Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Actually, that does not make it illegal. The UN is not the source of legality.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

http://www.idleworm.com/nws/2002/11/iraq2.shtml

maybe you have seen it, maybe not, but its IMO the situation. (And i hope, never turns out to be consequences..)

A question i like to ask the "pro" war people (Not that anyone wants war, but you support this one).
What do you think about the "Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator, RNEP" the US made/developed Last year (Its a nuclear bomb, made to penetrate deep into the earth and destroy bunkers)?? Is it right to use something like that?? (even develope it) When you are fighting a war against a regime and its WMD.

Another question. Does the US want a democracy in Iraq? Or just a regime that supports the US better then this one? Does anyone think that the US would allow a democratic regime that doesn't support the US and its politics?

Im just curious what everyone thinks.

R.

p.s. Im against this war AND against Sadam, i just think this (war) isn't the right way to get rid of him.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Ok, if you quote me so good, why not reading it? I said i was against THIS was. I know that war is (and should in some situations) be the Last resort, but this wasn't it. Why?

- Because this war triggers even more hate in the region/world against USA & the west. So you end with more problems then you start with. (look at the little flash like i gave before)

No, just the USA. And all this percieved hate against the US isn't against the US, it's really more at Dubya and his administration.

- Because this war give a sign to the rest of the world that WMD is the only way to carve out your place, so that no one can touch you.

If this war succeeds, it will give a sign to the rest of the world that developing WMDs will only get your regime toppled, no matter what the world opinion is.

- Because this war gives the right to countries like Turkey to invade north Irak, cause they tread their country too. Even North Korea to invade South, China- tibet, Russia-formerSU countries....etc. everyone is a tread to the other in their opinion (with war or thoughts). What USA does, make it legimate for them too.

This war does not give those countries to invade those regions/countries. This war isn't about conquest, for god's sakes.

And welcome to the 21st century. Tibet is already a part of China. It has been for a long time. Also, Russia is seriously starved for cash; it sure isn't going to wage war with all of it's neighbors with a underfunded undermaintained army.

- Because the world is against it, when they would have let the inspectors do their work more, it could have led to more cooperation in the UN. (but this is an opinion, noone knows now)

Because the world is against it? Wow. That's cirtainly going to stop superpowers in their tracks. World opinion certainly stopped Serbians from raping and pillaging Bosnians.

- Because fighting a war for the wrong reason is always wrong (USA should be honest about their goals: Oil, power, supportive regime) not a democracy and the better for the people, cause these are not the real goals.

You really have to stop seeing this as a war of conquest.

- Because it is hypocrite to remove a regime like iraq for the iraqi people and let the palestinians die. If the US would help them and would try to prevent the harmful israeli politicy from doing what they do now, US would have their UN resolution. And their would be a lot less USA hate in the world. Because all the Arabian countries hate Sadam too.. they just hate USA more now...

Harmful israeli policies? I'm sure you'd march up to Tel Aviv and tell Ariel Sharon to stop killing Palestinians, after they've killed members of your family and close friends.

- Because if GWB would really care about people, he would have donated all that money in a fund to help everyone in the world, with so much money he could almost make everyone in africa/asia/middle east "rich"/have food (and they are in a situation as bad/worse as the iraqi people) and as dangerous in long term.
When people have it better then they have now, they are better fed/educated etc. that means that they are less extreme (cause extremes only occur when people are in a bad situation) and terrorist actions would be a LOT less frequent.
Terrorist organisations loose their support..etc.

If you can figure out a viable way to make sure that money does not go to:
1. Regimes where those people live under
2. Drugs
3. Rebel factions
4. Other unforseeable factors,
Then you can say that Dubya should invest his "fortunes" to about 75% of the world.

There's my two cents.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Krsqk... Thank you for the info... Thats why I read everything with a grain of salt.

Hunkpapa.... HTML Link cool... thank you.

Phaet2112... Perhaps the provision is that he cannot take his country back ever.... But I do believe that he should be punished.

Primitive... Intersting Point.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

[quote]Originally posted by Some1:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:

Quote:

Posted by Master Belisarius a) Sorry guys, but we don't live in a fair world. The Justice and fairness are only a human illusion, just an ideal. Somebody need examples? Just a few: Why I can't F$%K with Cameron Diaz?, Why I need to work to have a decent life?, Why some people doesn't have a decent job to live?, Why I'm more and more fat every day and other people is dying right now, due lack of food?

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">true, but can't we have ideals, cause we know what brought us in the "regular" way.... just more wars. Atleast things are somewhat better then 100 years ago, so i hope humankind learns from their faults.... (an illusion too, but you (I) should have hopes and dreams and "fight/discuss" for what i think is right) or else i have no reason to live http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif
R.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I understand your view.
The "facts" that I wrote are things that IMHO, everybody could see in the real life.
Is not how I think the things should be. I'm not God, I'm not a Messiah but think that I understand the human nature, then Some1, can't be optimistic. I like the history and have learned that the history repeat itself once, and once again.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Interesting... the immediate things can't be helped, but the results can turn out in your favour. Even the occasional twin or triplet.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Time and Time again I think the best site for info is http://www.agonist.org/

For up to date, rumors, war reports, opinions...

I highly recommend it.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

tesco: There's no way saddam is going to escape punishment, esp. with any mistreatment at all of american soldiers, or reports of soldiers with holes shot in their heads. I seriously doubt he will survive this war. My only hope is that the loss of lives on both sides is minimal, andthe ensuing blowback during occupation is also minimal. I want to be able to fly again sometime soon without feeling unnecessarily freaked out (but that's my problem, I guess...)

[ March 26, 2003, 05:19: Message edited by: phaet2112 ]

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Geez, they're dropping like flies! I mean, how many injuries can a time suffer right before the playoffs? At least Owen Nolan is doing very well...just wish the whole team was healthy!

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I like this site
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldnewsg...11376,,00.html
You can pick a newspaper at random at read a different slant everytime.

Askan

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

hmmmz, to much to quote, i'll give the just awnsers (IMO)

Originally posted by TerranC: 8 Posts below

- Yep, its against Dubya, but the problem is that he is untouchable for them, so they have to cool their frustrations on someone else. (Like in israel, if they could kill sharon, he would be long dead)... But you are right that the real quarrel is with GWB & his administration.

- WMD = nuke. When North Korea has a nukes, US would never attack them. So that means when you have these weapons, you are ok. the quarrel is now with iraq, who pays attention to you now? (in dictatorships and things like that) US won't have money right now to attack you.

- Nope, its about safety... and in their opinion thats the way to garantee it.
Russia vs. tsjetjenie (i can't find how to spell it) when its not in the news anymore, it doesn't mean there is no war there. Also vs. terrorists according to the russians and for the tsjetj they are fighting a war for freedom.
For the chinese its a part, but the tibetanians still think they should be seperate.

- Nope, thats not going to stop them, we see. But should we all follow Dubya (or someone else) if we just can't stop them??? i call it herd instinct http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
And IMO the Balkan situation was very different.

- Its not conquest... (altough US want to occupy iraq for some time) still the interests of US are the same: Oil, power (in the region) and another regime.
And if you can't see it, i can't change your opinion anyway... so i stop wasting my time on this one.

- This one is a fault a lot of regimes make. They all fight the outcome and never the things that led to them.
Ofcourse someone who's family is killed don't want those Palestinians, but emotions are a bad guide.
When people are cornered and can't have a way out, they do things unimaginable (suicide).
ummm, for example. In jail institutions in my country they always give people(inmates) the illusion that there is a escape. Without that "hope" people just go crazy...
Other example, When you or i are in a situation like that: no food, water, live, money, hope...only dead. We can give our family $25000. The cause is good, cause its for freedom (you have to remeber its an act of patriotism for them!!!!).... so what the heck???
Lucky that not everyone thinks like that, but its not uncommen in that area we know.
The fact is that israel is in the power position, and they have the solution, its just not popular and easy...

- Yes, this one is utopia.
But you have to agree that its a bit crude that you wage a war that costs (i lost count, but around) 150 bollion dollars against 1 person and his regime, when not far away countless more people starve to dead, AIDS, war for food etc... and there was no help for them (in compare)

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I know it, just don't like it.

R.

[ March 26, 2003, 08:49: Message edited by: Some1 ]

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Actually, that does not make it illegal. The UN is not the source of legality.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">It is no way this war can be considered legal. Many believe the war to be fair, righteous and/or necessary, but it is by no means legal.

The “official” reason for the war is failing to comply with the UN charter. Only UN can sanction such a war. The time when a war was legal because one party called it is over.

This war is a case of US doing the classic high school bully (sure you have met some of those) thing.

High school bully – GWB/USA
Give me your lunch money or I’ll kick your *** – Let the inspectors in or we bomb you.
OK – OK
Thanks for the money but I’m going to kick your *** anyway – I really want to bomb you, I’ll just have to use the 9-11 and free the oppressed Iraqi people excuse instead.

This is how most people in my part of the world feel. It’s going to take a long time for the US to rebuild their old friendly “big brother” image.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">It is not the only but the main source of legality. Face it, the legality of this war is on very shaky legs. No UN resolution to date demanded or threaten a change of regime and the Iraq, without even a border to the US or any means to reach the US soil with its weapons, can hardly be accused of an aggressive stance that legalised an pre-emptive strike. Such a pre-emptive strike is possible but only under very narrow circumstance all of them requiring undeniable proves for the planned aggression. The pure possibility that someday the country will attack you is not enough in the international law.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Playing devils advocate: It will give a sign to the world that you have to be fast like North Korea. If you are fast enough they will attack weaker nations and leave you alone. You can even try to blackmail the rest of the world!

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You know what he meant. How can you deny Russia for example the right to intervene in any of the southern Caucasus republics. Devils advocate again: Some Caucasus terrorists even stormed a theatre and hundreds died in the incident. “We, the Russian people, have every right to protect us from those terrorists and will invade their country where they rule as clans over all the civilian people down there. We will free them and bring them democracy!” Never mind that this brought the terrorists to the theatre in the first place…
Arguing with money shortage and other outside facts isn’t valid. The point is not if the can do what the US did but if they have the same right to do it. Tell me they don’t.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You certainly don’t want to compare war criminals in Bosnia to the US. Criminals might not be stopped by reasoning but honest and rightful man.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Actually, I hope I would have the strength to do exactly this. All the killing in the world will bring none of my beloved ones back to me. Killing will only result in more killing. Only if I bear the pain and extend my hands in peace will bring peace back to me. Of course the murderer should be put to jail. How many of the Palestinians and how many of the Israelis really want to kill each other? For centuries there was a bitter hate between France and Germany and both sides were more then willing to kill each other any time on the battlefield. This hate gave birth to two World Wars. Now, finally, both sides have swallowed their pride and hate for each other, forgave (but not forgot) what each side did to the other. This brought as the longest period of peace in Europe ever. I think it is just an alien thought for both sides to kill each other just for being German/French now, a thought not uncommon just 50 years ago.
Point is, force will only provoke force and only the ability to forgive and try to live in peace with your neighbour despite what has happened in the past will bring a bright future.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Correct. As of Last week, the source of global legality is whoever happens to have the biggest army. That really does not make me feel confident about the future.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">But this war is not about WMD. It was about 9/11, until no-one believed it. Then it was about WMD for a while, but no-one believed that either, so then they changed it again to "liberating the ppl of Iraq." Now that no-one really believes that either, they just mumble some crap about UN resolutions and the Last war and storm in, guns blazing.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Really? Tell that to the Turkish tanks massing on Iraq's northern border.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">It is, although indirectly. It's about installing a US-friendly government on top of those oil fields and flexing America's military muscles.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Some of the examples might not hold but the point does.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Whatever weight world opinion used to have has now been stripped completely away by Bush's steamrolling of the UN. This is a step backwards, not forwards.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You really have to stop believing pro-war spin. This is a war about conquest.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Someone needs to. Retaliation only results in counter-retaliation. Hate begets hate and the violence only escalates. Bulldozing palestinian townships does nothing to dissuade suicide bombers, it only breeds more.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">He will. He'll kill himself and/or dissappear, just like Bin Laden. I'd put money on it.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Emotive stuff, but I refer you to the "captured troops" thread, shows quite clearly that the US has absolutely no claim whatsoever on the moral high ground when it comes to human rights against prisoners.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">If you want to fly safely, try to come up with ways to reduce anti-american sentiment in the rest of the world.

I'm no expert but I'd say that threatening and attacking other nations on the "justification" of flimsy (sometimes falsified) evidence, undermining international law, ignoring popular global sentiment, polarising the middle east into muslims vs non-muslims, establishing puppet governments (afghanistan) and abusing human rights is probably not the best way to achieve this.

[ March 26, 2003, 11:11: Message edited by: dogscoff ]

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">What was that?
20/20 hinsight? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

The Last 30 years have been "less hostile" because of the nukes!

You take the nukes out of the equation and we would be talking not just of the '67 and '73 wars, but of the '79, '85 and a war every six years (that's what it took to an Arab country to replenish losses during the Cold War)

So in Israel's case nukes have saved lots of lives, both Arab and Jewish.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The reason that the wars stopped was not the Israeli nukes. It was the sick feeling that the US and USSR came away with after going to the brink in 72. Someone realized that the Middle East was a loose loose situation and withdrew support. Egypt had already broken with the Soviets, and never recovered from its own material losses. Later, the Syrians and Israelis had at it, but by then the superior western technology carried the day. Iraq had plans to take Israel to task, but several million crazy Iranians tied them down for a decade and they missed their window of opportunity.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Krsqk:
AFAIK the inspectors was satisfied (not happy) with the progress made so far, and wanted to continue the search for WMDs. Finding anything in a country like Iraq where official records are sketchy at best, will always take time. Much more time than GWB was willing to give.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Just a minor quibble here, but the demand should read "Provide the inspectors with substantive proof of your total disarmament," not "Let the inspectors in.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Hey! Take a load off and look over there http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

I always thought the onus of proof was on the prosecutor and not the defendant. Innocent until proven guilty and all the junk that disallows unlawful persecution is the cornerstone of all modern justice systems. Why should Iraq be any different?

Askan

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Why is Iraq different?

To expand on your analogy of defendant and prosecution:
Iraqs ruling regime is a proven violent offender. An offender that has repeatedly violated the conditions of parole.
An offender has the burden of proof and must report to a parole officer.

Iraqs regime started a war of aggression over oil fields with Iran.
Many good people, on both sides, were slaughtered in the resulting conflict.

Iraqs regime started a war of aggression with Kuwait.
Many good people, on both sides, were slaughtered in the resulting conflict.

Iraqs regime kills it's own people who dissent. It also targets the whole family and rapes the women.

So before we morn the Iraqi dead from this war. Let us morn the Iranians, Kuwaitis, and the Iraqi dissidents who were killed before.

note:
In the US, the legal system is getting bolder about corrective involvement in cases of domestic (family) violence. I think this change in attitude has been carring over to foreign policy. Since Just Cause can be used to breach the family sanctuary, why should national sovereignty be an exception?

[ March 26, 2003, 17:51: Message edited by: Wardad ]

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

http://www.theonion.com/

has their spin going... worth looking at...

No need to post them here...

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

I think the best article is the "vital info on iraqi chemical weapons provided by US company that made them" That and "you plus me and baby minus me makes two"

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Actually, the Iraqis keep much better records than they are given credit for. For some reason, sadistic dictators seem to enjoy having records of all the insignificant puny little insects they've successfully stomped, in gruesome detail. They also have kept nice records of their WMD tests. (Oops, I just said WMD--*smacks self in head repeatedly*) Maybe all dictators are obsessive-compulsive. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Kinda like I have both spreadsheet and database records of every expenditure in the SE4byCommittee game, including location, cost per month, etc.... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

If still got one "opinion" on my mind.

I think that the propaganda of the USA is a lot better then the iraqi propaganda, because more people believe it to be true(also people in other countries, opposed to iraqi propaganda, that looks just plain "sad" imo). It is supposed to be freedom of press, but is it??
Thats why i think a lot of people believe in dubya and his "cause"...

R.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Primitive said
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Hmm... but how much time is reasonable Primitive?UN checks over the period of several months is likely required for a good investigation, but does anyone think that the current government of Iraq would have cooperated over a period of months without the ready and apparent threat of force? Was GDubbyaB "unwilling to give this much time", or is it just too flipping expensive to give that much time when a lot of time had already been given i.e. about a decade.

1) Can anyone honestly believe that diplomacy could have worked without threat of force?

2) Does anyone honestly believe that Sadam's regime would disarm through diplomacy alone, given the prior track record?

If so, why does anyone believe 1) or 2)? Give me some reasons that are sound, not just more anti-American rhetoric about international law. I for one am willing to believe that there was another way, but I can not (yet) see any other way from my perspective.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

The thing is, there was nowhere near the amount of international pressure on saddam to disarm in the past 10 years. And, there haven't been inspectors inside iraq since the 1991 war. To say that he has been actively defying the UN isn't as accuarte as saying, well, the world has been ignoring the area, besides keeping sanctions in place. Once the focus was brought back upon them, the inspectors had nowhere near theamount of time necessary to evaluate the country.

There is an enormous difference between the *threat* of force and the *use* of such force. I dont really understand your position- most people (I believe) who are against the war are for disarmament through diplomatic means, not as we bomb civilians and pummel their country. So what are you saying, that you support the war as it is currently as the only solution?

I guess my question is solution to what? Disarming him? Or removing him from power? Or freeing the iraqi people? Or preventing "WMD" from falling into the hands of terrorists? Or payback for 9/11? I think another reason I am against the war, and other people, is that there seems to be a dozen reasons that people are using to defend the war itself, and instead of defending one reason, they cite another. The worst reason in my opinion, but the one that is used *most often* here in the US is that the war is to combat terrorism and to directly protect american lives after 9.11.

Problem is that this is the least defensible reason, since the majority of hijackers came from Saudi Arabia, and there hasn't been one shred of credible evidence linking saddam to 9/11. Whether he would aid terrorists- he gives money to families of palestinian suicide bombers, that is all the evidence there is. ANd that is israel's problem, not ours (in that israel has its own military and can deal with it by stopping the bombers...I doubt the money is the incentive for palestinians to kill israelies...)

As for wmd- well at this point we dont know. Maybe they'll find it and maybe they wont, but it still doesnt change the fact that the inspectors were not given enough time to determine whether he had any, and what state the program was in. There have been numerous refutations of claims iraq has nuclear weapons.

Iraqi freedom? If you believe that then I'd like to sell you some prime real estate, rightoutside of basra. Real prime location, too. The military has already admitted it'll have to have an occupying force of tens of thousands, if not a hundred thousand, and cannot see putting the extremely religious shi'ites back into power, or it would turn iraq into iran. This is what the world sees- the americans as invaders trying to force out saddam to take control of the oil. haliburton already has gotten the contracts to rebuild iraq, before the war is a week old.

Removing him from power is a terrible excuse- we don't like someone ruling a country so we try to kill him? Oh wait, we did support that coup in venezuala, too bad it failed. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif So who else should we remove? What about Germany- they don't support us? Why not just overthrow every government we come across we don't like? And why is it america that decides? Cause we have the biggest army. Gee...what ancient power does that make us?

If us americans were at *least* given the respect that blair gives the british, then MAYBE more people would support the war. Blair argues that iraq could be the first step in transforming the whole region, but that isn't what bush argues. Our leaders are still focused on non-existant WMD and 9/11.

[ March 26, 2003, 22:57: Message edited by: phaet2112 ]

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Jimbob:
The amount of time that was reasonable would be the excact amount of time the people conducting the investigation (Blix & Co.) thougth they would need. If GWB was unwilling to give this time, why bother with inspections in the first place ?

1) I have never claimed I was against using "threat of force". Just missusing it.

2) If he have any WMDs (and for the record, I believe he has something (not nukes) stashed away somewere), he probably would have given them up if the pressure was big enough. He would never have dissarmed totaly as that would have been suicide in a country like Iraq.

The trouble is not to find good reasons NOT to go to war, but to find good reasons to go to war. When in doubt, war should be your Last choice.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

"And, there haven't been inspectors inside iraq since the 1991 war."

Err..no. They were kicked out in 98, and I think a few times before that. But they were there.

Phoenix-D

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Totally and completely agree. That is why I am upset, and I think a lot of others in america, at least more left leaning thinkers, believe- that there hasn't been a convincing case to go to war, only the scattershot reasons without much substantive support.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

So they haven't found anything in 8 years of looking.

Why then the assumption they have the wmd?

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

It seems to me that if Iraq supports terrorists in Israel it is not a great leap of the imagination to assume that he is quite likely to support them in other countries. Although perhaps not so publicly. So I don't buy that argument that it is a problem just for Isreal.

As far as WMD's are concerened isn't it a fact that although he may not have them he has certainly tried to get them in the Last 10 years?
As far as the weapons inspectors are concerned were they not kicked out about 3 years ago? (not as mentioned in a previous post in 1991)

I think the main problem is that sanctions against Iraq were/are killing 1000's of people. I haven't read all the details on this but as I understand it each side blames the other for this. So how do you end this problem? Maintining the status quo clearly isn't good enough. War is one way. Obviously a crappy solution due to the obvious reasons. But a solution that has the potential to result in a much improved Iraq in a few years. The only other solution I can see would be to lift the sanctions. Thus allowing the cash to start flowing into Iraq. Except do you think this cash will go to help the people or into Saddams pocket and his military. A Saddam with unlimited cash flow is a scary thought.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I think there are other reasons but here is one: Because they were kicked out.

[ March 26, 2003, 23:26: Message edited by: DavidG ]

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

A little fun with the Inspectors http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Inspector: Tomorrow we will inspect the chemical plant at Carbala

Iraqi: Tomorrow will be a bad day for that.

Inspector: How about next week?

Iraqi: We will have the plant ready on Thursday.

Inspector: Out standing, tomorrow we will inspect the abandoned partially destroyed bunkers at Arum again.

Iraqi: Cool, we have nothing there except some Mercedes that Saddam got in the oil for food program. Perhaps you would like it if we made you a gift of one.

Inspectors report: No WMD were found at the facility in Arum.

Iraqi report: No WMD were moved out of Carbala, 16 trucks were not used to move them, and they were not buried in the desert outside of Naira. The trucks were returned to the motor pool on Wednesday morning.

UN report: UN inspectors have not found any WMD; the government of Iraq has been cooperating fully.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Primitive:

I'll think on your response.

Originally posted by phaet2112:
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Because the Iraqi govt has records of producing certain volumes of UN mandated illicit weapons (biological and chemical). But they have not provided records of destruction for much of the weaponry. For example, there is about 30 000 L of unaccounted for Anthrax somewhere (dead or alive) in Iraq.

Well, you can't just wave a magic wand and *poof* the 30 000 L of anthrax is gone! The Iraqi govt claims to have destoyed this unaccounted for stash, but also claim to have no records of the destruction. Could the records have just been misplaced? Maybe a little mix up? Oh, it was that silly administrator Ahmed, you know how messy his desk is, it must just have been misfiled.

For comparison... the British did a little experimentation with Anthrax on some Scottish Isles during WWI, and 40 years later the thing (and it's neighbours) was still "death island". They had to go up with in excess of 100 000 L of formaldehyde to clean it up (ie sterilize the island).

Now even if we give an incredible amount of credit to the minimal inhibitory concentration of formaldehyde vs anthrax spores, (and factor in things like the island was sprayed with less than 30 000 L of spores, but the spores were spread out across a huge surface area of soil) the Iraqi gov't would need atleast equal quantities of formaldehyde (or equivalent agent) to sterilize/destroy their stockpile(s).

Now an agency will have a pretty tough time of purchasing 10 to 30 000 L of formaldehyde (or equivalent disinfectant) and not leave a shred of a paper trail. There have to be letters request, of purchase, of transfer... there will be work orders and paycheques and duplicate and triplicate copies in governmental department after governmental department. Not to mention the biohazard suits used to keep the handlers alive (say 10 to 15 000 $US a pop.) specialized trucks, the original bioreactors, etc. That's a lot of dough and a lot of equipment to be "hidden down a hole" with no paper trail, let alone a no physical disposal site!!

P.S. And that's just the Anthrax, what about the chemical agents that are claimed to have been destroyed, but again with no paper trail?

[ March 27, 2003, 00:12: Message edited by: jimbob ]

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Perhaps while were waiting for the Iraq Govn't to come to trial for use of " WMD " etc..

Perhaps the trial should begin with the people who sold them the " WMD " and proped up the Dictatorship and supported it. The Decision Makers.

Perhaps the prosecution of these " war criminals " would stop future generations from repeating and supporting these horrible decisions and policies.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The Israeli Nuclear Program was and still is the best keeped secret in the world. What is known was "leaked" to deter the Arabs from launching a conventional or unconventional war against Israel. That's why Israel keep a "triada" defense system (Missiles, planes and subs), to make sure that if one or two of the defense systems are destroyed the rest can still fire back. The way is seen in Israel is that without nukes Israel would have had been overrun by Arabs already, and the jewish population exterminated like the Arabs leaders have promised to their people and as the Arab propaganda machine have been putting in their people minds since the creation of the Jewish State. For Israel nukes are a question of survival.

But the most important argument is that Israel had nukes for the Last 30 years, and have never used them.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Israel and South Africa developed their devices in a joint program. This is a well-known fact. But where did they get the equipment and know how that was needed to achieve the rapid development and deployment of the devices? Anyone? For a clue, look up the location of the test site.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Just a minor quibble here, but the demand should read "Provide the inspectors with substantive proof of your total disarmament," not "Let the inspectors in.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I think there are other reasons but here is one: Because they were kicked out.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">They were not kicked out.
First they withdrew at the request of the US ambassador. Richard Butler (head of UNSCOM at the time) admitted it. The withdrawal was so they would be safe during a bombing blitz by US/UK forces. The Chinese and the Russians were very angry he withdrew without the permission/knowldege of the Security Council, and it was the end of Butler. Other inspectors went in but the bombing incident and allegations that inspectors were spying for the US pretty much ended any chance of success and the program was aborted.

Askan

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

I asked a few questions a couple of Posts ago... I was hoping that we could talk about it... As I value everyone opinion here.

Side note.... I hear that they increased the range of the tanks to 100 miles or so until they have to change the filters.... Is this true???? I remember Last war they had a range of about 15 to 30 miles then the sand would kill them...

I am surprised that the guard came out to attack... Big mistake. Their strenght was to not allow the Colilion strenght which to battle in the open...

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Tesco, what questions were they?

Askan
Oh look, I get some low Ratings. Is this the new system for judging those who support the Troika of Killing and those who don't?

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Asken... I think I dreamed them... Man... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Carry on and ignore the crazy canuck...

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">A nation has every right to declare war for any reason it wants to. Morality does not equal legality. All that a war needs to be "legal" is for an official declaration to be made. The reason(s) for the war may not be morally suitable, but the legality is certainly there. "Legal" does not mean "right", any more than "illegal" means "wrong" (or vice versa).

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Weapon inspectors were thwrown out of iraq in 1998, because US/UK bombers bombed several factories US/UK thought were chemical weapon plants (nobody knows for sure if they were or not) + the US-Inspector-Spy quarrel. After that action Sadam threw them out and never came back.

I have no doubt that iraq has WMD(no nukes) but the problem is that with the US adim, you know that they want to get rid of you and that they will attack. Are you going to give all your weapons and let them march in easily? Ofcourse noone will do such thing. Just try to see it from their perspective.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Why are we hypocrite and say that they support terrorists and they are evil and we are good...etc.

i don't support terrorism in anyway, but we should get rid of our own terrorists first before we should make this accusatinon...

And sure that he also tried to get them, and?? US/west gave it to him when he fought Iran. Are we so much special that he can use them against Iran and not against us? In his eyes probably the US army is a WMD too. The war is just to unbalanced to be "fair". How many US casuelties? 5 maybe? and 1000-2000 iraqi?

The only reason i heard here "pro-war" that i can understand is: USA has the biggest/strongest army, so everyone has to do what they want (Its back to the middle-ages, but its a fact now, middle-ages with better weapons). Its not fair, they are not right, but its a fact that they can do what they want.
History tells us that when a powerfull country, goes at war with another and the other can't stop them, a guerilla war follows (also known when its against you: Terrorism) its a way to wage war against someone who is a lot stronger.
So.... deal with it (how scary the thought even is)

And for the people that "thought/hoped" this war was for the good of Iraqi people and not about the money and power?
Dubya is selling the rights to US companies to exploit oil, rebuild factories EVEN rebuild roads and bridges that are not yet bombed (All ofcourse to companies with republican ties). If this administration was concerned for Iraqi people and their well being/democarcy, He would let the Iraqi rebuild it themself....

I have not heard any "good" reason yet to wage a war, other then the "we are the strongest and do what we want" theory.

R.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">There are international laws (every nation has to follow these) and treaties (that the US signed, i.e. the UN charter) that make any declaration of war without sanction of the UN or without an case of emergency illegal.
Illegal equals against the law. If you think doing something against the law is not unmoral, fine, but that's not the way most people see it. Next time a thieve robs you, he will say that it is illegal but hey, you have no right to think of him as bad or his deeds unmoral! It's just against the law, nothing more! So smile.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The answer to your questions are from my perspective certainly no. Without the threat of force Sadam would have done nothing but laughing at us. However, he started to comply at least to some extend. With more time we would either have known quite surely that he has or has not WMD. With this result one could have argued in the UN easily and rally the world behind you. But I think the US admin wanted to invade Iraq in the first place with or without prove because they are not really there for the WMD. Second, the US had already accumulated much to many forces for just a threat and it got expensive to keep them there. And of course the weather in the region forces you to fight now or not for several month. I would like to ask a question in return:

Can anyone honestly believe that giving the UN just a bit more time would have meant any harm to the cause?

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Fyron
You’re partly right. "Legal" does not mean "right", any more than "illegal" means "wrong" (or vice versa), is a very correct and good statement. However; Just sending a declaration of war is not enough to make a war legal anymore (UN charter).

On a side note, has there even been a formal declaration of war against Iraq ?
Tried to google, but I couldn’t find anything.

Jimbob
Thank you, that is certainly a fresh approach. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Thermo
Is that just a very bad joke, or have you run out of any plausible arguments and have to stoop to claiming the inspectors was being bribed ?
It’s just a question, personally I love the jokes (the good ones anyway http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif ).

Askan
The rating system have run amok. Very few that have entered any opinions (on any side) in this thread still have a 5 star rating. Some people can’t see the difference between the opinions (should not be rated) and the delivery (rateable).

Tesco
Crazy canucks are not easily ignored http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Primitive,

The little http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif and the title would indicate that it was just a little razzing of the inspection process. The under lying jab would be the value of the inspectors this time around. They were there to look for WMD, which was only part of their original mission. Originally they were there to verify compliance with the cease-fire, which included the elimination of the WMD. But this time they had the higher mandate of preventing war, so the US would have to have doubts about the way the inspections were being performed. And as a point of clarification, the inspector never said that he would take the bribe http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yes, honestly I believe that. As you conceded the threat of force was the only thing motivating even half hearted compliance from Sadaam. A delay would have weakened our ability to project that force and so would have rendedered the threat impotent.

I disagree with you that with more time we would known whether he has WMD or not. The inspectors were not capable of finding things that the regime did not want them to find. They are ineffective when presented with passive non-cooperation, and useless when faced with active concealment.

Geoschmo

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I have to take serious issue with this. The objective of guerrilla warfare is attrition of a force which you do not have the strength to meet in full battle. It is fought against military forces. The objective of terrorism is intimidation of citizenry through murder and spectacular violence. It is directed against civilians.

"Things that are different are not the same."-Unknown

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I have to take serious issue with this. The objective of guerrilla warfare is attrition of a force which you do not have the strength to meet in full battle. It is fought against military forces. The objective of terrorism is intimidation of citizenry through murder and spectacular violence. It is directed against civilians.

"Things that are different are not the same."-Unknown</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Oh yeah ? Western media does not follow your definition. One example that just came to my mind first: "Terrorist attack" against USS Cole in Yemen. It will not take that long bofore all Iraqis will be blamed Al-Quada agents !

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yeah, the western media (and goverments) have cheapen the definition of terrorist.

About the war, I'm betting on Irak. I don't think the US has a chance of winning this war, they have made mistake after mistake from the very begining, they planned their campaign expecting massive Iraki surrenders, and all cities but Baghdad to give up at first sight of coalition forces, and now their supply lines are being harrased by those towns and cities....

And anyway, an american victory will mean the creation of an evil palestinian state to "compensate" for Irak, so I'm no longer a friend to the Bush administration, not that I ever was......

So you can say that the US have become a bigger threat to the national integrity of Israel than Saddam Hussein ever was.

I will never accept a Palestinian State with Arafat in power, or without an inconditional cease fire first, or without a treaty that would have the Palestinians accountable for any violations, not some Oslo crap that only hold the Israeli side accountable while the Palestinians go a suicide bombing/drive by shooting rampage and the west blame everything on Israel and claim that the Palestinians are the "victims". http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif

[ March 27, 2003, 19:36: Message edited by: Aloofi ]

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Ironically we are now in a catch-22. If we don't find WMDs the U.S. is wrong - (we're obviously not liberating anyone* because no patriot of a country wants to be invaded). If there are WMD it probably means lots of casualties. I for one hope there aren't any WMD.

So what do the pro invasion folk want? WMD and casualties or be wrong and no WMD.

*except the kurds