-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
anti-war protesters: please give me a fact that supports your argument
Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Since you are so sure Saddam is the source of all evil/thread to us, that's fine. After US killed thousands of Iraqis, with hundreds of our own died in the battle, and the threat of terrorism is still there and the danger that every one of us is facing is still there, hopefully all those people who died needlessly will be on your conscious....if you have one that is.
Originally posted by: Alistar7
well now a return to force is very clearly spelled out, whats the problem then?
Oh the French, Germans, Russians, and Chineese need Saddam to stay in power to get paid, and they don't want the illegal weapons they supplied to be found or worse yet, USED in the war..Like th GPS jamming stations and anti tank missilles.....
The UK AG?s case itself is an agrument that the war does not confirm to UN resolutions. He listed indisputable facts up until point 7. ?It is plain that Iraq has failed so to comply and therefore Iraq was at the time of resolution 1441 and continues to be in material breach.? ?It is plain? is an opinion. Blix didn't declare Iraq in violation of 1441. Blix said he needed more time (months) to reach a conculsion on Iraq.
Yeah, you don't have to repeat the propaganda administration has been feeding us. If you really want to know the fact, get out of your little town and see the world a little. Listen to the opinion of the people close to the situation, like in Arab countries. Or just go to any country outside of US where people are not fed with all these biased views and so called facts. You will be surprise who most of the people in the world think the villian in this mess is.
1441 itself declares Iraq to be in material breach!
?Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,
?1.Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq's failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991);
There are no facts against war nor are there facts for war. We are not going to war not to liberate anybody nor are we going for oil. Bush's case for war is that Iraq might sell WMD to Osama because Iraq has WMD, Iraq doesn't like US, Osama is seeking WMD, and Osama is willing to attack the US.
Some of the anti-war camp don't believe it is American to shoot first and then prove we were right (hopefully) afterwards. It goes against this whole notion of innocent until proven guilty. Now of course, one can argue that such a concept does not apply to the affairs of state but on the individual level, it does go against that notion.
Another anti-war idea is that even if Iraq did sell or had the intent to sell WMDs to Osama or any other organization, WMDs and terrorism is not going away after the war. Saddam and Osama are symptoms of a much larger problem and Bush is only treating the symptoms and not the cause with this war. The cause is a matter of debate. Some say our dependence on oil is causing us to mettle in the affairs of the Persian Gulf. Would Osama really exist if we weren?t in the Middle East? Would we really care about Saddam if the region didn?t have any oil? Bush is spending more than $100 billion addressing a symptom while ignoring the root of the problem.
Then there are those who will oppose war regardless of the circumstances.
This is a really touchy subject, and I'm starting to find myself torn between the two positions. I think that there has been alot of propaganda from both sides.
I agree that something has to be done about Saddam Hussein, but I don't think that war is the answer. I'm still waiting for the day when the world can resolve problems like this peacefully.
If you want "proof" about why this war shouldn't be going on, the best that I can come up with is the fact that hundreds of civilians have already died in this conflict, and many more will in the ensuing days. Add to this the military casualties. Can you really put a price to a human life?
I know that the rebuttal to this argument is that if the U.S. does nothing, there is a good chance that Iraq will provide terrorists with weapons of mass destruction, and September 11 will look like a walk in the park. All that I can say to that is that I feel that this war is only going to increase the hatred that many people feel against Americans. Sure, it will most likely rid the world of a terrible dictator, but there will be other countries like North Korea lining up to help the terrorists.
I agree that something has to be done about Saddam Hussein, but I don't think that war is the answer. I'm still waiting for the day when the world can resolve problems like this peacefully.
If you want "proof" about why this war shouldn't be going on, the best that I can come up with is the fact that hundreds of civilians have already died in this conflict, and many more will in the ensuing days. Add to this the military casualties. Can you really put a price to a human life?
I know that the rebuttal to this argument is that if the U.S. does nothing, there is a good chance that Iraq will provide terrorists with weapons of mass destruction, and September 11 will look like a walk in the park. All that I can say to that is that I feel that this war is only going to increase the hatred that many people feel against Americans. Sure, it will most likely rid the world of a terrible dictator, but there will be other countries like North Korea lining up to help the terrorists.
I think a more accurate rebuttal is look at who is causing the civilian deaths. Iraqi troops firing upon civilians in cold-blooded murder is atrocious. Yes, it's tragic, too, that civilians are killed as 'collateral damage' but none of this would be happening if Saddam had not broken 12 years' worth of UN Resolutions and had disarmed as he agreed to in the original 1991 cease-fire.
No, I don't know and neither do you. Post some links and I'd be inclined to believe you. But, until then, I can only go by what I read/hear and that's that the Iraqi troops are indiscriminately killing innocent civilians. The coalition forces are bombing military installations.
If you meant that in sarcasm...I guess I need to stand in line at the sarcasm detector RMA counter.
Putting the first point of 1441's context yields a totally different meaning. The resolution states that even thought Iraq is in breach, it is being presented with a final chance to come clean (2.). Failing to do so will result in the UN reconvening to consider the situation (4, 11, 12). Blix wanted more time to fulfill the resolution and was denied.
Which shows how pointless 1441 really is. "Let's make a resolution to state that Iraq is in material breach and will suffer serious consequences but we'll give you just one more try. And then, after that, we're going to be really tough. No, I mean it this time!"
You'd think the UN was all members of Monty Python
There's quite a mix of civilians in there (ITN reporter listed as one of them). And some of them were possibly as a result of Iraqi munitions, esp. the market in Al-Sha'ab. And this one, if a cruise missile hit a house, the whole damn neighborhood would have been destroyed and no one would have survived. There's no proof it was a U.S. cruise missile.
I haven't seen numbers, yet, of the civilians killed by Iraqi troops as it's next to impossible for that to be verified due to the ongoing fighting but you seem to try to be in defense of them.
Iraqi militia fire on 2,000 civilians fleeing Basra
I'm in no way in defence of them. I'm simply pointing out that this war is killing people. I'm not denying that the Iraqis are killing their own people; I know that they've done it before.
Like I said in my earlier post, I'm torn between the two positions...on one hand I 100% support the US, because I know for a fact that they would stand beside my country (Canada) if we were ever threatened. On the other hand tho, the war greatly concerns me, because as I said earlier, I feel that the military action is only going to further perpetuate the hatred felt by many people worldwide towards the American people.
I have nothing but good things to say about the US. I have been there many times, and the people have always been very friendly towards me.
According to the UK AG, the breach was not declared until 1441 (point 1). Point 2 of 1441 clearly shows that regardless of the breach declared in point 1 of the same resolution, we are giving Iraq a final chance. It was signed by the UN and the US.
What we did was take 1441 and decided to enforce point 1 and pretend everything else after that didn?t exist even though we signed off on the entire resolution last year. How does that make this legal? It only shows the world that when we don't get our way, we will just pick and choose the pieces of a resolution that fit our agenda.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
