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

[Alistar7]

nice of you to wait until I had left to degarde me personally when you cant even answer basic questions or follow simple logic.


Anyone ever bother to determine how many are opposed publicly()? as they continue to propagate the theory that a MAJORITY disagree? Or are you just continuing to claim this numerical victory without actually having a clue as to what the exact ration is?

Just listened to a radio interview of a former prisioner of Saddam's dungeons, he claims, and we will see if this is true, the people of Iraq are ESTATIC we are coming to remove Saddam, can't wait to tell the rest of the world to SUCK IT as we liberate an oppressed people from their misery and they CHEER and welcome our arrival.

 

[Fencer128]

Just listened to a radio interview of a former prisioner of Saddam's dungeons, he claims, and we will see if this is true, the people of Iraq are ESTATIC we are coming to remove Saddam, can't wait to tell the rest of the world to SUCK IT as we liberate an oppressed people from their misery and they CHEER and welcome our arrival.

I'm glad the Iraqi people will be free at last. Its a good side effect of the disarmament process.

For the reasons I've given above though, I don't see how this is a "moral" war or purely a liberation.

Will we be invading Tibet next?

Its a disarmament.

Andy

 

[Fencer128]

Anyone ever bother to determine how many are opposed publicly()? as they continue to propagate the theory that a MAJORITY disagree? Or are you just continuing to claim this numerical victory without actually having a clue as to what the exact ration is?

I think I've discovered the problem there. I don't believe that there is a publicly signed up "coalition of disagreement" in the same way their is a "coalition of the willing".

Some notable countries have publicly stated their opposition. Some have stated their support. Others have said little. The only way in the case of those who keep silent (for who would want to publicly go on record against the wishes of the US and they were forced say so?) is to judge the opinion of the people (although I say IMHO if they're keeping there mouths shut that probably means they DON'T agree).

When I first mentioned "division" in this thread I meant it not only at an international country by country level - but also within each as declared by its citizens. In that case IMHO there is great division.

I'm sure the only way this will be settled for good is in the coming months when the war coverage lessens and attention turns to "who thought what".

Andy

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: Fencer128

Just listened to a radio interview of a former prisioner of Saddam's dungeons, he claims, and we will see if this is true, the people of Iraq are ESTATIC we are coming to remove Saddam, can't wait to tell the rest of the world to SUCK IT as we liberate an oppressed people from their misery and they CHEER and welcome our arrival.

I'm glad the Iraqi people will be free at last. Its a good side effect of the disarmament process.

For the reasons I've given above though, I don't see how this is a "moral" war or purely a liberation.

Will we be invading Tibet next?

Its a disarmament.

Andy

I disagree completetly, I don't think for a second after 9/11 the US would have ever let Saddam maintain power. I feel more and more countries will change their position as more evidence , especially those of WMD, comes out of the conflict. This is definitely a regime change.

Thankfully more time was not given that could have resulted in Saddam STAYING in power. Would you have been happier had the entire security council gave Saddam say an extra 120 days and he fully complied, turned over all evidence needed to prove disarmament, to become 100% compliant with all conditions? Starting over would have been difficult, but he has shown he would have made the effort as many times as he was given. Once those resolutions and sanctions were lifted he would once again had unlimited resources to pour into reconstructing a new, even more advanced force WITHOUT ANY international oversight or "legal" authority to do anything but watch it happen, again.


All my other posts which resulted in such intense persoanl attacks started with a basic question that has still not been answered, how many countries have publicly stated their opposition? Using the logic that George Bush said last year, your with us or against us hardly justifies claiming the rest aside from the 45 feel this way, I wish it was so easy that he could just tell people, ok, this is your position, and have them go along so willingly as you claim.

 

[LeeTJ]

Originally posted by: 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

Iraq had 14 years to comply. They didn't. there should be a limit to patience.

 

[Alistar7]

unfortunately Saddam's timeline was greatly reduced by 9/11, I'm somewhat baffled by everyones admission he still has WMD, yet their reluctance to stop him from not only using them on his own people and neighboors, but from furnishing them to terorists, his connections are well knwon. Al-Queda is hardly the only group to worry about, there are many more that would be equally happy using WMD on the US. We are not going to let the sheer certainty that Saddam would have no problem morally or physicaly supplying them actually happen.


France finding Ricin in their own country should have made them question their current stance, anyone seen an official response from them on the finding of WMD in their own country? Any information about it at all really would be appreciated.

 

[Fencer128]

I disagree completetly, I don't think for a second after 9/11 the US would have ever let Saddam maintain power. I feel more and more countries will change their position as more evidence , especially those of WMD, comes out of the conflict. This is definitely a regime change.

Thankfully more time was not given that could have resulted in Saddam STAYING in power. Would you have been happier had the entire security council gave Saddam say an extra 120 days and he fully complied, turned over all evidence needed to prove disarmament, to become 100% compliant with all conditions? Starting over would have been difficult, but he has shown he would have made the effort as many times as he was given. Once those resolutions and sanctions were lifted he would once again had unlimited resources to pour into reconstructing a new, even more advanced force WITHOUT ANY international oversight or "legal" authority to do anything but watch it happen, again.

Well, that surprises me - as the reasons for this war (and I'm looking to my own Prime Minister here) are the "forceful disarmament" of Iraq. It is because 1441 failed to disarm Iraq that this action is occuring. If this is not the case then I would have severe doubts about the legitimacy of this war after all. Then again, maybe thats why the French, Germans, etc. disagree so strongly - because you say you want "disarmament" through 1441 but you actually want regime change through 1441? I'll have to think about this more and hope that you're not as correct. Anyone else have thoughts on this?

All my other posts which resulted in such intense persoanl attacks started with a basic question that has still not been answered, how many countries have publicly stated their opposition? Using the logic that George Bush said last year, your with us or against us hardly justifies claiming the rest aside from the 45 feel this way, I wish it was so easy that he could just tell people, ok, this is your position, and have them go along so willingly as you claim.

I have not attacked you personally. I have already given my response to the other matter.

Andy

 

[Fencer128]

Iraq had 14 years to comply. They didn't. there should be a limit to patience

There was. Regardless of whether people came on board or not after this (and there was a high probability they would IMHO):

Initially the French and their partners suggested a 120 day, then 45 day inspection deadline.

It would have been hard not to justify force through the ambiguity of 1441 given:

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.

Andy

 

[SP33Demon]

Ok, this is for all of the diplomatic nuts who thought we SHOULD HAVE LISTENED AND ABIDED TO THE RULES OF THE UN. Maybe you didn't watch the news yesterday? I saw, on FoxNews last night, HANS BLIX and what did he say? He said that there was no way his team would have ever been able to find those SCUDS, and that the US should search every "basement" until they find what else Iraq has... This is the CHIEF INSPECTOR giving us the green light, and happy for the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA for this war. How's that for "diplomacy", my "diplomatic" friends? If u want to "talk it out", then apply for a job at the UN, they're great at that...

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Ok, this is for all of the diplomatic nuts who thought we SHOULD HAVE LISTENED AND ABIDED TO THE RULES OF THE UN. Maybe you didn't watch the news yesterday? I saw, on FoxNews last night, HANS BLIX and what did he say? He said that there was no way his team would have ever been able to find those SCUDS, and that the US should search every "basement" until they find what else Iraq has... This is the CHIEF INSPECTOR giving us the green light, and happy for the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA for this war. How's that for "diplomacy", my "diplomatic" friends? If u want to "talk it out", then apply for the UN, they're great at that...

Maybe all the "anti-diplomatic nuts" should be better informed about opinions other than their own?

Please read above to see that a deadline was on the table and it was quite possible this could have gone thorugh the UNSC - so long as the timeline wasn't dictated soley by the US.

Andy

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: Fencer128

I disagree completetly, I don't think for a second after 9/11 the US would have ever let Saddam maintain power. I feel more and more countries will change their position as more evidence , especially those of WMD, comes out of the conflict. This is definitely a regime change.

Thankfully more time was not given that could have resulted in Saddam STAYING in power. Would you have been happier had the entire security council gave Saddam say an extra 120 days and he fully complied, turned over all evidence needed to prove disarmament, to become 100% compliant with all conditions? Starting over would have been difficult, but he has shown he would have made the effort as many times as he was given. Once those resolutions and sanctions were lifted he would once again had unlimited resources to pour into reconstructing a new, even more advanced force WITHOUT ANY international oversight or "legal" authority to do anything but watch it happen, again.

Well, that surprises me - as the reasons for this war (and I'm looking to my own Prime Minister here) are the "forceful disarmament" of Iraq. It is because 1441 failed to disarm Iraq that this action is occuring. If this is not the case then I would have severe doubts about the legitimacy of this war after all. Then again, maybe thats why the French, Germans, etc. disagree so strongly - because you say you want "disarmament" through 1441 but you actually want regime change through 1441? I'll have to think about this more and hope that you're not as correct. Anyone else have thoughts on this?

All my other posts which resulted in such intense persoanl attacks started with a basic question that has still not been answered, how many countries have publicly stated their opposition? Using the logic that George Bush said last year, your with us or against us hardly justifies claiming the rest aside from the 45 feel this way, I wish it was so easy that he could just tell people, ok, this is your position, and have them go along so willingly as you claim.

I have not attacked you personally. I have already given my response to the other matter.

Andy

1441 and all previous reslotlutions were just the legal basis used, don't doubt for a second what motivated the US, it was concern over WMD being made available to terrorists. Saddam was effectively contained, he would have never complied and we would have made sure he didn't commit any atrocities again. The speech given to the UN on Sept.12th could not have been more clear what our intentions were, they should not have passed resolutions that effectively gave the US at least the legally argueable position their actions were justified, legal, and even sanctionted by the UN. Is there a resolution on the books that clearly states there can be NO resumption of war should Saddam not comply? No, in fact every resolution makes very clear the consequences would be severe, a return of the force put on hold to give him that LAST chance not being the least but the MOST OBVIOUS.

 

[LeeTJ]

Originally posted by: Fencer128

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Ok, this is for all of the diplomatic nuts who thought we SHOULD HAVE LISTENED AND ABIDED TO THE RULES OF THE UN. Maybe you didn't watch the news yesterday? I saw, on FoxNews last night, HANS BLIX and what did he say? He said that there was no way his team would have ever been able to find those SCUDS, and that the US should search every "basement" until they find what else Iraq has... This is the CHIEF INSPECTOR giving us the green light, and happy for the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA for this war. How's that for "diplomacy", my "diplomatic" friends? If u want to "talk it out", then apply for the UN, they're great at that...

Maybe all the "anti-diplomatic nuts" should be better informed about opinions other than their own?

Please read above to see that a deadline was on the table and it was quite possible this could have gone thorugh the UNSC - so long as the timeline wasn't dictated soley by the US.

Andy

OK, i'll give you that Bush wasn't the best diplomat that we've ever had as Prez. but the French were demanding a 45 day deadline, NOT in order to give iraq another chance, not for any humanitarian reasons, but JUST TO PROVE they could. For Bush it was a no win scenario. He chose to show the world that the US could act unilaterally and to hell with them if they disagree.

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: Fencer128

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Ok, this is for all of the diplomatic nuts who thought we SHOULD HAVE LISTENED AND ABIDED TO THE RULES OF THE UN. Maybe you didn't watch the news yesterday? I saw, on FoxNews last night, HANS BLIX and what did he say? He said that there was no way his team would have ever been able to find those SCUDS, and that the US should search every "basement" until they find what else Iraq has... This is the CHIEF INSPECTOR giving us the green light, and happy for the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA for this war. How's that for "diplomacy", my "diplomatic" friends? If u want to "talk it out", then apply for the UN, they're great at that...

Maybe all the "anti-diplomatic nuts" should be better informed about opinions other than their own?

Please read above to see that a deadline was on the table and it was quite possible this could have gone thorugh the UNSC - so long as the timeline wasn't dictated soley by the US.

Andy

Accecpt the internationally agreed facts though, while there is no consensus on the war itself, there is full consensus Saddam has WMD and is in full material breach of 1441 and has done nothing since it was passed except continue a pattern of non-compliance. These inspections that you say would have worked given more time, how can you claim that when the head of the inspections teams tell you it would not have been possible to be completed successfully due to Saddam's OBVIOUS non-compliance?

 

[DanJ]

Originally posted by: Alistar7
Anyone ever bother to determine how many are opposed publicly()? as they continue to propagate the theory that a MAJORITY disagree? Or are you just continuing to claim this numerical victory without actually having a clue as to what the exact ration is?

Just listened to a radio interview of a former prisioner of Saddam's dungeons, he claims, and we will see if this is true, the people of Iraq are ESTATIC we are coming to remove Saddam, can't wait to tell the rest of the world to SUCK IT as we liberate an oppressed people from their misery and they CHEER and welcome our arrival.

Alistar, there is no answer anyone can give you that you will satisfy you. How about Germany, France, Russia and China to start. What % of the world's population is that? What % of the world's population falls into these 45 countries we have? No one is going to make a list of those that are opposed, but if we have a coalition of 45 currently after the war has been planned for the last year, they've had time and if they haven't joined yet, so one can say they either don't care, or they don't support it. Its called making logical inferences, but I know you wont do that, you'll just reply with something like where's a number. There is no number.

And this war isn't about Iraqi liberation..its about disarmament. Don't mix the two. It might sound good, but its not the point of this war. If it was, G.W. wouldn't have been making statement likes this:
"We should not send our troops to stop ethnic cleansing and genocide outside our strategic interest. I would not send the United States troops into Rwanda."

We don't have the support we had in Desert Storm. Can you at least admit to that. This is after 9-11, an event in which in the aftermath nearly all the world supported us, support we barely have anymore. Where did it go I ask.

 

[Fencer128]

1441 and all previous reslotlutions were just the legal basis used, don't doubt for a second what motivated the US, it was concern over WMD being made available to terrorists. Saddam was effectively contained, he would have never complied and we would have made sure he didn't commit any atrocities again. The speech given to the UN on Sept.12th could not have been more clear what our intentions were, they should not have passed resolutions that effectively gave the US at least the legally argueable position their actions were justified, legal, and even sanctionted by the UN. Is there a resolution on the books that clearly states there can be NO resumption of war should Saddam not comply? No, in fact every resolution makes very clear the consequences would be severe, a return of the force put on hold to give him that LAST chance not being the least but the MOST OBVIOUS.

Are we argueing the same point here? It has always been about possible/probable WMD, inspections and then "forcable disarmament" (war).

If it had been "Lets get rid of Saddam - and maybe find some WMD while we're at it" IMHO that would be illegal. Its only because of the disarmament issue that this war stands up to scrutiny.

A pre-emptive war to take out the threat of WMD. I can see that.
A pre-emptive war to take out a regime you don't agree with - IMHO that's just wrong.

Who's the judge? The one with the biggest gun?

Andy

 

[Fencer128]

OK, i'll give you that Bush wasn't the best diplomat that we've ever had as Prez. but the French were demanding a 45 day deadline, NOT in order to give iraq another chance, not for any humanitarian reasons, but JUST TO PROVE they could. For Bush it was a no win scenario. He chose to show the world that the US could act unilaterally and to hell with them if they disagree.

That's where we disagree I think (its nice to be able to pin these things down sometimes!) - I think the will to lay down a timetable not only came from France, Germany, Russia, Belgium etc. but also to a lesser extent from the UK. From what I can tell of the mans actions - IMHO Blair would have liked the US to find a negotiated deadline for inspections - he and Powell were probably responsible for the UN route generally. I believe this timetable was the point on which the US were "intransigent".

Once people sig in the rhetoric starts and vetos get threatened - and then we end up here.

All speculation of course!, but it seems quite logical to me.

Andy

 

[Ornery]

Originally posted by: 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.

Yes, WE DID! Instead of taking care of business in October, we let Blix and company do their thing. Again, the only reason they made the slightest bit of progress, is because we put major pressure on Hussein. Waste of time, but it was a compromise. We held up our end. Blix, France and company could dick around for a couple more decades if we let them.

My thoughts that we should run rampant through the world? MY THOUGHTS? Since when? This is ONE CASE of unfinished business. ONE CASE that we let slide for 12 fvcking years. Oh, but I forgot, it doesn't "end" and it doesn't "run out..." WRONG! Time ran out! How goddamn long would you clowns screw around anyway?

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: DanJ

Originally posted by: Alistar7
Anyone ever bother to determine how many are opposed publicly()? as they continue to propagate the theory that a MAJORITY disagree? Or are you just continuing to claim this numerical victory without actually having a clue as to what the exact ration is?

Just listened to a radio interview of a former prisioner of Saddam's dungeons, he claims, and we will see if this is true, the people of Iraq are ESTATIC we are coming to remove Saddam, can't wait to tell the rest of the world to SUCK IT as we liberate an oppressed people from their misery and they CHEER and welcome our arrival.

Alistar, there is no answer anyone can give you that you will satisfy you. How about Germany, France, Russia and China to start. What % of the world's population is that? What % of the world's population falls into these 45 countries we have? No one is going to make a list of those that are opposed, but if we have a coalition of 45 currently after the war has been planned for the last year, they've had time and if they haven't joined yet, so one can say they either don't care, or they don't support it. Its called making logical inferences, but I know you wont do that, you'll just reply with something like where's a number. There is no number.

And this war isn't about Iraqi liberation..its about disarmament. Don't mix the two. It might sound good, but its not the point of this war. If it was, G.W. wouldn't have been making statement likes this:
"We should not send our troops to stop ethnic cleansing and genocide outside our strategic interest. I would not send the United States troops into Rwanda."

We don't have the support we had in Desert Storm. Can you at least admit to that. This is after 9-11, an event in which in the aftermath nearly all the world supported us, support we barely have anymore. Where did it go I ask.

"We should not send our troops to stop ethnic cleansing and genocide outside our strategic interest. I would not send the United States troops into Rwanda."

got a a link for that statement? wasthat a campaign quote?

Why are you talking about % of world population? lol Yes there is one answer that would satisfy me, the total number of countries publicly opposed to the war? I know there are far more than those listed by you, so if you can't even answer that simple question youre not contributing sh*t except acting like a child..

 

[DanJ]

Originally posted by: Alistar7

Originally posted by: DanJ

Originally posted by: Alistar7
Anyone ever bother to determine how many are opposed publicly()? as they continue to propagate the theory that a MAJORITY disagree? Or are you just continuing to claim this numerical victory without actually having a clue as to what the exact ration is?

Just listened to a radio interview of a former prisioner of Saddam's dungeons, he claims, and we will see if this is true, the people of Iraq are ESTATIC we are coming to remove Saddam, can't wait to tell the rest of the world to SUCK IT as we liberate an oppressed people from their misery and they CHEER and welcome our arrival.

Alistar, there is no answer anyone can give you that you will satisfy you. How about Germany, France, Russia and China to start. What % of the world's population is that? What % of the world's population falls into these 45 countries we have? No one is going to make a list of those that are opposed, but if we have a coalition of 45 currently after the war has been planned for the last year, they've had time and if they haven't joined yet, so one can say they either don't care, or they don't support it. Its called making logical inferences, but I know you wont do that, you'll just reply with something like where's a number. There is no number.

And this war isn't about Iraqi liberation..its about disarmament. Don't mix the two. It might sound good, but its not the point of this war. If it was, G.W. wouldn't have been making statement likes this:
"We should not send our troops to stop ethnic cleansing and genocide outside our strategic interest. I would not send the United States troops into Rwanda."

We don't have the support we had in Desert Storm. Can you at least admit to that. This is after 9-11, an event in which in the aftermath nearly all the world supported us, support we barely have anymore. Where did it go I ask.

"We should not send our troops to stop ethnic cleansing and genocide outside our strategic interest. I would not send the United States troops into Rwanda."

got a a link for that statement? wasthat a campaign quote?

Why are you talking about % of world population? lol Yes there is one answer that would satisfy me, the total number of countries publicly opposed to the war? I know there are far more than those listed by you, so if you can't even answer that simple question youre not contributing sh*t except acting like a child..

Yes, that was a campaign statement made in 2000. We're not going into Iraq because of the conditions in which Iraqi's live, were going into Iraq because we believe Saddam to be in material breach of 1441 and we believe he has WMDs that he will give to terrorists, period. I have no idea why they named this war what they did because it has nothing to do with the reason for the war. I'd love to say it does, because who's against people being liberated, but its not the reason. Do you really think Bush would stop the violence in Rwanda and other countries where mass murder is a common occurance if those countries posed no threat to us? I'm doubting it; I'm thinking he still stands behind what he said about Rwanda.

Why am I talking about world population..hmm..why are you talking about the # of countries either that don't care about this war or don't support it? It doesn't matter. The facts that we have are that 45 are with us. 45 out of about 200. Those are the facts we have. And honestly, if you don't care about the % of the world population that supports us, maybe you should remember that Al Qaeda was not a country, but an organization of people. Great support among the world's population means less terrorism.

Haha..and I can't believe you said i'm the one acting like a child. Scroll up to your back to back to back one line replies because others aren't responding fast enough.

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: Fencer128

1441 and all previous reslotlutions were just the legal basis used, don't doubt for a second what motivated the US, it was concern over WMD being made available to terrorists. Saddam was effectively contained, he would have never complied and we would have made sure he didn't commit any atrocities again. The speech given to the UN on Sept.12th could not have been more clear what our intentions were, they should not have passed resolutions that effectively gave the US at least the legally argueable position their actions were justified, legal, and even sanctionted by the UN. Is there a resolution on the books that clearly states there can be NO resumption of war should Saddam not comply? No, in fact every resolution makes very clear the consequences would be severe, a return of the force put on hold to give him that LAST chance not being the least but the MOST OBVIOUS.

Are we argueing the same point here? It has always been about possible/probable WMD, inspections and then "forcable disarmament" (war).

If it had been "Lets get rid of Saddam - and maybe find some WMD while we're at it" IMHO that would be illegal. Its only because of the disarmament issue that this war stands up to scrutiny.

A pre-emptive war to take out the threat of WMD. I can see that.
A pre-emptive war to take out a regime you don't agree with - IMHO that's just wrong.

Who's the judge? The one with the biggest gun?

Andy

This war IS ABOUT DISARMAMENT, Saddam's death is just icing on the cake. Tool.

 

[Fencer128]

This war IS ABOUT DISARMAMENT, Saddam's death is just icing on the cake. Tool.

Is that directed at me??? If so, Why?

Andy

EDIT: Actually, I guess not - I imagine you just left my quote in your reply.

 

[alexruiz]

Originally posted by: 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....

Great defense of "freedom".....

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: Fencer128

1441 and all previous reslotlutions were just the legal basis used, don't doubt for a second what motivated the US, it was concern over WMD being made available to terrorists. Saddam was effectively contained, he would have never complied and we would have made sure he didn't commit any atrocities again. The speech given to the UN on Sept.12th could not have been more clear what our intentions were, they should not have passed resolutions that effectively gave the US at least the legally argueable position their actions were justified, legal, and even sanctionted by the UN. Is there a resolution on the books that clearly states there can be NO resumption of war should Saddam not comply? No, in fact every resolution makes very clear the consequences would be severe, a return of the force put on hold to give him that LAST chance not being the least but the MOST OBVIOUS.

Are we argueing the same point here? It has always been about possible/probable WMD, inspections and then "forcable disarmament" (war).

If it had been "Lets get rid of Saddam - and maybe find some WMD while we're at it" IMHO that would be illegal. Its only because of the disarmament issue that this war stands up to scrutiny.

A pre-emptive war to take out the threat of WMD. I can see that.
A pre-emptive war to take out a regime you don't agree with - IMHO that's just wrong.

Who's the judge? The one with the biggest gun?

Andy

Your assesment of his KNWON WMD as possible/probable is in direct conflcit wit the facts though. It is known he has 10,000 liters of Anthrax still unaccounted for, as well as TONS of vx nerve agent, once again not one member of the UN disputes this, not france, germany, russia, china, etc.

You can't commit political assasination, that is clearly illegal, we disagree with the Fench government right now, you will not see the US attack France or even have the lunacy to suggest they have a right to do so based on differing political views. Their motives for not supporting the war based on principle are far more hypocritical considering their vested interest in the regime, there are very easily understood and publicly known reasons (profit) that more likely drive their "principle".

Unfortunately geo-politics let the importance of the UN and the situaiton at hand cloud the issue, we American's do undertand the unease of the rest of the world our unparralled power creates and the current desire to band together to be able to show an equally powerfull front on an international stage in all areas of global concern. This was not the issue to make their power play with, and any solution that would have left Saddam in power would have not made the world safer for anyone for anything other than a temporary period.
All it takes is one air or water transferable "super-bug" to be released, you do know the Russians were woking on an airborne strain of Ebola? While the US might be the target of such atack, these WMD will respect no differing politcal view nor geographic border and could potentioanlly destroy BILLION of people worldwide. If it were the case he had something like Ebola, you are talking less than 10% survival GLOBALLY from the disease itself, probably most that survived would still persih from the disease and unsanitary conditions the decomposing bodies of the "unlucky" 90% would create, this bug would do the trick in about a month worldwide.

Has Saddam shown he is capable of mass murder, yes. Has Saddam shown he has the will, ability, and lack of moral compass to use WMD, yes. Has Saddam aided, abeted, harbored, trained, armed, and financed various terrorists groups yes? Does Saddam still have unaccounted for WMD? yes. Is it such a large leap in logic one can assume he would be willing to supply those WMD to terrorists who sahre similar anti-us sentiment? Thankfully he won't get ANOTHER chance, hopefully he already HASN'T....

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: alexruiz

Originally posted by: 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....

Great defense of "freedom".....

Yes I agree, wade through my obvious sarcasm and one will easily agree seeing the Iraqi people CELEBARTING their FREEDOM will be THE PERFECT JUSTIFICATION of our ideals and actions, thanks for agreeing with the obvious....

or will your countrymen still decry our efforts even as we are thanked by the Iraqi people? Will be interesting to see how those that opposed will feel when the Iraqi people themselves are nothing short of EXCITED we are FINALLY removing Saddam, well not happy WE are, just that it's being done.

 

[Alistar7]

anyone dare to suggest that after Saddam is gone he will still get 100% approval at the "polls"? but polls don't lie, they are the absolute truth and always an accurate reflection of the true feelings of those polled.......