"Anti-Iraq War" Flaws

[Trezza]

I would like you opinions on some of the anti war arguements.
Here is one flaw in antiwar logic.

Why are we going after Iraq, other countries have WMD?

A) Iraq signed a ceasefire agreement at the end of the first Gulf War that stated they would no longer build, buy, research or have WMD.
If they have WMD then they are in violation of the ceasefire agreement.

B) NK currently has WMD why not go after them. NK backed out of an agreement that it would not develop nukes under the premise that this devolpment is for electrical development. One country at a time plus the US doesn't want to deal with NK alone. To the best of my knowledge US still will not meet with NK by itself and wishes to have NK meet with many other countries for a group decision on the situation.

C) Any country that legally has WMD now isn't obligated to disarm itself. While nobody likes nukes they are a War deturent.

Thats one I see alot on these pages if you can argue against what i have posted I'd like to hear it if you have other flaws I'd like to hear it too.

 

[Morph]

Originally posted by: Trezza

A) Iraq signed a ceasefire agreement at the end of the first Gulf War that stated they would no longer build, buy, research or have WMD.
If they have WMD then they are in violation of the ceasefire agreement.

We have not proven conclusively that they have any. That was the whole purpose of weapons inspections, which Bush did not allow to run it's course.

B) NK currently has WMD why not go after them. NK backed out of an agreement that it would not develop nukes under the premise that this devolpment is for electrical development. One country at a time plus the US doesn't want to deal with NK alone. To the best of my knowledge US still will not meet with NK by itself and wishes to have NK meet with many other countries for a group decision on the situation.

And that's a reason to wage war on Iraq? We can't take NK, so let's go after a weak country that we can kick around a bit.

C) Any country that legally has WMD now isn't obligated to disarm itself. While nobody likes nukes they are a War deturent.

Again, I don't see how this is a justification for declaring war on and invading Iraq.

 

[Trezza]

This is the anti war opinion. Why are we going after Iraq, other countries have WMD?

These are my arguements against your reasoning. Not reasons why we should be at war.

A) Iraq signed a ceasefire agreement at the end of the first Gulf War that stated they would no longer build, buy, research or have WMD.
If they have WMD then they are in violation of the ceasefire agreement.

B) NK currently has WMD why not go after them. NK backed out of an agreement that it would not develop nukes under the premise that this devolpment is for electrical development. One country at a time plus the US doesn't want to deal with NK alone. To the best of my knowledge US still will not meet with NK by itself and wishes to have NK meet with many other countries for a group decision on the situation.

C) Any country that legally has WMD now isn't obligated to disarm itself. While nobody likes nukes they are a War deturent.

 

[Trezza]

Originally posted by: Morph

Originally posted by: Trezza

A) Iraq signed a ceasefire agreement at the end of the first Gulf War that stated they would no longer build, buy, research or have WMD.
If they have WMD then they are in violation of the ceasefire agreement.

We have not proven conclusively that they have any. That was the whole purpose of weapons inspections, which Bush did not allow to run it's course.

Iraq has spy drones, missiles that can fire outside of the 180 something limit and chemical weapon suits.

B) NK currently has WMD why not go after them. NK backed out of an agreement that it would not develop nukes under the premise that this devolpment is for electrical development. One country at a time plus the US doesn't want to deal with NK alone. To the best of my knowledge US still will not meet with NK by itself and wishes to have NK meet with many other countries for a group decision on the situation.

And that's a reason to wage war on Iraq? We can't take NK, so let's go after a weak country that we can kick around a bit.

The US can take any country on the map. The problem is at what losses. Its not about kicking the weaker country its about following rules and agreements.

C) Any country that legally has WMD now isn't obligated to disarm itself. While nobody likes nukes they are a War deturent.

Again, I don't see how this is a justification for declaring war on and invading Iraq.

[/quote]

 

[Morph]

Originally posted by: Trezza

Iraq has spy drones, missiles that can fire outside of the 180 something limit and chemical weapon suits.

Spy drones- Ah, you mean the balsa wood RC planes? In that case, there's a lot of hobbyists in our country that need to be arrested immediately for possessing potential WMD.

Missiles that can fire outside limit- Oh, you mean the ones that Iraq was in the process of destroying when they were so rudely disrupted by an invading army?

Chemical weapon suits- Yes, clearly WMD. If they were to drop all these suits from a plane, I imagine they could cause quite a few injuries.

 

[Trezza]

Originally posted by: Morph

Originally posted by: Trezza

Iraq has spy drones, missiles that can fire outside of the 180 something limit and chemical weapon suits.

Spy drones- Ah, you mean the balsa wood RC planes? In that case, there's a lot of hobbyists in our country that need to be arrested immediately for possessing potential WMD.

Missiles that can fire outside limit- Oh, you mean the ones that Iraq was in the process of destroying when they were so rudely disrupted by an invading army?

Morph do you honestly believe that the Spy drones and Al-sumod missile were just hidden for 12 years and "suddenly found" without Iraq knowing they were there the whole time.

Its like be caught with illegal mp3's on your computer that you were "planning" on deleting. The fact of the matter is that if your no supposed to have something your not supposed to have it. If you get caught you have to deal with the penalty.

OT: I don't believe mp3 should be illegal.

 

[Trezza]

Originally posted by: Morph

Chemical weapon suits- Yes, clearly WMD. If they were to drop all these suits from a plane, I imagine they could cause quite a few injuries.

LMAO..Now your just playing with words... why would you have chem/bio suits for soldigers if they didn't have chem/bio material.

 

[Fencer128]

Its like be caught with illegal mp3's on your computer that you were "planning" on deleting. The fact of the matter is that if your no supposed to have something your not supposed to have it. If you get caught you have to deal with the penalty.

Ignoring all other arguements - the one you present by your quote above interests me.

Was the (pre-war) aim of the UN or US led "coalition of the willing" to disarm Iraq or to punish Iraq for not having disarmed sooner?

If so who are they punishing exactly? If it is about punishment then it is wrong IMHO. This war should only come about through the necessity to disarm Iraq, not to punish it for not complying sooner.

Cheers,

Andy

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: Trezza

Originally posted by: Morph

Chemical weapon suits- Yes, clearly WMD. If they were to drop all these suits from a plane, I imagine they could cause quite a few injuries.

LMAO..Now your just playing with words... why would you have chem/bio suits for soldigers if they didn't have chem/bio material.

Well, playing devils advocate here but:

Because you've stockpiled them over the years.
Because your afraid of chemical attack.

There are other reasons to consider, however remote you may believe they are.

Cheers,

Andy

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: Fencer128

Originally posted by: Trezza

Originally posted by: Morph

Chemical weapon suits- Yes, clearly WMD. If they were to drop all these suits from a plane, I imagine they could cause quite a few injuries.

LMAO..Now your just playing with words... why would you have chem/bio suits for soldigers if they didn't have chem/bio material.

Well, playing devils advocate here but:

Because you've stockpiled them over the years.
Because your afraid of chemical attack.

There are other reasons to consider, however remote you may believe they are.

Cheers,

Andy

Chemical Attack? From whom? Yourself! Hahahah! Yea, I am sure they just have Anti-Nerve medications and Gas Masks and Suits just incase something happens....

 

[TheNinja]

Originally posted by: Morph

Originally posted by: Trezza

Iraq has spy drones, missiles that can fire outside of the 180 something limit and chemical weapon suits.

Spy drones- Ah, you mean the balsa wood RC planes? In that case, there's a lot of hobbyists in our country that need to be arrested immediately for possessing potential WMD.

Missiles that can fire outside limit- Oh, you mean the ones that Iraq was in the process of destroying when they were so rudely disrupted by an invading army?

Chemical weapon suits- Yes, clearly WMD. If they were to drop all these suits from a plane, I imagine they could cause quite a few injuries.

LOL....LOL...are you serious?!? Do you actually think they were destroying all of their long range missles? It was a delay tactic, the same delay tactics he's been using for the past 12 years. Oh, and after he destoryed all of their missles, Saddam was going to bake cookies for all the people he oppressed and give them all new houses and free tours of his palaces that he built while they were starving. Oh and free oil for everyone United States included.

 

[Fencer128]

Well, playing devils advocate here but:

Because you've stockpiled them over the years.
Because your afraid of chemical attack.

There are other reasons to consider, however remote you may believe they are.

Cheers,

Andy

Chemical Attack? From whom? Yourself! Hahahah! Yea, I am sure they just have Anti-Nerve medications and Gas Masks and Suits just incase something happens....

Well, Iran and Syria to start with.

Have a look at this site. (Federation of American Scientists)

Cheers,

Andy

 

[Marshallj]

Originally posted by: Morph


And that's a reason to wage war on Iraq? We can't take NK, so let's go after a weak country that we can kick around a bit.

I wouldn't say that we COULDN'T take NK, I just think that the risk outweighs the need. Invading Iraq was thought to be a relatively low risk operation. Less than 100 of our servicemen died so far, with how close our troops are to NK forces in the DMZ, thousands would die there ni a relatively short time. The American public wouldn't go for it.

And plus, there's nothing to gain from N. Korea. Regardless of what anyone says, oil is definitely a motivating factor in this current battle.

 

[Trezza]

IMO the attempted 3-5 months of disarming was to scare the Iraq government to complie (sp?) with the pre-establish ceasefire agreement.
The reason for this war is that Iraq does not adhere to the regulations and agreements it said it would. The US/UN efforts in the beginning was to give Saddam the chance to escape from a war by showing his cards but he didn't. I believe that the US was very patient and that it is the UN fault for not taking a stronger role in discipling Iraq for breaking agreements.

Originally posted by: Fencer128

Its like be caught with illegal mp3's on your computer that you were "planning" on deleting. The fact of the matter is that if your no supposed to have something your not supposed to have it. If you get caught you have to deal with the penalty.

Ignoring all other arguements - the one you present by your quote above interests me.

Was the (pre-war) aim of the UN or US led "coalition of the willing" to disarm Iraq or to punish Iraq for not having disarmed sooner?

If so who are they punishing exactly? If it is about punishment then it is wrong IMHO. This war should only come about through the necessity to disarm Iraq, not to punish it for not complying sooner.

Cheers,

Andy

The US goal is to disarm Iraq but Saddam's effort to hide arms and continued efforts to acquire more means that he is the problem. The US solution is to remove Saddam. They offered him 48 hours to surrender and he did not. So we are at war.


This is how i would translate it.

Metalica = USA, Iraq = computer user [CU] with illegal mp3's. Court = UN.
The following is a dialouge between them.

Metalica: Hey.
CU: Wassup.
Metalica: You got mp3's don't you.
CU: What you talking about?
Metalica: We have pictures of your hard drive and the folders they are located in.
CU: No, they are fake pictures.
Metalica: We are going to take you to the court.
CU: Whatever. <<Enter Sandman plays in backround>>
Metalica: See you there.
Court: We believe that there may be mp3's on the CU's harddrive so we will send people over to search for files.
CU: Here's a Tom Petty Mp3. i found this.
Court: Anymore?
CU: Nope thats it.
Metalica: What about in the napster folder.
CU: I don't know what napster is?

etc... etc. etc.. it is getting kinda stupid but you see my point. i know computers not writing stories.

 

[Sxotty]

*pats on the back* oh boy were right, you here that I'm right, and your right everyone is right oh boy what happiness lets tell eachother were right some more then everyone will be happy.

 

[TheNinja]

Trezza - funny stuff with that Metallica bit. Hopefully that analogy will help some people understand exactly what has happened and what is happening now.

Offtopic - WooHoo post #100

 

[Trezza]

Originally posted by: Sxotty
*pats on the back* oh boy were right, you here that I'm right, and your right everyone is right oh boy what happiness lets tell eachother were right some more then everyone will be happy.

huh?

 

[Trezza]

Originally posted by: Fencer128

Well, playing devils advocate here but:

Because you've stockpiled them over the years.
Because your afraid of chemical attack.

There are other reasons to consider, however remote you may believe they are.

Cheers,

Andy

Chemical Attack? From whom? Yourself! Hahahah! Yea, I am sure they just have Anti-Nerve medications and Gas Masks and Suits just incase something happens....

Well, Iran and Syria to start with.

Have a look at this site. (Federation of American Scientists)

Cheers,

Andy

Iran maybe but during the disarmament period US sources said that Iraq was moving some of its WMD to Syria. How true this is i don't know. How buddy buddy they are i don't know. How likely it would happen i say 70%.

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: Trezza

Originally posted by: Fencer128

Well, playing devils advocate here but:

Because you've stockpiled them over the years.
Because your afraid of chemical attack.

There are other reasons to consider, however remote you may believe they are.

Cheers,

Andy

Chemical Attack? From whom? Yourself! Hahahah! Yea, I am sure they just have Anti-Nerve medications and Gas Masks and Suits just incase something happens....

Well, Iran and Syria to start with.

Have a look at this site. (Federation of American Scientists)

Cheers,

Andy

Iran maybe but during the disarmament period US sources said that Iraq was moving some of its WMD to Syria. How true this is i don't know. How buddy buddy they are i don't know. How likely it would happen i say 70%.

Iraq and Syria are only now just back on speaking terms. They are ruled by different factions of the Ba'ath party and fell out majorly over the 80-88 Iran-Iraq war (Syria sided with and aided Iran). Syria also participated in the 91 gulf war alongside the US and others to drive Iraq out of Kuwait. The only major co-operation I've heard of recent between Iraq and Syria is regarding Syria purchasing oil from Iraq as part of the oil-for-food UN program. There is a lot of bad blood between these countries. Your ~70% may be a tad optimistic.

Cheers,

Andy

 

[snowwie]

syria is friendly with iraq

they have to be, because syria has nothing

I went there two years ago, and it's a wasteland

I initially went to lebanon (which syria essentially controls), but also went to syria, and iraq has infuence there

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: snowwie
syria is friendly with iraq

they have to be, because syria has nothing

I went there two years ago, and it's a wasteland

I initially went to lebanon (which syria essentially controls), but also went to syria, and iraq has infuence there

I'll take your word for that given that I've never been. Could you describe some of the ways in which they were friendly to each other?

Cheers,

Andy

 

[Alistar7]

morph the proof is quite clear. As part of the original agreement Saddam signed, he had to DECLARE what he did have. He admitted he had them, but never offered the proof required for compliance that they were destroyed. Where are they? If he did destroy them, why wouldnt he save the evidence? All that would have done is stop all inspections, lift all sanctions, and he would remain in power...guess this solution was better for him. I see your logic, he destroyed them, thats how he doesnt have any NOW, he just "forgot" to save the evidnece that would have saved his a*s.

Now combine the KNOWN WMD with the KNOWN terrorist camp and tell me the US is paranoid of him suppplying what he has shown he has no problem using himself to ANYONE that would use them against the US.

You probably can't get that, that's too bad, this is why we are taking him out.

 

[Gaard]

What known WMD?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Gaard
What known WMD?

The Scuds that are unaccounted for.
The Anthrax
The VX gas
And misc. other items.

Just read Hans Blix' report

 

[snowwie]

well, they are bordered, and most of the country was essentially pistachio orchards and huge oil pipelines coming from Iraq. I think they shared oil, or something

syria also has very little. the pipelines are reletively new and I saw construction of more
iraq only has to give syria a nudge and syria complies

they share similar interests, like the destruction of israel

along the border of syria and lebanon are terrorist camps, such as hamas and hezbollah (you can see the flag with fist holding an AK-47 from the road)
They are supported by the syrian gov't, as syria has a poor military

I have no doubt that Iraq (whether directly or indirectly) supports these camps as well

it just the general impression I got when I was there

I now hear that Saddam sent his family to syria for safekeeping, and he will use syria to flee to when he has no last resort (he doesn't want o be caught)