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

[Fencer128]

Your assesment of his KNOWN 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.

I say probable because he most likely has them. I say possible because even though things are unaccounted for we don't yet know why exactly.

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".

Its too late to stop this. Were past the point of international concensus. That chance was lost. Oil is as much a conspiracy theory as anything else.

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.

I would say that because they had their own suggestion for a timetable - which did change from 120 to 45 days I believe - (and which was not taken very seriously at all by the US) that hardly makes it an issue of "power play". IMHO they were merely stating what they felt to be correct and cannot be faulted for that. I'm not sure exaclty where your example fits into this?

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....

I'm not sure I've heard all of the facts to support the part of statement I've highlighted? What is the point of the rest of that paragraph? Surely we agree on that part?

Have to run for a bus now. Will catch up with this later.

Andy

 

[DanJ]

Originally posted by: 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.......

Him getting elected wasn't a poll. It was vote for me or die. Using this as an example of the accuracy, or inaccuracy of poll numbers is laughable. Rueters doesn't put a gun to your head last time I checked. Wasn't it a Time article taken around the world that showed that over 80% of those polled believed the U.S. was the greatest threat to world peace? Pretty staggering world opinion.

And you didn't respond to my last reply to you, its hard to keep a conversation going if you ignore replies

 

[Alistar7]

Yet another legal reason, but not least, and the only one truly needed, Saddam used the power of his recgonized governemnt to orchestrate a terrosist attack on the US, the attempted assasination of former President Bush.

 

[yowolabi]

Originally posted by: Alistar7
Yet another legal reason, but not least, and the only one truly needed, Saddam used the power of his recgonized governemnt to orchestrate a terrosist attack on the US, the attempted assasination of former President Bush.

Interesting. If his government attempting to kill our President is a terrorist act, isn't our decapitation strike to kill him a terrorist act?

 

[Alistar7]

the blood for oil "conspiracy" is just that, a conspiracy "theory", the French oil and business connections are REAL.

I'm sorry you don't believe he still has WMD when not even France themselves will deny this well recognized fact, as a matter of fact not ONE member of the UN will willing cliam he does not STILL posses these WMD. Remeber the burden of proof was on him, there were KNOWN quantities they had to be accounted for and destroyed, neither has happened, WHERE ARE THEY THEN? He either still has them and is in full material breach or het got "rid" of them, so if they are not there, where did they wind up?
You would think if he had destroyed all his WMD he would have offered the prrof, after all this would have had the TINY effect of casuing him to be fully comliant, have all sanctions removed, and stayed in power. I have to believe if he had the prrof that would have saved his but he would have GLADLY offered it willingly, not non-complied for 12+ years.

You don't think Saddam has ANY connection to terrorists? What about payments made by the Iraqi governemnt for PLO suicde bombers families?
What about his internationally recognized act of terrorism in the state (Iraq) sanctioned attempted assasination attemp of former president Bush?

The point of the rest of the arguement is the driving force behind America's actions, our unwillingness to allow him any more time to furnish his KNOWN WMD to terrorist groups who might use them AGAINST US.
Had he complied and gotten rid of them previous to 9/11, this wouldn't be happening...

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: yowolabi

Originally posted by: Alistar7
Yet another legal reason, but not least, and the only one truly needed, Saddam used the power of his recgonized governemnt to orchestrate a terrosist attack on the US, the attempted assasination of former President Bush.

Interesting. If his government attempting to kill our President is a terrorist act, isn't our decapitation strike to kill him a terrorist act?

no he is the military target of a delclared war, huge difference, notice al-queda didnt go on TV 3 days before their attack to publicly announce their intentions...

and there is also the obvious difference in the intended target, innocent civilians comapred to the military head of your opposition in a declared and recgonized war, remember the attempt came on Bush AFTER his term as well, not as an attack on the commander in chief actively commanding forces against them.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: yowolabi

Originally posted by: Alistar7
Yet another legal reason, but not least, and the only one truly needed, Saddam used the power of his recgonized governemnt to orchestrate a terrosist attack on the US, the attempted assasination of former President Bush.

Interesting. If his government attempting to kill our President is a terrorist act, isn't our decapitation strike to kill him a terrorist act?

No...it's a consequence of Saddam's 12 years of inaction to disarm under various UN resolutions.

 

[LeeTJ]

Originally posted by: Alistar7
the blood for oil "conspiracy" is just that, a conspiracy "theory", the French oil and business connections are REAL.

I'm sorry you don't believe he still has WMD when not even France themselves will deny this well recognized fact, as a matter of fact not ONE member of the UN will willing cliam he does not STILL posses these WMD. Remeber the burden of proof was on him, there were KNOWN quantities they had to be accounted for and destroyed, neither has happened, WHERE ARE THEY THEN? He either still has them and is in full material breach or het got "rid" of them, so if they are not there, where did they wind up?
You would think if he had destroyed all his WMD he would have offered the prrof, after all this would have had the TINY effect of casuing him to be fully comliant, have all sanctions removed, and stayed in power. I have to believe if he had the prrof that would have saved his but he would have GLADLY offered it willingly, not non-complied for 12+ years.

You don't think Saddam has ANY connection to terrorists? What about payments made by the Iraqi governemnt for PLO suicde bombers families?
What about his internationally recognized act of terrorism in the state (Iraq) sanctioned attempted assasination attemp of former president Bush?

The point of the rest of the arguement is the driving force behind America's actions, our unwillingness to allow him any more time to furnish his KNOWN WMD to terrorist groups who might use them AGAINST US.
Had he complied and gotten rid of them previous to 9/11, this wouldn't be happening...

Isn't the desire to extend the deadline for another 45 days an acknowledgment of the fact that it is IMPOSSIBLE to determine that Saddam doesn't have WMD. so that obviously is not an issue here.

there is really only one issue, the role of the UN. can the UN force it's will on the US. that was the whole point of the French. they won. but they didn't. really Bush had no viable alternatives. If he complied with the UN, he would have lost support in the US. If he didn't comply then he loses credibility around the world.

The french should never have painted Bush in a corner like that. but they did because they wanted too. they knew that it wouldn't get resolved diplomatically and they never desired it. they just wanted to force bush's hand so that they could take the high road.

However, the world will ultimately see thru it. the heavyhanded way in which Chirac spoke to the eastern europeans had to have been a big tip off to the rest of the world what the motives of the french were.

 

[Alistar7]

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.

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: Alistar7
the blood for oil "conspiracy" is just that, a conspiracy "theory", the French oil and business connections are REAL.

I'm sorry you don't believe he still has WMD when not even France themselves will deny this well recognized fact, as a matter of fact not ONE member of the UN will willing cliam he does not STILL posses these WMD. Remeber the burden of proof was on him, there were KNOWN quantities they had to be accounted for and destroyed, neither has happened, WHERE ARE THEY THEN? He either still has them and is in full material breach or het got "rid" of them, so if they are not there, where did they wind up?
You would think if he had destroyed all his WMD he would have offered the prrof, after all this would have had the TINY effect of casuing him to be fully comliant, have all sanctions removed, and stayed in power. I have to believe if he had the prrof that would have saved his but he would have GLADLY offered it willingly, not non-complied for 12+ years.

You don't think Saddam has ANY connection to terrorists? What about payments made by the Iraqi governemnt for PLO suicde bombers families?
What about his internationally recognized act of terrorism in the state (Iraq) sanctioned attempted assasination attemp of former president Bush?

The point of the rest of the arguement is the driving force behind America's actions, our unwillingness to allow him any more time to furnish his KNOWN WMD to terrorist groups who might use them AGAINST US.
Had he complied and gotten rid of them previous to 9/11, this wouldn't be happening...

Heh, woke up in the morning and saw that you still want to see every countries that's opposing US officially. Well, if you are so keen in getting the exact fact to support your theory, how come you don't ask to see one WMD that Iraq actually owns to conclude he has WMD, or to see him actually handing out money to the PLO, or actually see how he actually related to Al qaeda before you open your mouth saying how he somehow relates to 9/11?

The theory about attacking a country just becasue they can provide terroist group with WMD is so flawed. Russia who has tons of WMD and in dired need of cash is the most likely candidate, are we invading them? are we ever going to invade them? How safe do you feel with all those WMD out there which can be bought for a price?

Oh BTW, not to mention the famous "you are with us or aginst us" speech. The fact that a country refuse to put their name on the list is an act of opposing the war. Those government either afraid to put the name because their people strongly oppose, or out right against the war. I am sure Bush and his PR machine would have called every countries in the world to get their name on the list, just look at some no name countries in the list.

So if you use your imagination, which I see you have plenty of, you can see that 152 countries against the war is the answer to your question.

 

[yowolabi]

Originally posted by: Alistar7

Originally posted by: yowolabi

Originally posted by: Alistar7
Yet another legal reason, but not least, and the only one truly needed, Saddam used the power of his recgonized governemnt to orchestrate a terrosist attack on the US, the attempted assasination of former President Bush.

Interesting. If his government attempting to kill our President is a terrorist act, isn't our decapitation strike to kill him a terrorist act?

no he is the military target of a delclared war, huge difference, notice al-queda didnt go on TV 3 days before their attack to publicly announce their intentions...

and there is also the obvious difference in the intended target, innocent civilians comapred to the military head of your opposition in a declared and recgonized war, remember the attempt came on Bush AFTER his term as well, not as an attack on the commander in chief actively commanding forces against them.

Correct me if i'm wrong, but I don't think the US has declared war on Iraq. I don't think we declared war on Afghanistan either. Come to think of it, we haven't declared war on anybody in a long time.

If the assasination attempt came after Bush left office, that is an important distinction, but the fact that we said we were going to attack isn't a declaration of war in itself.

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: Alistar7
the blood for oil "conspiracy" is just that, a conspiracy "theory", the French oil and business connections are REAL.

I'm sorry you don't believe he still has WMD when not even France themselves will deny this well recognized fact, as a matter of fact not ONE member of the UN will willing cliam he does not STILL posses these WMD. Remeber the burden of proof was on him, there were KNOWN quantities they had to be accounted for and destroyed, neither has happened, WHERE ARE THEY THEN? He either still has them and is in full material breach or het got "rid" of them, so if they are not there, where did they wind up?
You would think if he had destroyed all his WMD he would have offered the prrof, after all this would have had the TINY effect of casuing him to be fully comliant, have all sanctions removed, and stayed in power. I have to believe if he had the prrof that would have saved his but he would have GLADLY offered it willingly, not non-complied for 12+ years.

You don't think Saddam has ANY connection to terrorists? What about payments made by the Iraqi governemnt for PLO suicde bombers families?
What about his internationally recognized act of terrorism in the state (Iraq) sanctioned attempted assasination attemp of former president Bush?

The point of the rest of the arguement is the driving force behind America's actions, our unwillingness to allow him any more time to furnish his KNOWN WMD to terrorist groups who might use them AGAINST US.
Had he complied and gotten rid of them previous to 9/11, this wouldn't be happening...

Heh, woke up in the morning and saw that you still want to see every countries that's opposing US officially. Well, if you are so keen in getting the exact fact to support your theory, how come you don't ask to see one WMD that Iraq actually owns to conclude he has WMD, or to see him actually handing out money to the PLO, or actually see how he actually related to Al qaeda before you open your mouth saying how he somehow relates to 9/11?

The theory about attacking a country just becasue they can provide terroist group with WMD is so flawed. Russia who has tons of WMD and in dired need of cash is the most likely candidate, are we invading them? are we ever going to invade them? How safe do you feel with all those WMD out there which can be bought for a price?

Oh BTW, not to mention the famous "you are with us or aginst us" speech. The fact that a country refuse to put their name on the list is an act of opposing the war. Those government either afraid to put the name because their people strongly oppose, or out right against the war. I am sure Bush and his PR machine would have called every countries in the world to get their name on the list, just look at some no name countries in the list.

So if you use your imagination, which I see you have plenty of, you can see that 152 countries against the war is the answer to your question.

sorry but I wont take your word that easily, their omission is hardly a clear official respnse to opposition, like France, germany etc..

This isnt some "theory" i hold, I hear there is a majority against, we know for certain who is OFFICIALLY for, to determine the majority you MUST have another number for comaprision.

example

7 people say yes. ? say no, who is the majority, pretty hard to determine when the EXACT number of no votes is not known isnt it?

Your Russian analogy doesnt fit, the Russians are friends and we are working with them to help ensure the safety of their WMD, ones they have "responsibly" and rightfully owned.

I don't need to see WMD to know they are there, there is no dispute there are 10,000 liters of anthrax and tons of vx nerve agent left accounted for from HIS STATED numbers, these are some of the ones he admitted to having and agredd to destroy, they are currently "unaccoutable". The burden has never been on anyone OTHER than SADDAM to porve he no LONGER has them. Why should we have to prove otherwise when it is known they were there and he cant produce the evidence of their destruction as he AGREED he would?

isnt it a bit late for the rest of the world to cry about the "importance" of following unanimous UN sentiment to the US when they have shown they won't even hold Saddam to the same standard?

 

[rchiu]

Ok, let's use your example. When there is only yes or no vote, out of 20 people 7 vote yes, who is the majority? Again I quote Bush and his black and white view of the world, either with us or agaist us.

I also want to get your reason for this war straight.

If US attacks Iraq for the fear of WMD, there are more dangerous countries out there. Your response about Russia is just weak and imaginative. Not only Russia won't cooperate with the US 100% about the WMD, even if they do, they don't have the control over every single WMD after the old USSR broke into regional countries and power. Oh, and you do know China, NK, Iran.....all can have WMD and are not friendly to US right?

If US attacks Iraq for failing resolution and not providing proof of no WMD, well who appointed US the judge, jury and executioner of UN resolutions? UN comes up with the resolution, and UN should have the final say of if Iraq failed.

Link to terrorist? Heh...even President Bush won't go there.

So what is your reason for the war again?? Not the old liberate Iraqis BS I hope.....

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: rchiu
Ok, let's use your example. When there is only yes or no vote, out of 20 people 7 vote yes, who is the majority? Again I quote Bush and his black and white view of the world, either with us or agaist us.

I also want to get your reason for this war straight.

If US attacks Iraq for the fear of WMD, there are more dangerous countries out there. Your response about Russia is just weak and imaginative. Not only Russia won't cooperate with the US 100% about the WMD, even if they do, they don't have the control over every single WMD after the old USSR broke into regional countries and power. Oh, and you do know China, NK, Iran.....all can have WMD and are not friendly to US right?

If US attacks Iraq for failing resolution and not providing proof of no WMD, well who appointed US the judge, jury and executioner of UN resolutions? UN comes up with the resolution, and UN should have the final say of if Iraq failed.

Link to terrorist? Heh...even President Bush won't go there.

So what is your reason for the war again?? Not the old liberate Iraqis BS I hope.....

so the number of countries who have PUBLICLY and OFFICIALY stated their oppostion is? Not what Bush says, what have they said, and again, said OFFICIALYY, not implied by their nonreponse.

Isnt it a bit hypocritical for the rest of the world to declare the " vital importance" of following unanimous UN sentiment to the US, when they have shown they won't even hold someone like Saddam to the same standard?

 

[Alistar7]

Link to terrorist? Heh...even President Bush won't go there

Iraq's links to various terrorist groups is also well known throughout the international community.

We don't need any other instance than his STATE SANCTIONED ATTEMPTED ASSASINATION OF FORMER PRESIDNET BUSH. There is the direct terrorist attack against the US that gives us AUTHORIZATION no matter what the UN says.

 

[Alistar7]

Iraqis already cheering the arrival of marines..

guess THEIR opinion doesn't matter though......

 

[DanJ]

Originally posted by: Alistar7
so the number of countries who have PUBLICLY and OFFICIALY stated their oppostion is? Not what Bush says, what have they said, and again, said OFFICIALYY, not implied by their nonreponse.

Isnt it a bit hypocritical for the rest of the world to declare the " vital importance" of following unanimous UN sentiment to the US, when they have shown they won't even hold someone like Saddam to the same standard?

Funny you'd speak about being hypocritical. Alistar, there are 45 countries that have pledged support, even if only symbolically, the rest of the world hasn't unless Bush would be sure to count them (even if he can't say who they are). As there are 200 odd countries in the world, 45 would be less then 1/4 of what we could have.

Are you really that blind? All that is being said, is that by global opinion (of countries), the coalition we have is small, therefore those not in the coalition have the majority, and if they're not in the coalition, it wouldn't be that much of a stretch to think that they believe some part of this war is wrong.

No answer is going to be good enough for you unless we call up every country and get a phone interview with them. Maybe ask Bush which countries he called that rejected his want for them to be in the coalition. He'd never leak such information; its better to say what we have, albeit less then 1/4 of the globe, then say what we don't.

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: DanJ

Originally posted by: Alistar7
so the number of countries who have PUBLICLY and OFFICIALY stated their oppostion is? Not what Bush says, what have they said, and again, said OFFICIALYY, not implied by their nonreponse.

Isnt it a bit hypocritical for the rest of the world to declare the " vital importance" of following unanimous UN sentiment to the US, when they have shown they won't even hold someone like Saddam to the same standard?

Funny you'd speak about being hypocritical. Alistar, there are 45 countries that have pledged support, even if only symbolically, the rest of the world hasn't unless Bush would be sure to count them (even if he can't say who they are). As there are 200 odd countries in the world, 45 would be less then 1/4 of what we could have.

Are you really that blind? All that is being said, is that by global opinion (of countries), the coalition we have is small, therefore those not in the coalition have the majority, and if they're not in the coalition, it wouldn't be that much of a stretch to think that they believe some part of this war is wrong.

No answer is going to be good enough for you unless we call up every country and get a phone interview with them. Maybe ask Bush which countries he called that rejected his want for them to be in the coalition. He'd never leak such information; its better to say what we have, albeit less then 1/4 of the globe, then say what we don't.

"therefore those not in the coalition have the majority"

THE POINT IS NOT EVERY COUNTRY HAS PUBLICLY AND OFFICIALY TAKEN A POSITION. One cannot ASSUME opposition simply by their SILENCE, I only want know how many HAVE that are opposed, why the f*ck are you reading so deep into such a simple question?????? WH officials suggest the COALITION number is higher, BUT THERE ARE THOSE NOT WILLING TO PUBLICLY STATE THEIR SUPPORT, SO THEY ARE NOT COUNTED.

 

[conjur]

Ralph Nader on CNN Radio offering his views on the war. I just closed the window when he started harping on the 2000 Presidential election.

 

[Alistar7]

thats an entirely different extremely debatable topic...one we American's dont need to engage in during this time.

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: Alistar7
Iraqis already cheering the arrival of marines..

guess THEIR opinion doesn't matter though......

Well, that's great, hopefully this will be a short war. But I didn't know Americans are now in the business of freeing every oppressed country in the world......I certainly don't want my tax dollar go there rather than schools and social programs here. My kids and millions of kids here will need every help they can get to get a decent education already without all these military spending.

 

[DanJ]

Originally posted by: Alistar7
I only want know hpow many HAVE that are opposed, why the f*ck are you reading so deep into such a simple question??????

Because its not a simple question genius. Only nations with considerable power or ill will towards the U.S. would take such an openly large stance that they officially do not support us. No countries that depend on us or hope to get help from us in the near-future would ever do it.

 

[DanJ]

Originally posted by: rchiu
Well, that's great, hopefully this will be a short war. But I didn't know Americans are now in the business of freeing every oppressed country in the world......I certainly don't want my tax dollar go there rather than schools and social programs here. My kids and millions of kids here will need every help they can get to get a decent education already without all these military spending.

Don't worry, this war isn't about liberation (no matter what they named it), its about disarmament and getting rid of Saddam. Bush has spoken before that he does not support sending troops into stop genocide or ethnic cleasning outside his strategic interest.

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: Alistar7
Iraqis already cheering the arrival of marines..

guess THEIR opinion doesn't matter though......

Well, that's great, hopefully this will be a short war. But I didn't know Americans are now in the business of freeing every oppressed country in the world......I certainly don't want my tax dollar go there rather than schools and social programs here. My kids and millions of kids here will need every help they can get to get a decent education already without all these military spending.

no the American military is engaged in "business" for our protection, the liberation of the Iraqi people is the icing on the cake, a nice reward for our sacrifice on behalf of the safety of the rest of the world...

 

[naddicott]

The topic is why is there division, not how much division there is. Nobody can argue that there isn't national/international division over the war that rises above the level of complete insignificance (I take that back, I'm sure there are some at ATOT who can argue anything). I personally could care less about the exact numbers.

Personally, I'm OK with the argument in the UK link making a case for the legal basis of the war based on Sec. Council Resolution 678 and relevant subsequent resolutions (like all UN resolutions, 678 is kind of vague, but I see how the UK gets its interpretation). It's not an ironclad case, but at least it's an attempt to put this war in the framework of international law. The troops are there, it's a done deal, and I wish them a quick and successful campaign and a safe return home.

I'm not OK with Bush's pre-emtive war doctrine. Outside of the context of resolution 678, the pre-emtpive approach to international policy is counter to the very core of international law. I fear that for a relatively small short-term objective (one rogue country), we have done significant damage to the validity and stability of all global institutions and have risked plunging world politics into chaos for an extended length of time. Any further US wars based on this pre-emptive doctrine would be the final nail in the coffin of international peace and stability.