- #121
kyleb
odd, i don't see him haveing trouble with that at all; however a lot of people lately do seem to have issues with such things.
News Why is the US/UK at war with Iraq?
- Thread starter Lifegazer
- Start date
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the justification for the war in Iraq, with participants expressing a range of views on the motivations and implications of military action. Key points include the belief that Saddam Hussein's brutal dictatorship warranted intervention, with some arguing that the U.S. had a moral imperative to act against tyranny. Critics highlight the lack of evidence for weapons of mass destruction and question the legitimacy of bypassing the United Nations, suggesting that the war is driven by imperialistic motives and oil interests. The conversation also touches on the potential for increased terrorism as a consequence of military action, with some asserting that removing Saddam could ultimately stabilize the region. The debate reflects deep divisions over the ethics of intervention, the effectiveness of diplomacy, and the consequences of military engagement in a complex geopolitical landscape.
- #122
ProMetal
I believe that's an end to this thread, then? Except maybe for some twisting and turning of words and some understanding of the difference between opinions and facts.
I'll eagerly await the response you've committed yourself to.
- #123
Lifegazer
LOL. I liked that. The best thing you've said all week.
- #124
Njorl
Science Advisor
- 284
- 22
Mr. Damgo,
WE CAN"T AFFORD A SARCASM GAP!
Njorl
- #125
Alias
For some reason most Arab nations have failed miserably in governing themselves with civility. Many say it is because the west supports the opressive and dictatorial governments that exist in these countries. Maybe so. But please, tell me why most of these countries have crappy governments to start with. Maybe these governments are a reflection of their respective cultures or religions?
The reason for war in Iraq is very simple. We believe that Saddam Hussein posesses WMDs. His actions over the last 12 years indicate that there is a high probability that he will never willingly disarm himself of these weapons as was prescribed by the 1991 cease fire he agreed to. Saddam repeatedly demonstrates his dishonesty, so we simply can not trust him to be responsible in the possession or destruction of these weapons. We live in a dangerous world where many people will go to extraordinary means to inflict damage on the west. Should the types of weapons Saddam posesses (small pox for example) fall into the wrong hands, the results could not only be catastophic for the west, but also for most of the world. And because we have the capability of disarming Saddam by force with minimal loss of life on our side, we have decided to do so.
Should the disarming of Saddam lead to a liberated Iraqi people with an opportunity to govern themselves with a modern democracy that might infect other Arab countries with similar aspirations, then hoorah! I don't really give a gosh darn!
Last edited by a moderator:
- #126
ProMetal
You believe Saddam posesses WMDs? Mr. Blix doesn't. If I am to take into account the responses regarding Mr. Blix in earlier posts, I understand that the weapon inspectors were not there for inspections - a statement that contradicts itself. The weapon inspectors were in Iraq for inspections, the reason why sites were 'inspected'. The fact that the US believes Iraq posesses WMDs does not ascertain that accusation. Under international pressure or not, the US agreed to 1441. And according to 1441, compliance and disarmement are issues that are to be dealt with and commented upon by the weapon inspectors, not by Powell in the UN.
Elimination of threats by military opposition, eh? I'll reiterate what I earlier stated. India and Pakistan are threats to each other - much bigger threats than Saddam Hussein is to the US. By your logic, both should eliminate each other as and when possible. And both would be justified in doing so. Ironic, isn't it, that the US and the UK called upon India and Pakistan to put an end to tensions after the commencement of the war on Iraq.
Are you, by any chance, implying that not being capable of keeping the loss of life to a minimum is the reason more than half of the world is opposed to this? I believe not, for suicide when a debate has but started is naive.
Or are you telling me that the US has taken up this job because it is capable of doing it? I'm capable of sinking a dagger into the chest of a man who can do little to defend himself. I filed a case in the court a few months earlier, that the man is a threat to me. The court has, at least as yet, not declared the man a threat. I, however, along with a few friends, kill him. The justification I give to the members of the society is that I considered the man a threat, and was capable of carrying out this, therefore I did it.
If I expect my act to be declared justified, I better get my head out of the trash can.
Last edited by a moderator:
- #127
Alias
1441 mandates that Iraq disarm or provide proof of same. A number of proscribed weapons were found by the inspectors including the upgraded Al Samud II missiles that Iraq actually admitted were a violation. This demonstated the Regime's inability to TELL THE TRUTH even after 12 years of urging by the international community. Seriously man, what part of untrustworthy do you not understand?
Their balance of power (both have nuclear weapons) will protect them unless their leaders become mentally unstable. Saddam is mentally unstable and there is no balance of power between the US and Iraq. Therefor we act preemptively.
I don't understand this. Would you please restate this?
Your analogy is inncorrect. You assume that the UN is a fair court respected in the world community as one that can enforce it's mandates. The UN has proven that it is a paper tiger with no more ability to enforce it's regulations than the debating society that it is.
I don't know what you mean here, but yes, I agree that it is better if your head is not in the trash can.
Last edited by a moderator:
- #128
Zero
Saddam would be much more popular if he were Jewish...http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,917834,00.html
Last edited by a moderator:
- #129
ProMetal
Out of the two options given to Iraq, the first is to 'disarm'. If Iraq chooses this option, it is in effect complying with the resolution. This option comes into play only in the case where Iraq posesses these weapons. Disarmement is impossible without prior armement. (duh). If war was to waged upon the discovery of weapons, what was the point of giving Iraq the option of disarming? The resolution should have, in that case, asked Iraq to provide proof that it does not posess any prohibited weapons, and in the case that it failed to do so or weapons were found, Iraq would be attacked. If the US intended to attack upon the discovery of weapons, I don't see a reason behind their agreeing to 1441.
Firstly, 'Saddam is mentally unstable' is a blanket statement, an unsubstantiated remark - a supposition, to put it in words more familiar. Liars and moustached men are not always mentally unstable.
Moreover, according to what you say, this tyrannical dictator who disrupts world peace and shakes off international law could exist in his utterly evil existence had he been able to match the military might of the USA?
And, by the way - a factual error. India is far more advanced than Pakistan militarily. It is in possession of more and better nukes, and militarily outclasses Pakistan. If the mere possession of nukes balances power, the US and Pakistan would be balanced in power. Would that mean that if Pakistan was a threat to the US, say on account of the religous parties that are now partially in power, it would be ignored and the security of the American people would not be guaranteed in the manner it is guaranteed now? I'm sure you President does not agree with you.
My interpretation to what you said, when you said, 'And because we have the capability of disarming Saddam by force with minimal loss of life on our side, we have decided to do so' was that you are implying that the US has taken this up because it is capable, and those who oppose it do it because they are incapable.
You've dealt with my response to this interpretation, so it does not really matter. This was just to clarify. Moving on,
Two possibilities we have here.
1- The UN commands respect and is to be obeyed. In that case, my analogy stands.
2- The UN does not command respect and can be overlooked and its resolutions need not be necessarily complied with. In that case, let's look at history. The 91 attacks on Iraq were in compliance with UN resolutions. (Several UN resolutions were passed, placing trade embargos and demanding Iraq to withdraw from Kuwait by 15 January, 1991 or to prepare for war). The ceasefire agreement you talk about was signed under the UN. It was under the UN that Iraq ever agreed to destroy its WMDs, if it had any. It was under the UN that Iraq agreed to cease its nuclear weapon programs.
If the UN is that flawed a party, and no one is under an obligation to abide by it, Iraq is no exception. It can walk over resolutions the same way the US can walk over 1441. According to you, Iraq does not need to follow agreements regarding destruction of its WMDs.
Back to square one. And that's square imperialism.
Accept it. If this war is justified, we're entering the colonial era again. A France and a Germany can find so many threats around the world. And act unilaterally to eliminate these threats.
Reminds me of another deceased friend of ours. Adolf, was it?
- #130
Alias
It is really much simpler than all of that, and I apologize for implying that it is not. Let me break it down for you.
The US is at war with terrorists.
Saddam and his regime are terrorists.
Simple enough?
The US is at war with terrorists.
Saddam and his regime are terrorists.
Simple enough?
- #131
damgo
^^^ If it were true. Saddam is a bastard dictator, but he is no friend to al Qaeda or the type of fundamentalist Islamic terrorism that threatens the US. Overthrowing Saddam's secular Ba'athist regime is, after all, a major goal of terrorist Islamist organizations.
- #132
Alias
He terrorizes his own people. He's a terrorist.
- #133
kyleb
i think you are a terrorist in your own way Alias.
- #134
Alias
Honestly, I don't quite know how to respond to an accusation like that. But I'll try to 'in kind'.
I think you're a big dummy??!?
I think you're a big dummy??!?
- #135
russ_watters
Mentor
- 23,739
- 11,189
Does this mean you didn't hear about the terrorist training camp camp they found in Northern Iraq?
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-03-31-iraqi-militants_x.htm
And there is more to it than that, damgo. Shooting your own civilians in the back for fleeing a war zone and forcing civilans to fight under threat of death is also terrorism. These are recent examples. I'm sure you know of the less recent ones.
- #136
Siv
Gold Member
- 89
- 5
You want to know how many such terrorists we have in India ?
The Chief Ministers of Gujarat, Bihar and Tamil Nadu today are such terrorists. They have robbed, killed, bribed and deceived en masse for power and money. Come attack India next.
But you won't . We don't have oil, you see
- S.
- #137
FZ+
- 1,594
- 3
Er... actually that particular group is part of the Islamic guerillas against Saddam's 'infidel' rule. Notice:
- #138
damgo
Northern Iraq. The Ansar al-Islam camp was in PUK territory, de facto Kurdistan; Iraq hasn't had control of that area since 1991. Honestly I'm not entirely sure why we didn't take it out earlier -- the Kurds were certainly happy to see them gone, and we've had Special Forces in the region for a long while.
I'm assuming Alias meant terrorists in the traditional blowing-up-planes-and-building way, since (s?)he said "the US is at war with terrorists." Given some of the members of the Coalition of the Willing, it's clear the US is not at war with all brutal dictatorships.
I'm assuming Alias meant terrorists in the traditional blowing-up-planes-and-building way, since (s?)he said "the US is at war with terrorists." Given some of the members of the Coalition of the Willing, it's clear the US is not at war with all brutal dictatorships.
- #139
damgo
Russ, Alias, anyone, do you guys truly believe Saddam is in bed with Islamist terrorists? He's not; this isn't just a liberal/anti-war thing; those familiar with the region -- pro and anti-war alike -- know well that they hate each other, and always. The fundamentalists and terrorist groups have been trying to overthrow Saddam and the Ba'athists for years.
It's a classic example of the Big Lie... if you look closely, Bush and his top advisors never come outright and directly make the link. They just constantly insinuate it, make speeches as if it were true, and point out and play up every story which contains both the words "terrorists" and "Iraq." Makes me incredibly angry... I mean there are plenty of valid reasons to support this war; it's demeaning and disgusting that Bush&Co is instead pushing an utter lie on us.
It's a classic example of the Big Lie... if you look closely, Bush and his top advisors never come outright and directly make the link. They just constantly insinuate it, make speeches as if it were true, and point out and play up every story which contains both the words "terrorists" and "Iraq." Makes me incredibly angry... I mean there are plenty of valid reasons to support this war; it's demeaning and disgusting that Bush&Co is instead pushing an utter lie on us.
- #140
kyleb
no, i think you propogate fear.
- #141
Alias
Maybe we are all wrong.
Maybe what the Bush administration is trying to do is change the fundamental cause of terrorism in the middle east.
You could say that they are attempting to do this by converting one of the potentially wealthiest countries in the region to a democracy, hoping that the domino effect will take care of many of the others.
When Arabs are allowed to be in charge of their own destiny, maybe they won't have a reason to be angry.
Maybe what the Bush administration is trying to do is change the fundamental cause of terrorism in the middle east.
You could say that they are attempting to do this by converting one of the potentially wealthiest countries in the region to a democracy, hoping that the domino effect will take care of many of the others.
When Arabs are allowed to be in charge of their own destiny, maybe they won't have a reason to be angry.
- #142
russ_watters
Mentor
- 23,739
- 11,189
damgo, this isn't a belief, this is well established FACT we are talking about here. The thin link is when you (we) specifically talk about Bin Laden being in bed with Saddam. But Saddam has for YEARS provided monetary awards for the families of islamic terrorists in Israel and actively supported the efforts of the terrorists. He is currently specifically invoking "jihad" on the US - appealing to islamic terrorists to come to his aid.
So a dictator isn't in complete control of (and/or not responsible for) what goes on in his country? You really believe that?
- #143
damgo
Alias: now that's an argument! :) The Bush Adminstration is certainly a fan of that 'reverse domino' theory of spreading democracy in the Middle East, though personally I think it's going to be as erroneous as the original.
Another point is that installing a friendly government in Iraq will allow the USA to move its troops out of Saudi Arabia; that will go a good ways towards reducing terrorism, as US troops in Saudi/the Middle East is their #1 complaint.
russ-
Yes, Saddam giving money to suicide bomber's families is a fact. But that doesn't make him a supporter of Islamist terrorism. Example: before 9/11, the USA gave millions in aid to the Taliban to reward them for dramatically slashing opium manufacturing. Does that mean we supported what the Taliban stood for? Of course not.
Giving money to (dead) Palestinian terrorists' families is an easy way for Saddam to gain political capital in the Arab world without actually aiding the terrorists themselves. The mullahs and Islamists despise Saddam, almost as much as they did the Shaw...
re: jihad. Yes, of course he appeals to religion. Have you listened to Bush's speeches recently? "There will be a day of reckoning", "God is not neutral in this conflict," and so forth. They often sound oddly similar...
re: Northern Iraq. Yes! It's his country in name only, that's what I'm saying.
There is even a well-defined bloody border marked on many recent maps: on one side are the Iraqi lines, on the other are the Kurdish militias' (PUK/KDP) lines. Check out: http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/middle_east_and_asia/iraq_kurdish_areas_2003.jpg
Another point is that installing a friendly government in Iraq will allow the USA to move its troops out of Saudi Arabia; that will go a good ways towards reducing terrorism, as US troops in Saudi/the Middle East is their #1 complaint.
russ-
Yes, Saddam giving money to suicide bomber's families is a fact. But that doesn't make him a supporter of Islamist terrorism. Example: before 9/11, the USA gave millions in aid to the Taliban to reward them for dramatically slashing opium manufacturing. Does that mean we supported what the Taliban stood for? Of course not.
Giving money to (dead) Palestinian terrorists' families is an easy way for Saddam to gain political capital in the Arab world without actually aiding the terrorists themselves. The mullahs and Islamists despise Saddam, almost as much as they did the Shaw...
re: jihad. Yes, of course he appeals to religion. Have you listened to Bush's speeches recently? "There will be a day of reckoning", "God is not neutral in this conflict," and so forth. They often sound oddly similar...
re: Northern Iraq. Yes! It's his country in name only, that's what I'm saying.
There is even a well-defined bloody border marked on many recent maps: on one side are the Iraqi lines, on the other are the Kurdish militias' (PUK/KDP) lines. Check out: http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/middle_east_and_asia/iraq_kurdish_areas_2003.jpg
Last edited by a moderator:
- #144
russ_watters
Mentor
- 23,739
- 11,189
Damgo, that's a self-contradictory statement. Supporting terrorism is not supporting terrorism? Those payments saddam made were a REWARD for TERRORISM. It doesn't get any more cut and dried than that.
- #145
damgo
^^^ Eh, that's just semantics. :) (I see what you mean about haisplitting )
Analogy: The USA (until recently) gave lots of food aid to North Korea, thus freeing them up to spend more on their military w/o having their people starve. This doesn't mean that the USA was trying to reward NK, or supported North Korea. It means rather that they didn't feel the NK people should suffer because of their government's policies. Similarly, giving aid to the families of suicide bombers could be taken to mean not that you support terrorism, but that you don't feel families should suffer (their homes are usuallly bulldozed, and the wage earner is gone) because of one of the family's choice.
Are their deep issues here about what is a legitimate act and to what extent family members are responsible for each other? Hell yeah... but it's not cut-and-dried.
Now, do I think that's why Saddam gives them money? Not likely! I doubt he gives a damn about those families. But playing up to them is a good way to gain support on the Arab street; and hypocritical politican that he is, Saddam "feels their pain."
)Analogy: The USA (until recently) gave lots of food aid to North Korea, thus freeing them up to spend more on their military w/o having their people starve. This doesn't mean that the USA was trying to reward NK, or supported North Korea. It means rather that they didn't feel the NK people should suffer because of their government's policies. Similarly, giving aid to the families of suicide bombers could be taken to mean not that you support terrorism, but that you don't feel families should suffer (their homes are usuallly bulldozed, and the wage earner is gone) because of one of the family's choice.
Are their deep issues here about what is a legitimate act and to what extent family members are responsible for each other? Hell yeah... but it's not cut-and-dried.
Now, do I think that's why Saddam gives them money? Not likely! I doubt he gives a damn about those families. But playing up to them is a good way to gain support on the Arab street; and hypocritical politican that he is, Saddam "feels their pain."
- #146
russ_watters
Mentor
- 23,739
- 11,189
Wait, you went to all that trouble to prove its a question of semantics, then contradict your own hypothetical? Now I seriously am confused.
You *DO* believe that Saddam supports the families of the terrorists to reward them for their terrorism, (not for some altruistic aid to people who have lost something) right? Hasn't he said that explicitly?
Motivation is not a question of semantics. Motivation is EVERYTHING here. Certainly people attempt to muddy the waters with contradicting statements on their own motivation - our (Bush's) motivation for fighting this war is a great example. Saddm Hussein on the other hand has been quite explicit and consistent as to what his motivation is for his actions.
- #147
damgo
^^^ The semantics line was tongue-in-cheek. Damn this non-emotion-conducting Internet!
I believe Saddam supports families of terrorists for selfish political reasons, yeah. Like I said, I have no doubt he's a scumbag. The point I've been making is that the Islamists hate his guts, too; he's not likely to give them much aid (say chem weapons), when they could use it against him far easier than they could use them against the USA.
I believe Saddam supports families of terrorists for selfish political reasons, yeah. Like I said, I have no doubt he's a scumbag. The point I've been making is that the Islamists hate his guts, too; he's not likely to give them much aid (say chem weapons), when they could use it against him far easier than they could use them against the USA.
- #148
Alias
Would you say that the world would be in more peril if Saddam had WMDs, than if the Pope had them?
- #149
russ_watters
Mentor
- 23,739
- 11,189
Oops, I get it - I should have picked up on it.
- #150
damgo
Hmmm, I don't kwow, that's a really tough one... would you say that the world would be worse-off if Kim Jong Il had WMDs, or if the Care Bears did? :)