Longest post ever.... and so it begins. I want to begin by saying that you were right on one point. My personal attacks were uncalled for. It's much easier to beat you with my arguments. In contrast to what Raiden256 said, I do not think that the way you address arguments makes your responses look any more credible. In fact, I've noticed that most of the time you counter my points with snide remarks it's because you don't have anything better to say and cannot counter the argument. I'll make it a point to show you those points below.
Originally posted by: DoctorPizza
This has got to be the most asinine argument against the war I have ever read. I know people that are anti-war that would smack you in the face (or worse) for making such an unintelligent argument.
So you disagree that the UK poses a threat to the Iraqi people?
I disagree with the fact that the UK poses a bigger threat to the Iraqi people that Saddam does, yes. More importantly, I think Saddam poses a bigger threat to instability in the region than the UK does.
Let me explain something to you: in 1991, the UN fought a war with Iraq. Iraq ended the war by signing a treaty. That treaty required them to get rid of certain weapons that the UN (not the US alone) felt was a threat to stability in the region as a condition for us to stop attacking them. They agreed to the terms.
The treaty also agreed that sanctions on food and medicine, and any other material that was deemed necessary, would be lifted. This didn't happen.
I would like you to prove this one. Show some proof that the US violated the treaty BEFORE Saddam did. Then show proof where there was a clause that said that sanctions on "any other material that was deemed necessary would be lifted" in the peace agreement.
They also agreed to prove that they had disposed of said weapons. Never was it our job to play hide-and-go-seek with Saddam and his weapons-makers. It was an explicit part fo the peace treaty that they show us where the weapons were. That was why inspectors were there.
And they did. And the inspectors destroyed weapons.
But they didn't destroy them all, did they? And they weren't handed all the weapons either, were they? No. The inspectors that were in Iraq directly following the Persian Gulf War were consistently denied access to different plants that they wanted to search. The fact that they were searching at all was proof enough that Saddam wasn't cooperating. They were going into pants, finding weapons, and destroying them. The peace agreement said that Saddam was supposed to destroy them himself. The inspectors were only there to make sure he wasn't lying (which he was). Every time they destroyed weapons (as even you admit they were), Saddam was in violation of the peace treaty. They also know that they didn't find everything. We had a list of most of the things that Iraq had, and shortly after 1441, Saddam released thousands of pages documenting his destruction of weapons. However, many of the things that we know he had were not destoyed, most significantly, large stockpiles of anthrax and Serin gas.
Saddam decided that he could kick out inspectors without causing the war to attack him.
They were not kicked out by Saddam.
OK, I'll admit that there is some disagreement on this one. Here are the facts: Richard Butler, the then-Chief Weapons inspector, ordered his men out of Iraq after talking to Kofi Annan and the US, right before his report was released. His report stated that they could not get anything done because Saddam would not cooperate with them. I personally saw him speak (and by the way, he claims to be against the war, but I really don't have time to get into that argument as well), and he said that Iraq was accusing his men of spying, and that Saddam had threatened them. So, that is why there is a discrepency between the reports. While Butler did order his men to leave, this wasn't until after Saddam had spoken to him and threatened him.
Right there, he was in violation of the peace treaty.
By 1998, when the inspectors left, the UN was already in violation of the treaty. Once one party has voided the agreement by non-compliance the other party is no longer bound by it.
You are so right it hurts. What is also right is that Iraq had consistently violated the treaty BEFORE the UN did. But, as I said above, you can try to prove me wrong here if you'd like.
End of story. But he was right. The UN didn't want to jump back into a war so soon. Resolution after Resolution was passed until 1441, which was, by its own admission, a "last chance" for Saddam to avoid "serious consequences."
Unspecified serious consequences. Compliance with 1441 has never been (and probably never will be) determined.
I don't want to skip these because I'm sure you'd be happy to claim that somehow I was afradi to answer them, so I'll make it clear that my intent is to cross-apply my arguments. As I'm no longer going to enter into personaly attacks, I'm going to assume that you can do this without me leading you through it.
A couple of months later, Saddam finally let weapons inspectors back in. He also realeased what he claimed was proof that he had disposed of all of the CBN weapons. However, a large amount of the CBN weapons weren't accounted for. So the inspectors were there playing hide-and-go-seek with Saddam's men, trying to find these weapons. The US issued an ultimatum that he had to hand over all of the unaccounted-for weapons or face war. Of course, he didn't do so.
The US has no jurisdiction in such matters. Which is why the war remains illegal.
You are almost right here. It should not be the US's place to step in and make demands and ultimatums. It
should be the UN's place to do these things. However, the UN's
inaction in these matters required us to take action. The only way for either of us to win this argument is for one of us to see the other side of the story here. The real question isn't whether or not the war is legal, but whether or not it's justified. I would think that even you would acknowledge that if you thought the war was justified, it wouldn't matter if it were legal or not. The American Revolution wasn't a "legal" war, but it was justified. There wasn't a UN back when WWII started, but you wouldn't say that America "invading" Europe to stop the Axis powers was illegal, would you? Well, maybe
you would, but you still wouldn't say that they were unjustified, would you? Heh. Of course you would.
For another perspective, while the Vietnam war was legal, I don't know if I would call it just.
Now, we tried to get other countries to go along with us. All of the other countries in the Security Council had signed the document saying that Saddam must either prove he had fully disarmed or "face serious consequences." What did they think "serious consequences" meant?
Passing a second resolution justifying some form of military action.
Which, of course, France, Russia and Germany would not do, which, as I said before, is the reason why they worded it that way in the first place. Even if they would have signed the second resolution, exactly
what is serious about a resolution threatening military action from a body that has failed to act repeatedly over the last couple of decades?
Increasing sanctions (sanctions which, by the way, I never agreed with) which were already extreme? What could we do? There's nothing we could do short of war. What do you think "serious consequences" was supposed to mean if not war?
It evidently wasn't supposed to mean war, which is why the UN has condemned the action.
I'm sorry, I must have missed that one. I guess you're claiming that the UN passed some sort of measure or resolution condemning the war, right? I mean, otherwise, you couldn't really say the
UN was condemning the war, could you? If by UN you mean France, Germany, and Russia, then you'd still be wrong. No official statement has come from these countries
condemning the war. They have expressed "regret," and called it an "error" (that one from Putin), but not one leader of these three nations has "condemned" the war. However, somebody at the UN has used the word condemn before. I think you'll find
this article interesting. The U.N.
human-rights chief, after condemning NATO's actions in Yugoslavia, wanted to meet with Slobodan Milosevic on
his thoughts on how NATO's bombing of Yugoslavia was a war crime. That's right, the same guy that was then tried for
genocide.
I know that some countries (some cheese-eating surrender monkeys come to mind) specifically chose the words "serious consequences" to give themselves an out later. This way, the resolution never actually said "war," just "serious consequences," which is much more vague.
The intent was that the form of non-compliance be determined -- it hasn't been -- and a second resolution passed to address the non-compliance. If that meant taking the weapons by force, so be it.
You say that compliance hasn't been determined. Here are the facts: after the inital rounds of inspections, the chief UN weapons inspector left saying that Iraq was not cooperating and that Iraq still had not accounted for certain weapons. This is the same guy that is claiming that weapons inspections could work now. What made him change his mind? Maybe Baghdad's contributions to the organization he founded, maybe not. I don't know. Anyway, back to the subject. There are weapons that weren't accounted for then, and they were still unaccounted for when Iraq released the 12,000 page document that was supposedly detailing where all of their weapons had gone. The fact that weapons inspectors couldn't find WMD has nothing to do with this. The fact that they weren't saying, "Here are those weapons that you wanted us to account for, destroy them if you like," is enough to make them
not in compliance with the resolution.
Here's some food for thought: why did they call 1441 Saddam's "last resort" when (if what you say is true) what they really meant was "second-to-last we swear this time?" Even you can't claim that a resolution, in and of itself, is a "serious consequence," can you? Of course you can. If by "serious consequence" they really meant "just another resolution to add to the pile," then why didn't they word it that way? I do not understand how you could claim that a
resolution is a serious consequence. Maybe that resolution carries serious consequences, but the resolution in and of itself is NOT a serious consequence. They didn't have to sign it, but they did.
1441 as it stands does not justify any single course of action; it merely states that in the event of non-compliance some decision on action would be taken.
Iraq has already fired weapons that were not in compliance with what they were legally allowed to have, but the UN claimed that they were compliant. Doesn't this make the UN wrong? Wouldn't that mean it was time for those "serious consequences?" Probably. It didn't seem to happen though, did it?
We now have at least three countries - the US, Britain and Australia - providing troops to help in the effrot to oust Saddam and his Baath party. THIS IS NOT THE US ALONE!
It doesn't matter if the entire world was on your side; if it's not done with UN consent, it's not legal.
You know, the UN didn't back NATO's incursion into Yugoslavia either, but it was the right thing to do. Unless, of course, you thought genocide at the hands of the Serbs was OK.
So, in answer to your moronic question, no, other countries should not sit idly by if the Canadians invaded us (with hockey sticks, no doubt). Why? Because you don't give a reason why they did it.
I gave several reasons.
Which I promptly discredited.
And for another thing, you mentioned that the Iraqis should fight it out for themselves. Can you even read? Maybe you should sit back and let the adults do the talking.
Can you form an argument without resorting to personal attacks?
Done and done.
The Iraqi military are scared to death of revolting against Saddam because his top officers are treated like princes.
The one does not follow from the other.
The lower ranks who have horrible lives and would want to revolt are held back by the higher-ups that are treated like princes. Is that clear enough for you?
If you're an Iraqi soldier and you don't like where you are, what do you do? You surely can't talk to others. There would be a reward for anyone that wanted to turn you in. And the officials would be happy to turn you in because they don't want to see their leader that's showering them with gifts go down.
The Iraqi soldiers are a subset of the Iraqi people. If there was such widespread dislike for his regime, they would turn their guns on the government. The Republican Guard may be better equipped than the rest of the army, but do you really think that they could win if the rest of the country rose up against them?
Before the Kurds even revolted, Saddam gassed an entire Kurdish city. I don't see them revolting again, do you? Oh, wait, but that would make them not self-determinant enough for you, wouldn't it? Or maybe they're just scared since no outside government did anything to stop Saddam after he gassed them by the thousands. Maybe if they revolted and were gassed the UN would pass another of those dandy resolutions that do nothing. Shouldn't that be enough for them to revolt... oh, maybe not.
Plus, the reward is quite nice. Then, the solier that reported the dissident would be rewarded in some way. It's basically the same thing as Stalin's regime.
The Russian regime is evidence that internal and external political pressure will, given time, result in change that is (probably) for the better. Likewise the Chinese regime, likewise the Libyan regime. A leader can't continue to lead without popular support indefinitely.
No, it's not. If you remember correctly, while Stalin killed MILLIONS MORE THAN HITLER in the Gulags, his people never rose up against him. Oh, wait, I know, you were right. He didn't continue indefinitely. He got very ill and because his doctors were afraid to be killed if they helped him for the capital offense of seeing him while he was sick (read: weak), they didn't treat him. His daughter, many years later, blamed the doctors, not her genocidal father, for them not treating him. You're right. Let's just wait until Saddam dies of old age or some terrible sickness. Hopefully he won't gas his own people between now and then, right?
Back then, if you owned a shoe business and the shoe business down the street was doing better than you, you just turned him in and he would be sent to the Gulags. No more competition for you, eh? I watched an Iraqi defector on the History Channel a few weeks ago. He used to be the top Iraqi nuclear scientist. At first it was a fun science experiment when he was a kid, but as he grew up, he realized that he was working for a madman. Saddam treated him very well and gave him everything he wanted. Then he saw another scientist get dragged away, accused of saying things not in line with Saddam's regime. This other scientist was tortured for about a month. At the end, he was given back all of his nice things (fancy car, nice house, etc.) and told, "Isn't this better than the torture from before? Just do what you're told and nothing bad has to happen to you." Do you think that the people around him were going to be eager to go against Saddam's will after that? That's why the scientist that was being interviewed defected. He wasn't about to say anything bad or try to start an anti-Saddam movement, he ran like any other sensible person would.
That they defected makes clear that there is another option.
No, he had to pay large sums of money to underground factions to get himself out of Iraq. He also had to pay more for the border guards (who though they are stationed well-away from Saddam still are afraid enough to follow most of his orders) to let him out of hte country. That's hard to do for the masses that don't have money, isn't it?
The Iraqis can't stop him.
Yes they can.
Good one.
We're not there for their sake, but it surely doesn't hurt that they get something out of this as well.
Sure. Their Iraqi leader will be replaced with an American leader.
Only for a transitional period until the Iraqi government is set up. If you want to believe a conspiracy theory that neither you nor I could prove or disprove, go right ahead.
Now, if you wish to talk again, tell me where I was wrong from before.
You're wrong because you're trying to force self-determination -- which by its very nature cannot be forced upon people -- onto the Iraqis.
No, the majority of Iraqis
want to be out of Saddam's control, but they cannot or will not for fear of reprisal. Your misconception is that just the desire to be somewhere else is enough to get you there.
That, is where you are wrong. We're not trying to force self-determination, we're trying to pave the way for it.
Tell me how we're not justified. Until then, SHUT THE F*CK UP AND LET THE GROWNUPS TALK!
If acting like a grown up means shouting and insulting people, I'm glad you're not applying the label to me.
You're right, and I appologize.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I have to take a break now. I'll get back to your other post this weekend.
Flame Away
Facebook
Twitter