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

[conjur]

Originally posted by: konichiwa

Originally posted by: Ornery
"You don't land 1/4 million troops and support them in the feild as a deterent."

Why couldn't Saddam figure that out? Honest to God, we should have finished this 12 years ago. Now we have to listen to this crap about a "rush to war".

With inspectors out of Iraq for years after Gulf War I, and no threat towards war, it IS a rush to war that Bush and co. have made this such a priority in the past several months.

Well, considering Saddam should have had tons of documentation showing proof of the weapons' destruction, how much time was needed?

 

[LH]

All I have to say on this whole war/anti war issue now is.

Where is all the anti war protest over Chechnyea(sp?)? What about China wanting to take Taiwan by force by 2005?

What about the war in Columbia thats been going on decades?

Where was the anti war protesters when the Bosnia war? Serbian genocide? Rwanda genocide?

All these conflicts have been wars waged by other countries either against its own people. Not much protesting of these wars happened until America stepped in to end them.

Why are people bitching about the US not having UN support, when in the history of the UN ONLY the US has asked for permission from the UN to wage war. Russia and the Chechens didnt go and ask to wage war, both sides are killing innocent people, including children and women, its likely the bloodiest war since Vietnam. But why havent the anti war protester protested all these wars Ive mentioned.

Its simple, they are anti US, not anti war. They dont care about peace, if they did they would be and would have protested all these other wars en masse but they never did.

You protesters can keep on bitching about American wars, but you have no anti war credibility until you decide to stick up to the other countries that have waged far bloodier wars than our current war in Iraq. These wars have also been immoral and are not just.

It seems to me the only wars that people like to protest are American or Israeli, and its just not right.

 

[Parrotheader]

Originally posted by: conjur
I believe most of the sentiment is aimed at only Bush. Most people agree that Saddam is a tyrant and should be removed from power but they disagree on the way Bush is handling it.

Some are still harboring grudges over the 2000 election and are pining for Al Gore.
Some think President Bush is making up for what his father didn't do (but Bush, Sr.'s task was not to remove Saddam from power but rather to push him out of Kuwait. That's why Powell convinced him to end the war in '91.)
Some think Bush should have been more diplomatic in his efforts to get UN approval.

Toss in general anti-American sentiment in many parts of the world and there ya go!

I agree. It's convenient to pin everything on a figurehead since it doesn't require much effort or thought on your own so already existing hatred for Bush is exacerbating the situation. I honestly think that if we were pursuing the EXACT same course of action with Gore as president, at least half of the people who are so vehemently opposed to us now would at the very least be quiet and might actually be supporting us. And that's pretty sad IMO. Obviously that's just wild conjecture, but public opinion in other parts of the world (particularly in Europe) has been against Bush ever since he came into office after the election mess in Florida.

-Throw in the natural political differences of a right-leaning US president and left-leaning European governments.

-Add the disagreement over Kyoto (Bush took the international heat, but the vast majority of Congress was going to oppose it anyway.)

-Add the existing general anti-Americanism held by some who resent the encroachment of American culture into their countries.

While I can understand why some people are bitter and opposing the war, to me it seems like some pretty petty motivations are the real reason behind a lot (but not all) of the people opposing the war.

 

[konichiwa]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: konichiwa

Originally posted by: Ornery
"You don't land 1/4 million troops and support them in the feild as a deterent."

Why couldn't Saddam figure that out? Honest to God, we should have finished this 12 years ago. Now we have to listen to this crap about a "rush to war".

With inspectors out of Iraq for years after Gulf War I, and no threat towards war, it IS a rush to war that Bush and co. have made this such a priority in the past several months.

Well, considering Saddam should have had tons of documentation showing proof of the weapons' destruction, how much time was needed?

I didn't make any reference to how much time was needed, only that the argument that this isn't a rush to war is false. It had been on the back burner for 10+ years and since 9/11 it has been yanked to the forefrunt by Bush for whatever reason. It's not as if Saddam had acquired more weapons or had a sudden change in attitude that prompted the immediate call to action.

 

[Ornery]

Inspector ASSHAT has had since October to do something... anything. The only reason Saddam cooperated at all was because we had a gun pointed to his head. We went the extra mile, took the extra time... time's up!


"It's not as if Saddam had acquired more weapons or had a sudden change in attitude that prompted the immediate call to action."

No, that would be 9-11. Now we're being proactive. We have every right to hold Saddam to the agreement he signed. He doesn't set the schedule, WE DO!

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Parrotheader
I agree. It's convenient to pin everything on a figurehead since it doesn't require much effort or thought on your own so already existing hatred for Bush is exacerbating the situation. I honestly think that if we were pursuing the EXACT same course of action with Gore as president, at least half of the people who are so vehemently opposed to us now would at the very least be quiet and might actually be supporting us. Obviously that's just wild conjecture, but public opinion in other parts of the world (particularly in Europe) has been against Bush ever since he came into office after the election mess in Florida.

Just look at Senator Daschle's change in his stance on forced disarmament of Saddam. He was all for it under Clinton but now Bush is making grave mistakes??

 

[konichiwa]

Originally posted by: LH
All I have to say on this whole war/anti war issue now is.

Where is all the anti war protest over Chechnyea(sp?)? What about China wanting to take Taiwan by force by 2005?

What about the war in Columbia thats been going on decades?

Where was the anti war protesters when the Bosnia war? Serbian genocide? Rwanda genocide?

All these conflicts have been wars waged by other countries either against its own people. Not much protesting of these wars happened until America stepped in to end them.

Why are people bitching about the US not having UN support, when in the history of the UN ONLY the US has asked for permission from the UN to wage war. Russia and the Chechens didnt go and ask to wage war, both sides are killing innocent people, including children and women, its likely the bloodiest war since Vietnam. But why havent the anti war protester protested all these wars Ive mentioned.

Its simple, they are anti US, not anti war. They dont care about peace, if they did they would be and would have protested all these other wars en masse but they never did.

You protesters can keep on bitching about American wars, but you have no anti war credibility until you decide to stick up to the other countries that have waged far bloodier wars than our current war in Iraq.

You're an idiot. All of these wars have and are being protested, you're just not listening. Look in the countries where the wars are taking place (that allow free speech/dissidence), there are plenty of protestors. Not to mention groups from the United States who are protesting the wars.

But is it really so unreasonable that you protest a war created by YOUR OWN COUNTRY louder than wars by other countries? The idea that anyone who protests against the war on Iraq is anti-American because they don't protest EVERY WAR is assinine. Get a grip, idiot.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: konichiwa

I didn't make any reference to how much time was needed, only that the argument that this isn't a rush to war is false. It had been on the back burner for 10+ years and since 9/11 it has been yanked to the forefrunt by Bush for whatever reason. It's not as if Saddam had acquired more weapons or had a sudden change in attitude that prompted the immediate call to action.

It's not been yanked to the forefront. I remember hearing of increased reports of coalition jets bombing radar sites in the no-fly zone and other sorts of activity like that, all before the inspections restarted.

Saddam has been toying with the U.N. for 12 years. Bush just finally said, "That's it...that's enough...you're outta here!"

 

[LocutusX]

Originally posted by: LH
All I have to say on this whole war/anti war issue now is.
You protesters can keep on bitching about American wars, but you have no anti war credibility until you decide to stick up to the other countries that have waged far bloodier wars than our current war in Iraq.

Thanks to the media, people in general aren't as aware of "conflicts" between third world country #1 and third world country #2, compared to The United States of America and third world country #3.

In addition, many of these countries are hardly legitimate. Run by a dictator (some, not all); what's the point of protesting to a totalitarian govt, compared to a democracy/republic?

 

[konichiwa]

Originally posted by: Ornery
Inspector ASSHAT has had since October to do something... anything. The only reason Saddam cooperated at all was because we had a gun pointed to his head. We went the extra mile, took the extra time... time's up!

Since October...ok so we've gone from "12 years" to "since October"

"It's not as if Saddam had acquired more weapons or had a sudden change in attitude that prompted the immediate call to action."

No, that would be 9-11. Now we're being proactive. We have every right to hold Saddam to the agreement he signed. He doesn't set the schedule, WE DO!

The agreement is a UN document. Hence, the UN sets the time schedule, NOT US. Think about it this way...The US is violating the stance of the UN by attacking Iraq for violating the stance of the UN. See the hypocrisy?

 

[alexruiz]

Originally posted by: smp

Originally posted by: Lonyo
Minority Report comes to mind, acting before anything happens, although in this case we don't have anyone who can see into the future.
Although, some could say about the ball falling to the floor (from the film) as a kinda pro war argument.

except that movie was really stupid..........



This is such a huge issue because people all over the world are generally more educated than they used to be. Because one country is breaking UN mandate by attacking another country on the grounds that it is breaking UN mandates... someone said "grey" area, it looks pretty black and white to me.
Lets ignore that the Turks killed kurds, lets ignore that Israel is killing palestinians, but lets persecute the Iraqi people for having a dictator, who, by the way, has been pretty docile for the past 12 years.
Lets forget about Noriega, lets forget about Pinochet, lets forget about Nicaragua and lets not report on what is happening in Columbia as we speak.
Lets forget that Afghanistan's opium crop has skyrocketed since we backed the northern aliance and lets forget that democracy is something by the people, for the people. Lets pretend that we can "give" a country democracy through undemocratic means and unsanctioned warfare. Lets forget the burning of the Reichstaag and lets forget that the Mossad warned our government about 9/11 ahead of time, and that they didn't listen. Lets forget about the sh!tty economy to burn trillions in military might.

I totally agree in your points, but I suggest you put your chemical warfare suit and flame retardant ON.... the crows, I mean the hawks are going to punish you for being "unpatriotic and/or antiamerican".....

 

[desy]

Saddams a classic Meglomaniac which is why we have to go to this extreme to get him to move.
He's smart enough to push the envelope or slide the line , like I said in another thread he would have continued to blur it if not for Sept 11
Its why the debate tolerated for 12 now we have to do it?
So here where the reasoning and justifications have to poor in

 

[konichiwa]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: konichiwa

I didn't make any reference to how much time was needed, only that the argument that this isn't a rush to war is false. It had been on the back burner for 10+ years and since 9/11 it has been yanked to the forefrunt by Bush for whatever reason. It's not as if Saddam had acquired more weapons or had a sudden change in attitude that prompted the immediate call to action.

It's not been yanked to the forefront. I remember hearing of increased reports of coalition jets bombing radar sites in the no-fly zone and other sorts of activity like that, all before the inspections restarted.

You would say that the Iraq issue was as present in the public consciousness five years ago as it is today? Hahahahaha

Saddam has been toying with the U.N. for 12 years. Bush just finally said, "That's it...that's enough...you're outta here!"

Again, Bush is not in his place to do this. If the US wants to attack Iraq, then so be it, but doing it under the guise of affirming a UN document is crap.

 

[Ornery]

We shouldn't even have bother with the UN in the first place, let alone give them from October to now. That was dumb on our part. No more...

We're the ones who handed Saddam over to the UN in the first place. Instead of killing him back then, we let "diplomacy" take it's course. Great move, eh?

 

[shifrbv]

to me it seems like some pretty petty motivations are the real reason behind a lot (but not all) of the people opposing the war.

Maybe for some, but when I look back at history on those countries that operated by the "pre-emptive strike" methodology, all I see are people like Hitler and Napolean and Hirohito, people that laid it all out on the line and then lost miserably and ended up being destroyed and taking along time to rebuild themselves. Not too many countries have succeeded with the first-strike policy. We would probably have to go back to ancient Rome to find success with it. And if we are that, as a religous person, I don't want to think about where all this is heading to. I definitely don't want to be living in the modern day version of Rome.

 

[LH]

You're an idiot. All of these wars have and are being protested, you're just not listening. Look in the countries where the wars are taking place (that allow free speech/dissidence), there are plenty of protestors. Not to mention groups from the United States who are protesting the wars.

No you are the fvcking idiot.

Where are the supposed millions protest our war with Iraq, that are protesting these various wars. There are NOT millions protesting these wars, the people protesting are cheifly those involved with the war. I have NOT seen people in other countries take the street for one of these wars. Not in the US, France, Germany, etc. Hell France and Germany did nothing to stop genocide in Kosovo, or Rwanda, let alone protest.

Im not listening? No I am Im just not seeing the world care as much about non US led wars. I watch not just american news channels, but British, German, and Russian. So dont make assumptions, they just make you look like and ass.

The global world just doesnt give a sh!t about non US led wars.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: konichiwa

You would say that the Iraq issue was as present in the public consciousness five years ago as it is today? Hahahahaha

Public consciousness does not matter. Only the acting governments of the countries in the U.N.

Again, Bush is not in his place to do this. If the US wants to attack Iraq, then so be it, but doing it under the guise of affirming a UN document is crap.

Legal justification

 

[alexruiz]

Originally posted by: shifrbv
I think another thing that really bothers people is the fact that after inspectors were out of the country for several years and all we did was patrol the no-fly zone, we only gave physical inspections a very short time and then said they weren't working. It didn't seem logical. And when you look at spending billions of dollars in a bad economy, it didn't look like the Bush team was trying every approach that they could have. They seemed in a rush to judgement which didn't seem prudent with so much at stake.

Also, alot of people don't trust the supposed "evidence" the Bush team has presented since they've lied about Saddam's connection to 9/11 and Al-Quada and even used forged documents to try and support the case that Saddam has WMD's. Then, they went and bugged the UN on top of it and tried to brush it over in the US media. It just looked shady and untrustworthy from an administration that claims to be "righteous".

Plus, the double-standard when they show pictures of Rumsfeld and Saddam shaking hands and smiling together. The chemical weapons that former administrations sold them. And then the contracts that Dick Cheney has to rebuild the country.

Then we have Bush's secretive post-war agenda which people are still not sure of what that will actually entail. I'm afraid alot of Iraqi's might be in for a rude shock when they get a leader so distant from them like the one in Afghanistan that is only alive due to 24/7 bodyguards. They are expecting freedom. Yet, they fail to see that this administration has been taking freedom away from Americans at an unprecedented pace since this whole "war on terrorism" started. I'm afraid they will be disappointed with the end results. I've seen some Iraqi's here in America talking about "liberation not occupation". Apparently, they haven't been clued into the Bush plan. I don't the military has either. They think they will be able to get this war over and come home. While other reports have been talking about stationing 100,000 troops there to keep the peace after the fighting is over.

Then, when 3/4 of the world says we don't believe it either, it only adds to the suspicion.

When I start seeing so many things like that, things that clearly seem at odds with my own moral character, I have a hard time believing in it or supporting it. It just doesn't seem right.

And many other Americans feel that way as well. Alot of people are scared. But those people don't make it on to the evening news or the world stage because there never was any serious debate about this war. The Bush team had made up their minds about this once 9/11 hit. Actually, long before, but 9/11 allowed them to go ahead with it because there was so much hate in the country.

Your post makes me feel better, because I see that there is still hope, I see that the amount of people in the USA who are not "mindless brainwashed parrots and robots" is higher than the behavior of the goverment should suggest. I posted something before saying that a goverment should follow the VALUES and morals of the people..... I am glad to see that people still demand those values to be followed by the goverment.

 

[Synth]

All I know is why the hell do we have to sink billions, possibly over a trillion rebuilding this country when we cant get our own country out of the dumps. :|

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: konichiwa

Originally posted by: LH
All I have to say on this whole war/anti war issue now is.

Where is all the anti war protest over Chechnyea(sp?)? What about China wanting to take Taiwan by force by 2005?

What about the war in Columbia thats been going on decades?

Where was the anti war protesters when the Bosnia war? Serbian genocide? Rwanda genocide?

All these conflicts have been wars waged by other countries either against its own people. Not much protesting of these wars happened until America stepped in to end them.

Why are people bitching about the US not having UN support, when in the history of the UN ONLY the US has asked for permission from the UN to wage war. Russia and the Chechens didnt go and ask to wage war, both sides are killing innocent people, including children and women, its likely the bloodiest war since Vietnam. But why havent the anti war protester protested all these wars Ive mentioned.

Its simple, they are anti US, not anti war. They dont care about peace, if they did they would be and would have protested all these other wars en masse but they never did.

You protesters can keep on bitching about American wars, but you have no anti war credibility until you decide to stick up to the other countries that have waged far bloodier wars than our current war in Iraq.

You're an idiot. All of these wars have and are being protested, you're just not listening. Look in the countries where the wars are taking place (that allow free speech/dissidence), there are plenty of protestors. Not to mention groups from the United States who are protesting the wars.

But is it really so unreasonable that you protest a war created by YOUR OWN COUNTRY louder than wars by other countries? The idea that anyone who protests against the war on Iraq is anti-American because they don't protest EVERY WAR is assinine. Get a grip, idiot.

Thank you, Konichiwa. I was getting ready to say something along the same lines, but you've already done the work for me

 

[naddicott]

There are plenty of good reasons to finish up things in Iraq. Nobody is terribly fond of Saddam.

My opinion is we are opening a big pandora's box with this new US doctrine of unilateral, pre-emptive war to remove the source of possible future threats to national security. This abandonment of diplomacy has implications far beyond Iraq. I won't be shocked if we find other countries immitating our approach to national defense (India/Pakistan for instance), and we'll have no grounds to stop them, since their reasons for starting their own wars of agression will be identical to our stated reasons for starting this Iraq war.

On the other hand, if we leverage this new belligerant image in other diplomatic situations, the US may not need to resort to further wars of agression to get security related concessions from other countries. Maybe this war is our 'Bad cop' side that will let our 'Good cop' mode achieve more results.

In any case, it's more stock footage for the history channel.

 

[konichiwa]

Originally posted by: LH

You're an idiot. All of these wars have and are being protested, you're just not listening. Look in the countries where the wars are taking place (that allow free speech/dissidence), there are plenty of protestors. Not to mention groups from the United States who are protesting the wars.

No you are the fvcking idiot.

Great start.

Where are the supposed millions protest our war with Iraq, that are protesting these various wars. There are NOT millions protesting these wars, the people protesting are cheifly those involved with the war. I have NOT seen people in other countries take the street for one of these wars. Not in the US, France, Germany, etc. Hell France and Germany did nothing to stop genocide in Kosovo, or Rwanda, let alone protest.

"the people protesting are cheifly[sic] those involved with the war" ... what would you expect? We have enough corruption and evil on our plate in the US, we can only hope that people in the countries involved will protest for themselves. I can only see the opposite now; if the american peaceniks were protesting every war on the planet you'd be here saying "They are protesting EVERY war, they don't really care or even have opinions/knowledge on our specific situation with Iraq, they are just peacemongering hippies."

Even aside from all that, to prove you wrong yet again:

google
"Sixty prominent cultural figures appealed Tuesday for negotiations to end the war in Chechnya"
"500 Chechens protest Russian shooting"

It goes on.

Im not listening? No I am Im just not seeing the world care as much about non US led wars. I watch not just american news channels, but British, German, and Russian. So dont make assumptions, they just make you look like and ass.

The global world just doesnt give a sh!t about non US led wars.

Again, you speak as if you know something, but when I read what you have to say, your ignorance shines right through.

 

[joohang]

Originally posted by: DanJ
Its a new evolution in war; attacking so that you don't get attacked in the future.

Its a new issue.

Err... World War I?

"The war to end all wars."

 

[konichiwa]

Originally posted by: Ornery
We shouldn't even have bother with the UN in the first place, let alone give them from October to now. That was dumb on our part. No more...

We're the ones who handed Saddam over to the UN in the first place. Instead of killing him back then, we let "diplomacy" take it's course. Great move, eh?

No, we didn't "let 'diplomacy' take it's[sic] course." You act as if Saddam has recently invaded one of his neighbors or detonated a nuclear bomb. Diplomacy isn't a twelve-step program, it doesn't "end" and it doesn't "run out." We STOPPED diplomacy, it did not "take it's[sic] course"

Your thoughts that we should just run rampant throughout the world, starting wars and dropping bombs as we please, frankly, scares the sh!t out of me, as it should you and anyone else who realizes what evil a true superpower like that creates.

 

[konichiwa]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: konichiwa

You would say that the Iraq issue was as present in the public consciousness five years ago as it is today? Hahahahaha

Public consciousness does not matter. Only the acting governments of the countries in the U.N.

Guess what, we are a republic. Our leaders are elected to run the country ACCORDING TO THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE, as are the governments of England, Spain and Australia (where a vast majority of their respective populations do not support this war). Saying "Public conciousness does not matter" is ludicrous.

Again, Bush is not in his place to do this. If the US wants to attack Iraq, then so be it, but doing it under the guise of affirming a UN document is crap.

Legal justification

All this mumbo jumbo basically boils down to, yes, the UN has the authority and legal justification to attack. But the US does not, particularly unilaterally!