was primarily a PNAC agenda motivated move, and the administration decided to take advantage of 9/11 to push this agenda. That's politics, but it's also shameful.

    3) the pathetic excuse of an attempt at garnering international legitimacy and support. Without Powell, even this much would not have happened. Could not a much larger allied force have made the loss of collateral smaller, and the resolve of the opposition, weaker ? But maybe it would involve giving away too large a chunk of the kickbacks ?

    4) The miserably incompetent handling of the whole operation. Well, you can't expect much when the operation is based and executed along a single ideology. That Rumsfeld is having a second chance at bat, and being commended on his performance, is a travesty.

    5) the timing. It would make sense to take care of the situation in Afghnistan first. There were a lot of US troops in Afghanistan that had to be diverted to Iraq. (And there were NATO troops as well.) But then, might people have forgotten 9/11 if you waited too long ? After all, when popular support for the war was highest, over 40% of the supporters polled believed that Saddam was responsible for 9/11. What other reasons justify (more strongly,) rushing into war (with insufficient troops, inadequate planning, and virtually no international support)?
     
    Last edited: Dec 22, 2004
  17. Dec 22, 2004 #16
    Does it matter really why they were dying? The world was unable to help them under Hussein.
     
  18. Dec 22, 2004 #17

    Gokul43201

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I agree with this, though it's not self-evident that the situation could be reversed by a change of regime.

    I'm only objecting to Phatmonky's (and UNICEF's) use of this data as categorical proof of the effects of the sanctions.
     
  19. Dec 22, 2004 #18

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Why not? If the conditions that led to those deaths were a direct result of Saddam's regime and the international reaction to Saddam's regime, it should be self evident that a regime change removes those conditions and reduces the deaths. Heck, the new regime doesn't even have to be better - it will get a long, long honeymoon in which the international community will at worst, cut it some slack, and at best dump enormous quantities of aid on it.
     
  20. Dec 22, 2004 #19

    Gokul43201

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    A change in regime does not automatically eraze the effect of the Gulf war on the economy or infrastructure. It does not remove any possibly hazardous materials in the ground, water or air.
     
  21. Dec 22, 2004 #20
    I still don't get it... america removed saddam becouse he killed many many disidents of his Totalitarian goverment... But now american provisional goverment is killing dissidents at a higher rate that saddam did....

    my view of this war:

    1-a Transfer from the taxpayer money to the military industrial complex( Boing, Northman group, etc.)
    2-a Transfer from the taxpayer money to the corporations that will rebuild irak
    3-A Gateway to do the same in the midle east
    4-Explotation of the oil fields by american oil corporations.
    5-Set the precedent for the so called "Preemptive atacks" wich will alow us gov to invade any country they want under any pretext, true or false...
    6-Reactivation of America Economy.
    7-New markets for America Corporations
     
    Last edited: Dec 22, 2004
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: America has a right to force their views apon iraq?
  1. Who has the rights here? (Replies: 20)

Loading...