***Official Discussing the Merits of the Iraqi Conflict thread*** How many casualties are acceptable - on both sides?

[smp]

snapIT

In kosovo, the us "accidently" bombed the news station, in afghanistan the us "accidently" bombed the news stations... could it be because the bombing and the pictures of injured and dead civilans hurts the US cause?

The us bombed a refugee convoy on their way out of kosovo, did you know this? no? ehhh... wonder why? because it would not be part of the news you are allowed to hear?

78 refugees dead... i know their faces, i helped bury them...


Thank you.
I needed that, and I know this too.
Have any of you ever seen footage of the yugoslav news building being hit with a cruise missile? Downtown Belgrade, middle of the night... looked sort of like the WTC on 911. Never seen it? Damn, where were the reporters? Oh yeah, they were in the building

 

[Stark]

Originally posted by: Millennium
[sarcasm]Stark- Don't even attempt to argue with Jaegar. He is world's above both of us in the debate column. You see how he handled your last post? Didn't even reply to the bulk of it. Just a quick jab that completely defeated your whole argument. [/sarcasm]

I know it's a lost cause. They're too busy listening to Susan Sarandon and Sean Penn to worry about the truth. But it's still somewhat satisfying to fight the good fight.

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: Stark

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Because the reasons for this war are very Dubyaous
This has put preemptive war definition upside down, in such a way that it can justify any agression by any country on any other country.
It no longer requires that the country doing the preemption be in imminent and immediate danger from the country being preempted. It only requires that there be a chance that the second country might attack the other country in some distant future. Any country in the world might attack any other country in the world in the future, or at least there is no way to prove otherwise. Anything could happen theoretically.
So if you want to start a war, just say the other country is going to attack you at some point in the future, and that's enough justification.

Double sigh...

Yes, we are being pre-emptive... and we should be whenever any country makes aims at acquiring WMD. The club of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapon owning nations is a closed circle. It IS a double standard. This is the new policy that we have been forced to adapt because the UN has shown it is unable to do so. A reasonable human being should have no argument against this.

The US has the power to destroy all life on the planet... several times over. It has not used this power. That's why we are the ones who should enforce the policy that ensures that no other country EVER acquires this sort of power... especially totalitarian monsters and crazed dictators.

Yeap, it is exactly this kind of attitude that make this conflict so divisive. Bush any many American with this kind of attitude thinking they can do whatever they want because they have the money and the power erased any sympathy the world has after the 911 tragedy and make the US and the rest of us the bad guy even though Saddam is the real bad guy.

No body likes a big bully even though the bully is right.

 

[BooGiMaN]

im still waiting for Snapit's response to my questions...

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: Stark

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Because the reasons for this war are very Dubyaous
This has put preemptive war definition upside down, in such a way that it can justify any agression by any country on any other country.
It no longer requires that the country doing the preemption be in imminent and immediate danger from the country being preempted. It only requires that there be a chance that the second country might attack the other country in some distant future. Any country in the world might attack any other country in the world in the future, or at least there is no way to prove otherwise. Anything could happen theoretically.
So if you want to start a war, just say the other country is going to attack you at some point in the future, and that's enough justification.

Double sigh...

Yes, we are being pre-emptive... and we should be whenever any country makes aims at acquiring WMD. The club of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapon owning nations is a closed circle. It IS a double standard. This is the new policy that we have been forced to adapt because the UN has shown it is unable to do so. A reasonable human being should have no argument against this.

The US has the power to destroy all life on the planet... several times over. It has not used this power. That's why we are the ones who should enforce the policy that ensures that no other country EVER acquires this sort of power... especially totalitarian monsters and crazed dictators.

The USSR had the power to destroy all the life on the planet several times over as well, and it hasn't done so, even when lead by dictators and monsters.
The US doesn't want countries to acquire nuclear weapons, which is understandable. But at the same time it has put the world on notice that if they don't develop or acquire nuclear weapons, they are fair game for a US invasion or intervention, but if they do, they will be negotiated with. This creates an enormous incentive for countries to secretly develop or acquire nukes.
The genie is out of the bottle. We let it out, but we can't get it back in. If I was any country, I would be in a hurry to develop nukes while the US is busy with Iraq.

 

[BooGiMaN]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Stark

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Because the reasons for this war are very Dubyaous
This has put preemptive war definition upside down, in such a way that it can justify any agression by any country on any other country.
It no longer requires that the country doing the preemption be in imminent and immediate danger from the country being preempted. It only requires that there be a chance that the second country might attack the other country in some distant future. Any country in the world might attack any other country in the world in the future, or at least there is no way to prove otherwise. Anything could happen theoretically.
So if you want to start a war, just say the other country is going to attack you at some point in the future, and that's enough justification.

Double sigh...

Yes, we are being pre-emptive... and we should be whenever any country makes aims at acquiring WMD. The club of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapon owning nations is a closed circle. It IS a double standard. This is the new policy that we have been forced to adapt because the UN has shown it is unable to do so. A reasonable human being should have no argument against this.

The US has the power to destroy all life on the planet... several times over. It has not used this power. That's why we are the ones who should enforce the policy that ensures that no other country EVER acquires this sort of power... especially totalitarian monsters and crazed dictators.

The USSR had the power to destroy all the life on the planet several times over as well, and it hasn't done so, even when lead by dictators and monsters.
The US doesn't want countries to acquire nuclear weapons, which is understandable. But at the same time it has put the world on notice that if they don't develop or acquire nuclear weapons, they are fair game for a US invasion or intervention, but if they do, they will be negotiated with. This creates an enormous incentive for countries to secretly develop or acquire nukes.
The genie is out of the bottle. We let it out, but we can't get it back in. If I was any country, I would be in a hurry to develop nukes while the US is busy with Iraq.

saddam had the chance to stay in power by gettign rid of all his banned weapons..he chose not to do this..he then had a chance to leave and retire in luxury with his millions or billions he has in bank accounts..yet he didnt..seems to me he chose not to do what was the best for his country....

 

[Fencer128]

saddam had the chance to stay in power by gettign rid of all his banned weapons..he chose not to do this..he then had a chance to leave and retire in luxury with his millions or billions he has in bank accounts..yet he didnt..seems to me he chose not to do what was the best for his country....

I REALLY hoped one or all of the above would happen so we wouldn't need a war - but I'd just add that with respect to exile. Has that ever been viable? I mean, if I were him would I REALLY believe that I would be allowed to travel and to live out the rest of my life in the lap of luxury? or would I believe that I would be quickly picked up and carted off to the Hague to go on trial for "crimes against humanity"?

Cheers,

Andy

 

[jaeger66]

Originally posted by: Stark

I know it's a lost cause. They're too busy listening to Susan Sarandon and Sean Penn to worry about the truth. But it's still somewhat satisfying to fight the good fight.

You're not fighting. Your sitting on your ass. Our military is doing the fighting. You're no more useful to the cause than than the shootin' car in Millenium's yard/gravel lot. The fact that God/Bush/you says something does not make it true.

 

[Stark]

Originally posted by: jaeger66

Originally posted by: Stark

I know it's a lost cause. They're too busy listening to Susan Sarandon and Sean Penn to worry about the truth. But it's still somewhat satisfying to fight the good fight.

You're not fighting. Your sitting on your ass. Our military is doing the fighting. You're no more useful to the cause than than the shootin' car in Millenium's yard/gravel lot. The fact that God/Bush/you says something does not make it true.

ok, thanks for coming. argument over. If there is not God, there is no ultimatetruth or good and your argument is equal to any other. I can't respond to that.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: jaeger66

Originally posted by: Stark

I know it's a lost cause. They're too busy listening to Susan Sarandon and Sean Penn to worry about the truth. But it's still somewhat satisfying to fight the good fight.

You're not fighting. Your sitting on your ass. Our military is doing the fighting. You're no more useful to the cause than than the shootin' car in Millenium's yard/gravel lot. The fact that God/Bush/you says something does not make it true.

Did you want to compare penises again? I sense you REALLY like to do that. I can take pictures of my yard if you wish. Did you have a point with the personal digs or are you just mad that you cannot prove your point?

 

[da loser]

Originally posted by: BatmanNate
My take on the situation is that one faction of people tends to argue that Iraq is guity of X atrocity and Y violation, whilst the other faction does not argue this, but instead does not think that being guilty of said violations necesitates war on this scale. The argument is on two different levels, which in my opinion is what causes the division. If everyone would have stepped back and looked at the big picture, I believe the outcome would have been different.

i largely follow this train of though of two arguments on different levels, but i disagree on their arguments. i think the us/britain have been pushing for invading iraq for precisely what blair stated this morning, pre-emptive strike to prevent future acts. the otherside, which i believe has been derailed by anti-us/bush sentiments, has said they were not prepared for this strike recently by all the official statements by countries, more time was needed. unfortunately, i believe, the issue of whether wmds existed should never have come into question, nor a push for oil, this is where i believe those sentiments derailed the effort for a peaceful solution.

instead the anti-war position should have concentrated on the effects of a pre-emptive strike philosophy and the aftermath of the war(the reconstruction phase in a post-saddam era). I believe these are very valid issues that were unable to be clearly addressed by the administration because of the call for evidence of wmds and inspections. The reconstruction issues were important in the beginning phase, but was quickly forgotten when either it was unsure if the iraqi congress should've been supported or the anti-us movement tried to capitalize on proof.

Although, you also have to fault the bush administration for not clearly, in my view, iterating again and again the true purpose of the war, not freedom of iraqi people nor a direct link with al queada, unlike what i think blair clearly did today in his address. you also have to fault the bush adminsitration for trying to prove it had the higher moral ground, while leaving france and germany no leeway for any morality. This made it tough for other countries to reach any agreement with the US due to having respect and not being seen as a puppet. This is where i see the diplomacy of the administration and namely colin powell failed to rein in the hawks among the administration.

 

[naddicott]

Originally posted by: Stark
Yes, we are being pre-emptive... and we should be whenever any country makes aims at acquiring WMD. The club of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapon owning nations is a closed circle. It IS a double standard. This is the new policy that we have been forced to adapt because the UN has shown it is unable to do so. A reasonable human being should have no argument against this.

Strange definition of "reasonable" (and "intelligent" for that matter). There are plenty of reasonable arguments against diplomatic double standards and against unrestrained unilateralism. You clearly have no interest in considering the merits of those arguments, despite there being plenty of reasonable human beings who hold those views. If you truly care to understand the substance of differing views, try reading some international papers/ magazines rather than taking pot shots at anonymous folks on ATOT.

The US has the power to destroy all life on the planet... several times over. It has not used this power. That's why we are the ones who should enforce the policy that ensures that no other country EVER acquires this sort of power... especially totalitarian monsters and crazed dictators.

I don't see this "Not having used nukes = right to police the world" correlation at all. An unused nuclear arsenal does not equal a mandate to abolish the sovreignty of other nations and trample established international laws. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely, even in a semi-democratic country like the United States.

 

[BooGiMaN]

Originally posted by: Fencer128

saddam had the chance to stay in power by gettign rid of all his banned weapons..he chose not to do this..he then had a chance to leave and retire in luxury with his millions or billions he has in bank accounts..yet he didnt..seems to me he chose not to do what was the best for his country....

I REALLY hoped one or all of the above would happen so we wouldn't need a war - but I'd just add that with respect to exile. Has that ever been viable? I mean, if I were him would I REALLY believe that I would be allowed to travel and to live out the rest of my life in the lap of luxury? or would I believe that I would be quickly picked up and carted off to the Hague to go on trial for "crimes against humanity"?

Cheers,

Andy

syria offered him exile..besides we would have looked mighty bad if we picked him up after telling him to leave, and i doubt they would have given him up.
go into exile and hide..osama has..im sure he can too

 

[jaeger66]

Originally posted by: Millennium


Did you want to compare penises again? I sense you REALLY like to do that. I can take pictures of my yard if you wish. Did you have a point with the personal digs or are you just mad that you cannot prove your point?

I made a point. Stark chose to respond with an insult. You displayed your lightning wit with another insult. I only walked through the door that you two opened.

 

[Fencer128]

Syria offered him exile..besides we would have looked mighty bad if we picked him up after telling him to leave, and i doubt they would have given him up.
go into exile and hide..osama has..im sure he can too

Are you serious :Q

If the US got Saddam to trial they would look GREAT!

Andy

 

[Stark]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Stark

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Because the reasons for this war are very Dubyaous
This has put preemptive war definition upside down, in such a way that it can justify any agression by any country on any other country.
It no longer requires that the country doing the preemption be in imminent and immediate danger from the country being preempted. It only requires that there be a chance that the second country might attack the other country in some distant future. Any country in the world might attack any other country in the world in the future, or at least there is no way to prove otherwise. Anything could happen theoretically.
So if you want to start a war, just say the other country is going to attack you at some point in the future, and that's enough justification.

Double sigh...

Yes, we are being pre-emptive... and we should be whenever any country makes aims at acquiring WMD. The club of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapon owning nations is a closed circle. It IS a double standard. This is the new policy that we have been forced to adapt because the UN has shown it is unable to do so. A reasonable human being should have no argument against this.

The US has the power to destroy all life on the planet... several times over. It has not used this power. That's why we are the ones who should enforce the policy that ensures that no other country EVER acquires this sort of power... especially totalitarian monsters and crazed dictators.

The USSR had the power to destroy all the life on the planet several times over as well, and it hasn't done so, even when lead by dictators and monsters.
The US doesn't want countries to acquire nuclear weapons, which is understandable. But at the same time it has put the world on notice that if they don't develop or acquire nuclear weapons, they are fair game for a US invasion or intervention, but if they do, they will be negotiated with. This creates an enormous incentive for countries to secretly develop or acquire nukes.
The genie is out of the bottle. We let it out, but we can't get it back in. If I was any country, I would be in a hurry to develop nukes while the US is busy with Iraq.

Actually, recent research suggests that Stalin was killed by his own inner circle because he was intent on starting WW3 (with nukes). The Soviet Union was kept in check after his death because of MAD.

Would India and Pakistan have been better or worse off if they had been prohibited from developing nukes? Would the world be better or worse off? Where was the UN when they were joining the Nuclear club?

 

[jaeger66]

Originally posted by: Stark


ok, thanks for coming. argument over. If there is not God, there is no ultimatetruth or good and your argument is equal to any other. I can't respond to that.

If there is an ultimate truth, you won't know until after you're dead. Man's place is not to assume the will of God.

 

[Fencer128]

Would India and Pakistan have been better or worse off if they had been prohibited from developing nukes? Would the world be better or worse off? Where was the UN when they were joining the Nuclear club?

I don't know the specifics of UN involvement in that or not - but it begs the question "Can you ever stop a friendly/quasi-freindly nation from developing nuclear technology if they really want to?"

Example - Military action is acceptable in people's eyes if its against "rogue states" and their like - but what if Belgium wanted to be a nuclear power? What could the world do?

Andy

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: jaeger66

Originally posted by: Millennium


Did you want to compare penises again? I sense you REALLY like to do that. I can take pictures of my yard if you wish. Did you have a point with the personal digs or are you just mad that you cannot prove your point?

I made a point. Stark chose to respond with an insult. You displayed your lightning wit with another insult. I only walked through the door that you two opened.

I would love to trade insults with you, but it would ruin Andys' thread. Feel feel to PM me with any halfwitted thoughts you might have.

 

[arynn]

Bush and Blair decided not to put the second resolution to a vote because if they had they would then be directly violating a UNSC decision. By pulling the resolution and using 1441 and previous resolutions as justification, they are not violating international law. Sure, they are violating the spirit of the UN; however, had they violated the UNSC mandate after their resolution was vetoed or voted down there would have been other issues to deal with.

While the US is taking pre-emptive action against Iraq, it is not the same as if they went and invaded Iran tomorrow. There is no other way to verify that Saddam isn't working on nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction. No one has been able to state definitively either way what the status of Iraq's weapons programs is. Most speculate that he has been effectively been contained. However, the current inspection had been useless as they were restricted. The UN should have demanded Iraq comply with invasive, unrestricted inspections in November. If Saddam were to develop or acquire a nuclear weapon, that would not be good as he seems crazy enough that he would actually use it.

I think it is inappropriate to sell the war as the liberation of the Iraqi people as that is only a nice side effect of the war. If that were the only reason for us to be going to war, public opinion would be much more opposed to military action. While it would be a noble cause to fight for, not many would want to sacrifice their loved ones in the process. This fact curbs our involvement in many other wars that have no potential impact to us.

When the war is over and we find out what Iraq had, the war will be either justified or not. (While arguing that the ends justifies the means is not the best way to go, it's all we have at this point.) At that point in time, Bush will either be vindicated or he'll be sent packing in 2004. No one in the general public has enough information to make a truly informed decision. So, we can either choose to give Bush the benefit of the doubt or vehemently oppose the war. Personally, I'm inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt.

 

[jaeger66]

Originally posted by: Millennium

I would love to trade insults with you, but it would ruin Andys' thread.

Well then WTF did you start for? Just wanted to get one in before taking the high road by saying you're above it?

 

[Alistar7]

I didn't realize there was that much broad suuport in opposition, how many countries have publicy stated their opposition? Thanks Fencer128, you seem to be on top of the anti-war scene so you should be able to tell me this. Have looked for about an hour now and haven't been able to find a list. TIA, greatly appreciated.....

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: arynn
Bush and Blair decided not to put the second resolution to a vote because if they had they would then be directly violating a UNSC decision. By pulling the resolution and using 1441 and previous resolutions as justification, they are not violating international law. Sure, they are violating the spirit of the UN; however, had they violated the UNSC mandate after their resolution was vetoed or voted down there would have been other issues to deal with.

Yep. Sounds about what I believe.

While the US is taking pre-emptive action against Iraq, it is not the same as if they went and invaded Iran tomorrow. There is no other way to verify that Saddam isn't working on nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction. No one has been able to state definitively either way what the status of Iraq's weapons programs is. Most speculate that he has been effectively been contained. However, the current inspection had been useless as they were restricted. The UN should have demanded Iraq comply with invasive, unrestricted inspections in November. If Saddam were to develop or acquire a nuclear weapon, that would not be good as he seems crazy enough that he would actually use it.

I think your use of the term "restricted" is misleading - especially when compared historically to these events. From what I remember, Hans Blix said he was receiving unrestricted access to any and all sites at any time. This compares starkly with the previous position. The only "blot" is that Iraq has not been willing to allow scientists to be flown out of the country for interview - as prescribed in 1441 I believe. Whilst a breach in itself it is quite possible that this would have been granted also, if the will of the international community was set towards a deadline for disarmament (see French, German and Russian suggestions for inspection timetables).
With respect to nuclear weapons - all the evidence points to a non-existing nuclear program. You can never be sure of any countries actual nuclear capabilities, so going on the facts I will have to conclude that Iraq did not have a nuclear weapons program. Further inspections would have helped to confirm this.

I think it is inappropriate to sell the war as the liberation of the Iraqi people as that is only a nice side effect of the war. If that were the only reason for us to be going to war, public opinion would be much more opposed to military action. While it would be a noble cause to fight for, not many would want to sacrifice their loved ones in the process. This fact curbs our involvement in many other wars that have no potential impact to us.

True. This should be about disarmament - however if (and now it obviously has!) war came then that oppotunity should be used to remove Saddam. I sincerely hope (and believe) that this was never solely about Saddam.

When the war is over and we find out what Iraq had, the war will be either justified or not. (While arguing that the ends justifies the means is not the best way to go, it's all we have at this point.) At that point in time, Bush will either be vindicated or he'll be sent packing in 2004. No one in the general public has enough information to make a truly informed decision. So, we can either choose to give Bush the benefit of the doubt or vehemently oppose the war. Personally, I'm inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Whilst discovering WMD would no doubt vindicate the war - IMHO it would not necessarily vindicate the need to have created this huge international mess of a diplomatic effort. That is my own personal opinion.

Cheers,

Andy

 

[AmerDoux]

In kosovo, the us "accidently" bombed the news station, in afghanistan the us "accidently" bombed the news stations... could it be because the bombing and the pictures of injured and dead civilans hurts the US cause?

The us bombed a refugee convoy on their way out of kosovo, did you know this? no? ehhh... wonder why? because it would not be part of the news you are allowed to hear?

78 refugees dead... i know their faces, i helped bury them...[/quote]

What about the 500 reporters who are, for the first time in history, assigned to units and reporting events as they occur?

 

[Stark]

Originally posted by: naddicott

Originally posted by: Stark
Yes, we are being pre-emptive... and we should be whenever any country makes aims at acquiring WMD. The club of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapon owning nations is a closed circle. It IS a double standard. This is the new policy that we have been forced to adapt because the UN has shown it is unable to do so. A reasonable human being should have no argument against this.

Strange definition of "reasonable" (and "intelligent" for that matter). There are plenty of reasonable arguments against diplomatic double standards and against unrestrained unilateralism. You clearly have no interest in considering the merits of those arguments, despite there being plenty of reasonable human beings who hold those views. If you truly care to understand the substance of differing views, try reading some international papers/ magazines rather than taking pot shots at anonymous folks on ATOT.

The US has the power to destroy all life on the planet... several times over. It has not used this power. That's why we are the ones who should enforce the policy that ensures that no other country EVER acquires this sort of power... especially totalitarian monsters and crazed dictators.

I don't see this "Not having used nukes = right to police the world" correlation at all. An unused nuclear arsenal does not equal a mandate to abolish the sovreignty of other nations and trample established international laws. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely, even in a semi-democratic country like the United States.

Yes, but the arguments against diplomatic standards always seem to ignore the fact that: the US was attacked on 9/11 because it is hated by a large percentage of the world, particularly a part of the world that has not been able to emerge from third world status despite huge amounts of wealth acquired from the sale of their natural resources. People around the world admire us and hate us at the same time. Nothing we do can change this.

Bush Sr. was a good diplomat. Clinton was a good diplomat. And they still attacked us.

Bush Jr and his administration are not perfect. However, I see no fault in the way they've responded to the most difficult situation any President since Truman has had to face. If they've stepped on some toes and ruffled some feathers, so be it. For people to say (as I heard one young lady on the radio this mornig) they are "ashamed to be an American," in the face of all the evidence against Saddam Hussein, I am forced to agree with them... I'm ashamed they're Americans too.

And if not the US, who can neutralize countries intent on acquiring WMD? The UN? No, the world community has shown they will not police themselves. Since we are the ones so hated by those who have so few, we must accept the burden of protecting ourselves agaist such threats.