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

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: B00ne
Just look at representitive polls around the world the only country supporting you is you. Not even the Britains do that. But hey what is public opinion anyway - do we want democracy?

btw what is your definition of support? Heck even Germany is alloeing you to use your bases, is providing extra security to said bases, is allowing overflight rights and the use of the airports, is having Anticheimcal warfare troops down in Kuweit, is having troops aboard the AWACS planes yet we do not support war

Exactly, your country's OFFICIAL position is you dont support the war, how come there is no number of countries that offically feel the same way?

Polls taken with everyday citizens are hardly indicative of anything, study after study have shown you can ask the same question two times in a row, worded differentyl, and get the exact opposite response damn near every time the second time you ask the same person the same question, lol.

I am really very sick of all this talk about how the US needs to abide by UN law or opinion, where was the call for Saddam to do the same? Funny you back off HIM while you ride us, where is your moral compass? I guess raping women and children and tossing people in plastic shredders is better to you than living free withe right to certain human rights.

 

[Alistar7]

and once again so we dont get off topic, how many countries have officially stated their position that they are against the war, damn, you swear up and down its this huge majority, should smoke the total of 45 for....I'm asking you, practically giving you a golden opportunity to prove me wrong or at least prove your position correct. Still not an accurate number?

 

[Alistar7]

all is nothing more than US envy, envy of our power and our wealth, the Iraqi people celebrating the end of their oppression will be america's moral victory, so keep your worthless, inneffectual opinion to yourself. Message to the Germans, start another world war, were wiping you off the map, but only after the French surrender again, that way when we destroy your death camps we can take them out too....

 

[DanJ]

Originally posted by: Alistar7
and once again so we dont get off topic, how many countries have officially stated their position that they are against the war, damn, you swear up and down its this huge majority, should smoke the total of 45 for....I'm asking you, practically giving you a golden opportunity to prove me wrong or at least prove your position correct. Still not an accurate number?

I'm not sure if this is reply to my post above..if not I'd really like to see your opinion on what I said...

But anyways, who knows what the number is; unless the government gives it (like the U.S. is providing those who have pledged support for), how are we to know? The U.S. administration obviously isn't going to supply the opposite. Right?

 

[Alistar7]

how many make up your clear "majority" in opposition? lol, beginning to think "anti-war" is French for "cant count"

 

[DanJ]

Originally posted by: Alistar7
how many make up your clear "majority" in opposition? lol, beginning to think "anti-war" is French for "cant count"

Who are you talking to? You have to keep your thoughts more coherent...and actually reply to points.

Think about it. Bush said from the start if you're not for us, you're against us. Therefore if he provides countries that are for, using his logic, we can extrapolate that the countries he didn't list are against the war. We're now on Day 3 essentially and have been pushing for this war for nearly a year; if a country isn't with us yet, what else are we to think?

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: DanJ

Originally posted by: Alistar7
and once again so we dont get off topic, how many countries have officially stated their position that they are against the war, damn, you swear up and down its this huge majority, should smoke the total of 45 for....I'm asking you, practically giving you a golden opportunity to prove me wrong or at least prove your position correct. Still not an accurate number?

I'm not sure if this is reply to my post above..if not I'd really like to see your opinion on what I said...

But anyways, who knows what the number is; unless the government gives it (like the U.S. is providing those who have pledged support for), how are we to know? The U.S. administration obviously isn't going to supply the opposite. Right?

not at you no, one would assume such a highly motivated, universally represented sentiment against the war would at least want to quantify their numbers, to PROVE they are in fact a majority..

the math is really simple once we know...

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: DanJ

Originally posted by: Alistar7
how many make up your clear "majority" in opposition? lol, beginning to think "anti-war" is French for "cant count"

Who are you talking to? You have to keep your thoughts more coherent...and actually reply to points.

Think about it. Bush said from the start if you're not for us, you're against us. Therefore if he provides countries that are for, using his logic, we can extrapolate that the countries he didn't list are against the war. We're now on Day 3 essentially and have been pushing for this war for nearly a year; if a country isn't with us yet, what else are we to think?

great reasoning, they wont listen to bush about anything else, but they let him declare their options and then abided by his reasoning???? BWAHAHAHAHA

 

[Alistar7]

night night

 

[B00ne]

Originally posted by: Alistar7

Originally posted by: B00ne

Originally posted by: Alistar7

Originally posted by: B00ne
Easy: Because the country proclaiming to fight far Law, Order and Democracy doesn't give a flying fvck about these when it comes to its interests.
Also this war is breaking several human rights, the Charta of the UN. Basically it is abolutely lawless - that is why there is so much fuzz about. The American arrogancy of thinking they are the only one who has a say in any matter is fueling the whole situation.

Also the US are making the world a more dangerous place, because they just showed the world: Laws mean nothing to them, the only way to protect yourself is to gain access to Nuclear Weapons and that is what the nations will work on so much harder from now on as it has been clearly demonstrated that it is the only protection against Aamerican rule...

Coming from a German, whose nation feels they have the right to wage world war and commit genocide, no wonder you dont support a war against someone so similar in mindset and nature, keep your moral values to yourself please, we showed you what we thought of them in ww2.

Who does AMERICA rule anyway ASSHAT? And are you just going to dismiss the fact that 45 countries have pledged support and create a large coalition not just all American as you claim? I'm sorry, I know how much it must suck that your opinions are in such direct conflict with the facts...

I think u know yourself, that u just showed your idiocy and are not worth to discuss with.

ok i will answer your personal attack on me since you can't. America rules nothing but herself. America is not going it alone, they have the support of a clear MAJORITY who have publicly stated their position on this war. As far as the German history, what was incorrect?

I will let the joy of the Iraqi people when they are free be the moral guiding force in my opinion of what was right with Saddam, of course we could have taken the "we have tremendous business interests and stand to lose billions) higher moral ground along with France and Germany and let the Iraqi people still suffer. Notice there wasn't a call for Saddam to ever leave, just disarm. Why does your country and its citizens feel Saddam should be in power? What about his legacy of rule concludes you to believe this is even morally defensible?


"I think u know yourself, that u just showed your idiocy and are not worth to discuss with."
I think u know yourself, that u just attacked me personally when you couldn't provide a logical answer to my question, essentially impossible unless you are in copmplete denial of the fatcs or cant see beyond ignorance or bias. Your contention we are amking the world a dangerous place because we are removing one of the most oppressive and tyrannical regimes ever, a CERTIFIED GENOCIDAL MURDERER is nothing short of a joke , yes I know those guys get special understanding from the spermans, but not the US,sorry. Your insistence that he be allowed to disarm and remain in power to rape, kill, and commit genocide even more says alot as well.

First: read then come back and decide who attacked who on a personal level.
2nd: American rule does not necessarily´mean that the US are physicaly ruling a country
3rd: there is no support for the US unless you call the undemocratic support some governments voiced (mainly poor and US dependent countries or bought and pressured votes). Dunno but my definition of democracy is not: 60-95% of ppl against the war - hey that really mens yes...
4th: Certainly is Saddam a tyrant yet there are so many tyrants on this world that do even worse things than Saddam (africa anyone) but well only tyrants with oil seem to be important
5th: yes he is a tyrant yet u reserve the right for yourself to call the shots in another country that gotta ring alarm bells in any county in the world
6th: it is not about removing a tyrannical regime but about the how, the way the US have presented themselfes in the last year, and about the US reserving themslfes the right to ignore LAW and righteousness while proclaiming to work for law and democracy

and about your fact about german history : I just assume u didnt have school education and therfore cannot distinguish between historical facts and a rant to personally attack a board member with different nationality and opinion

 

[DanJ]

Originally posted by: Alistar7

Originally posted by: DanJ

Originally posted by: Alistar7
and once again so we dont get off topic, how many countries have officially stated their position that they are against the war, damn, you swear up and down its this huge majority, should smoke the total of 45 for....I'm asking you, practically giving you a golden opportunity to prove me wrong or at least prove your position correct. Still not an accurate number?

I'm not sure if this is reply to my post above..if not I'd really like to see your opinion on what I said...

But anyways, who knows what the number is; unless the government gives it (like the U.S. is providing those who have pledged support for), how are we to know? The U.S. administration obviously isn't going to supply the opposite. Right?

not at you no, one would assume such a highly motivated, universally represented sentiment against the war would at least want to quantify their numbers, to PROVE they are in fact a majority..

the math is really simple once we know...

Who would waste their time in doing such a thing? What country or group is going to call up the 200 odd countries (minus those that are in our coalition) to form a coalition against? It'd be the biggest waste of time ever. If people don't want to be involved, why would they want to be involved in quantifying their numbers in something they don't want to be involved in?

 

[B00ne]

Originally posted by: Alistar7

Originally posted by: B00ne
Just look at representitive polls around the world the only country supporting you is you. Not even the Britains do that. But hey what is public opinion anyway - do we want democracy?

btw what is your definition of support? Heck even Germany is alloeing you to use your bases, is providing extra security to said bases, is allowing overflight rights and the use of the airports, is having Anticheimcal warfare troops down in Kuweit, is having troops aboard the AWACS planes yet we do not support war

Polls taken with everyday citizens are hardly indicative of anything, study after study have shown you can ask the same question two times in a row, worded differentyl, and get the exact opposite response damn near every time the second time you ask the same person the same question, lol.

No really how dare them everyday citizen to even think about voting and having an opinion my god what has the world come to...

 

[DanJ]

Originally posted by: Alistar7
great reasoning, they wont listen to bush about anything else, but they let him declare their options and then abided by his reasoning???? BWAHAHAHAHA

Having an actual discussion with you is impossible (and I really tried). You are so blind you are beyond help.

Bush made this list, therefore this whole list is his idea. Bush's thoughts on the subject are black and white (if you're not for us you're against us). Therefore, unless he no longer believes what he told the world, in his mind, those that are not for are against. Therefore, in Bush theory, the total number of countries in the world minus the number in his coalition are against war. Is it really that much of a stretch?

 

[Gooberlx2]

Warning: OT

Coming from a German, whose nation feels they have the right to wage world war and commit genocide, no wonder you dont support a war against someone so similar in mindset and nature, keep your moral values to yourself please, we showed you what we thought of them in ww2.

I can't believe you'd even try comparing modern Germany's mindset to that of the Nazi regime. Are you really that ignorant? Apples and Oranges with 60 years between them...they totally feel the same way!

 

[DanJ]

Originally posted by: Gooberlx2

Coming from a German, whose nation feels they have the right to wage world war and commit genocide, no wonder you dont support a war against someone so similar in mindset and nature, keep your moral values to yourself please, we showed you what we thought of them in ww2.

I can't believe you'd even try comparing modern Germany's mindset to that of the Nazi regime. Are you really that ignorant? Apples and Oranges with 60 years between them...they totally feel the same way!

He's really that ignorant.

 

[Gooberlx2]

Originally posted by: DanJ

Originally posted by: Gooberlx2

Coming from a German, whose nation feels they have the right to wage world war and commit genocide, no wonder you dont support a war against someone so similar in mindset and nature, keep your moral values to yourself please, we showed you what we thought of them in ww2.

I can't believe you'd even try comparing modern Germany's mindset to that of the Nazi regime. Are you really that ignorant? Apples and Oranges with 60 years between them...they totally feel the same way!

He's really that ignorant.

That just saddens me.

Personally, I'm torn. I'm all for diplomacy, but I'm all for action when diplomacy fails. The question is: when does diplomacy fail?

I don't know. That's why I'm not the president of the USA, and I don't want it.

Here's my take anyway:
People say Bush has ulterior motives, we're the bullies, we're the criminals. Well, one thing I can do now is support the troops (some of whom are very good friends to me). Secondly, I can take some comfort in knowing, regardless of if there are other less-than agreeable reasons for this war, that what has been recognized, world-round, to be an unjust and oppressive regime will be removed, giving the Iraqi people atleast a chance of having civil liberties and basic human rights.

 

[Fencer128]

Polls taken with everyday citizens are hardly indicative of anything, study after study have shown you can ask the same question two times in a row, worded differenty, and get the exact opposite response damn near every time the second time you ask the same person the same question, lol.

I beg to differ. Polls in the UK have consistantly (ie throughout the many months of this crisis) argued that support for a war would have dramatically risen if a 2nd UN resolution been accepted. The question has been asked many times. To dismiss the only factual evidence of public opinion I find a little untenable.

I am really very sick of all this talk about how the US needs to abide by UN law or opinion, where was the call for Saddam to do the same? Funny you back off HIM while you ride us, where is your moral compass? I guess raping women and children and tossing people in plastic shredders is better to you than living free withe right to certain human rights.

The US, UK, entire world doesn't NEED to do anything via the UN. However, it is generally agreed that an international concensus and the diplomatic process are a good thing - at least for the other 99% of the planet.

I find it funny how so many forget that France, Germany, etc. initially supported a dealine for inspections (120 days and then 45 days or so I believe) - which I have no doubt if had been negotiated and then accepted would have left the "coalition of the willing" in a much stronger position to argue for war. It was never a case of there is nothing on the table. The problems only arose when it became obvious that a different timetable was being proposed by the US. That timetable was set primarily by the fact that the unilateral "military pressure" being employed was non-sustainable and had to start a war at some point dictatated by cost.
This war is about disarmament - anything else is secondary, however desirable. Don't even start to talk about morals - we wouldn't even need to be doing this if these weapons hadn't "found" their way into Iraq in the 80's in the first place.

"Its all in the past - the now is all that matters" - well I judge morals on the past and present actions. I find it very difficult to believe that anyone - especially those claiming to - hold "the moral high ground" on this (and, yes, that includes France, etc).

Andy

 

[sandorski]

I've been against this war for about a year now, for many reasons I've posted numerous times in various threads. That said, I thought I would make this comment: I'm pleased that the war is unfolding in a relatively humane way. It's obvious that extra care and attention has been taken to minimize civilian and even military personnel casualties. For that I am thankful.

God help us for what lies in the future though.

 

[derek2034]

I'm sure timetables that were ideal for war like weather conditions had some effect on the US decision, but the real reason the US wouldn't accept a longer compromise is simple:

In 45, much less 120 days Saddam would have gotten yet another deadline, and then another, and then another....He has had enough resolutions already.

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: derek2034
I'm sure timetables that were ideal for war like weather conditions had some effect on the US decision, but the real reason the US wouldn't accept a longer compromise is simple:

In 45, much less 120 days Saddam would have gotten yet another deadline, and then another, and then another....He has had enough resolutions already.

I have to disagree with the perpetual deadline idea. Pre 9/11 yes - post 9/11 no. Everyone knows that the game has changed.

IMHO it was a different situation.

Andy

 

[derek2034]

Would you still think the war is a bad idea IF it continues the way it currently is? Virtually no casualties on either side, mass surrenders, etc.? Considering the death Saddam delivered already, and all the lives saved (if not US lives, then Iraqis') by the operation, I don't see why not.

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: derek2034
Would you still think the war is a bad idea IF it continues the way it currently is? Virtually no casualties on either side, mass surrenders, etc.? Considering the death Saddam delivered already, and all the lives saved (if not US lives, then Iraqis') by the operation, I don't see why not.

I do not think the war is a bad idea. I have always thought it would come to this and that I would support it when it did. My qualm is with the way it has been handled diplomatically. IMHO I think that this could have been handled differently and effectively. What scuppered everything was the alternative timetable the US used over the UN options - which led to all the diplomatic hostilities we see now.

Andy

 

[derek2034]

That's good, I can buy that. The whole juggling of the main reasons was a major issue for me too. How hard is it to simply articulate the many reasons for war without confusing the hell out of everyone and making yourself look stupid/cocky etc. I guess I just think we have been bashed a bit too hard.

 

[LeeTJ]

Originally posted by: Fencer128

Originally posted by: derek2034
Would you still think the war is a bad idea IF it continues the way it currently is? Virtually no casualties on either side, mass surrenders, etc.? Considering the death Saddam delivered already, and all the lives saved (if not US lives, then Iraqis') by the operation, I don't see why not.

I do not think the war is a bad idea. I have always thought it would come to this and that I would support it when it did. My qualm is with the way it has been handled diplomatically. IMHO I think that this could have been handled differently and effectively. What scuppered everything was the alternative timetable the US used over the UN options - which led to all the diplomatic hostilities we see now.

Andy

and that really is the crux of the issue. i don't think any american pro or anti war really believes that diplomacy would have achieved the goal of disarmament. I don't think any american pro or anti war believes that disarmament is a bad goal.

everyone agrees that saddam must be disarmed. everyone believes that ultimately diplomacy would not have achieved those goals.

question is whethor or not we should have gotten UN sanction for this action.

I don't believe we would have EVER gotten US sanction, hence, now is better than latter.

If you truly believe like I do that the UN would have NEVER sanctioned a war, then I don't think you can honestly object to this war.

What is the motivation of the French for wanting to Veto any resolution set forth by the US to attack Iraq??

knowing or understanding the motivation of the french is key to understanding IF there would ever be a time when the French would approve this resolution.

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: LeeTJ

Originally posted by: Fencer128

Originally posted by: derek2034
Would you still think the war is a bad idea IF it continues the way it currently is? Virtually no casualties on either side, mass surrenders, etc.? Considering the death Saddam delivered already, and all the lives saved (if not US lives, then Iraqis') by the operation, I don't see why not.

I do not think the war is a bad idea. I have always thought it would come to this and that I would support it when it did. My qualm is with the way it has been handled diplomatically. IMHO I think that this could have been handled differently and effectively. What scuppered everything was the alternative timetable the US used over the UN options - which led to all the diplomatic hostilities we see now.

Andy

and that really is the crux of the issue. i don't think any american pro or anti war really believes that diplomacy would have achieved the goal of disarmament. I don't think any american pro or anti war believes that disarmament is a bad goal.

everyone agrees that saddam must be disarmed. everyone believes that ultimately diplomacy would not have achieved those goals.

I would say "would probably not have achieved those goals" - and its the probably we should hope for.

question is whethor or not we should have gotten UN sanction for this action.

I don't believe we would have EVER gotten US sanction, hence, now is better than latter.

If you truly believe like I do that the UN would have NEVER sanctioned a war, then I don't think you can honestly object to this war.

What is the motivation of the French for wanting to Veto any resolution set forth by the US to attack Iraq??

knowing or understanding the motivation of the french is key to understanding IF there would ever be a time when the French would approve this resolution.

I have thought on this a lot and IMHO the French deciding to veto came only after it was clear that the US/UK were not prepared to accept any timetable to inspections but their own. Initially the French and their partners suggested a 120 day, then 45 day inspection deadline. If the US/UK had capitulated or negotiated with these - then I think at the end of that time it would have been much easier to garner international support for a war - even if the French were still not 100% there is a good chance IMHO that the "unconditional veto" rhetoric would not have occured.

It has been mentioned (above) that there would be perpetual deadlines and no action.

I would say that pre 9/11 I would agree. But post 9/11 the game has changed and countries know that. I firmly believe that we were in a very different position to that in which the last 12 years of UN inaction failed us.

Cheers,

Andy