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

[Some1]

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.

Originally posted by DavidG:
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?

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.

[Mephisto]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
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).

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.

[Mephisto]

Originally posted by jimbob:

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.

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?

[primitive]

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.

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 ).

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

[Thermodyne]

Primitive,

The little 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

[geoschmo]

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

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

[Krsqk]

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)

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

[oleg]

Originally posted by Krsqk:

quote:

---

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)

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

---

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 !

[Aloofi]

Originally posted by oleg:
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 !

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".

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

[rextorres]

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