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

Page 24 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

chowderhead

Platinum Member
Dec 7, 1999
2,633
263
126
Originally posted by: Czar
Originally posted by: etech
My contention was that once France nullified any threat of force that Saddam had no reason to cooperate with the inspectors in any meaningful way. France showed their card that they would not support force. That led to the US having to play the only card left in the game.

why didnt it then just put it for a vote? if it would have been vetoed but still gotten enough votes to pass it then the US could have declared some sortof a victory

First, it was not clear that the US had the nine votes for the passage (regardless of the veto or not). Every country wanted something for their vote and the US did not want to give too much away.
I think that the US decided to ignore the UN because if they had gone ahead with the war after a veto, it would be against UN charter. Simply ignoring the UN has been the historical norm.

I am against the war but now that the fighting has started, I completely support our troops. I hope they finish as quickly and safely as they can and come back home soon. France should take a principled stand and be reject any post-war profiteering. I doubt they will because their current position is disgusting France seeks Big Role in Post-War Iraq
 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
1
0
<<France should take a principled stand and be reject any post-war profiteering. >>

Why? For not fighting along side us? Or for threatening to veto any resolution authorizing force? Or for some other reason?
 

chowderhead

Platinum Member
Dec 7, 1999
2,633
263
126
Originally posted by: Gaard
<<France should take a principled stand and be reject any post-war profiteering. >>

Why? For not fighting along side us? Or for threatening to veto any resolution authorizing force? Or for some other reason?

Being against the war and threatening a veto are principled stands. Now France wants to get in on the post-war rebuilding, drawing up plans for their Oil companies to win contracts. Do you see any disconnect here?
You resist the rush to war (based hopefully on principles), do not support the actions or the troops in harms way once war starts, and still want/expect to profit from the results of the war.
Hell no.
 

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,983
0
0
Originally posted by: Morph
Originally posted by: Alistar7
we are hardly blowing people up, thats a stark contrast to the actual weapons and their precision that have been used. we will wind up killing less civilians than the regime has.

Saddam's ties to terrorists, his known WMD and his willingness to use thme harldy makes this a "paranoid" attack.

Where are the WMD, Alistar? Where are they??? Huh??

I think the Kurds have been convinced. I remember you from that thread, apparently you havent learned a thing. Saddam is the one who the burden of proof falls upon. ONCE AGAIN he accepted this responsibility, the privelage of shifting that burden to me is hardly your perogative. There are 10,000 liters of Anthrax and tons of VX nerve agents YET ACCOUNTED FOR, meaning their existence is not disputed, but their LOCATION is, if you question this your problem lies with THE UN not me. The difference between Saddam and the US is WE WOULDNT USE our WMD without fantastic probable cause, unlike he, who uses them in attacks on innocent civilians within his own country for no legitimate (if there ever could be one) reason....

now go ask the UN why they were so intent of Saddam proving he DID NOT have these ANYMORE
 

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,983
0
0
Originally posted by: alexruiz
Originally posted by: Alistar7
The morality of this war is evident by the atrocities committed by Saddam against his own people, for this reason alone this is a just action.

I guess you have good answers why the same WASN'T done with Francisco Franco, Anastacio Somoza, Fulgencio Batista and specially the "golden child" of the USA "liberation efforts".... Augusto Pinochet.
All of them committed atrocities against their own people. What makes Saddam different from them???

I could go and ask the same about not removing "Butchier" Sharon, who does the same to his people (yes, by definition, without a country of their own makes most of the Palestinians part of Israel, same way most of the Kurds are "Iraquies")..... ???

What is the logic used to take some "butchers who commit atrocities" and not others...... ????

maybe you should look HERE for the current information on Pinochet, there is a thread with information that will change your opinion, you should at least understand the way the people of that conutry view him in light of new evidence. Does the fact that the socialist party ( his main enemy while in power) is fighting IN HIS BEHALF for him to return there safely even spark your curiousity?

and I will readily agree with you on most of Israels tactics in dealing with the palestinians, but I hear the call for a viable Pal state far more often from Bush than most if not all western leaders.
 

Czar

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
28,510
0
0
Originally posted by: chowderhead
Originally posted by: Gaard
<<France should take a principled stand and be reject any post-war profiteering. >>

Why? For not fighting along side us? Or for threatening to veto any resolution authorizing force? Or for some other reason?

Being against the war and threatening a veto are principled stands. Now France wants to get in on the post-war rebuilding, drawing up plans for their Oil companies to win contracts. Do you see any disconnect here?
You resist the rush to war (based hopefully on principles), do not support the actions or the troops in harms way once war starts, and still want/expect to profit from the results of the war.
Hell no.

what about the country that first said it would veto.. Russia... strange everyone keeps forgetting that
 

arynn

Senior member
Feb 16, 2001
234
0
0
Originally posted by: BlinderBomber


Agreed. My point was that we just can't do whatever we please in the world. Although I think the UN is terribly organized and managed, we should heed world opinion. I think the situation would change very quickly if, say, Saddam had nuclear / biological weapons and we had concrete proof of that and also had proof he was trying to bring them into the US. Although, in that situation, the UN would probably have backed a war.




I think the whole point is that once Saddam were to acquire nuclear weapons or deliver biological/chemical weapons it would be too late. In the past you could wait for an attack as the military would attack your military and weapons did not exist that could decimate cities. If the US had launched a pre-emptive strike against the Soviet Union in the 1950s, how different would the last 50 years have been?

 

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,983
0
0
Originally posted by: Czar
Originally posted by: chowderhead
Originally posted by: Gaard
<<France should take a principled stand and be reject any post-war profiteering. >>

Why? For not fighting along side us? Or for threatening to veto any resolution authorizing force? Or for some other reason?

Being against the war and threatening a veto are principled stands. Now France wants to get in on the post-war rebuilding, drawing up plans for their Oil companies to win contracts. Do you see any disconnect here?
You resist the rush to war (based hopefully on principles), do not support the actions or the troops in harms way once war starts, and still want/expect to profit from the results of the war.
Hell no.

what about the country that first said it would veto.. Russia... strange everyone keeps forgetting that

Well obviously they didn't want the US stumbling upon the fact they illegally sold the Iraqi government cruise missiles and GPS jamming equipment in clear violation of UN resolutions, just as the Germans and French had skirted the collective will of the UN and sold arms to Iraq.
 

Czar

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
28,510
0
0
Originally posted by: Alistar7
Originally posted by: Czar
Originally posted by: chowderhead
Originally posted by: Gaard
<<France should take a principled stand and be reject any post-war profiteering. >>

Why? For not fighting along side us? Or for threatening to veto any resolution authorizing force? Or for some other reason?

Being against the war and threatening a veto are principled stands. Now France wants to get in on the post-war rebuilding, drawing up plans for their Oil companies to win contracts. Do you see any disconnect here?
You resist the rush to war (based hopefully on principles), do not support the actions or the troops in harms way once war starts, and still want/expect to profit from the results of the war.
Hell no.

what about the country that first said it would veto.. Russia... strange everyone keeps forgetting that

Well obviously they didn't want the US stumbling upon the fact they illegally sold the Iraqi government cruise missiles and GPS jamming equipment in clear violation of UN resolutions, just as the Germans and French had skirted the collective will of the UN and sold arms to Iraq.
did they? says who.. bush... with out any proof so far
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2884895.stm

but why isnt anyone bitching about Russia using its veto.. why does everyone always bitch abour france like it was the only country opposed to this war
 

BeauJangles

Lifer
Aug 26, 2001
13,941
1
0
Originally posted by: arynn
Originally posted by: BlinderBomber


Agreed. My point was that we just can't do whatever we please in the world. Although I think the UN is terribly organized and managed, we should heed world opinion. I think the situation would change very quickly if, say, Saddam had nuclear / biological weapons and we had concrete proof of that and also had proof he was trying to bring them into the US. Although, in that situation, the UN would probably have backed a war.




I think the whole point is that once Saddam were to acquire nuclear weapons or deliver biological/chemical weapons it would be too late. In the past you could wait for an attack as the military would attack your military and weapons did not exist that could decimate cities. If the US had launched a pre-emptive strike against the Soviet Union in the 1950s, how different would the last 50 years have been?

And that is the crux of the issue. I believe that, even if Saddam had nukes, he could be contained. The same principle applies as did with the soviet union, assured destruction. Saddam may be a horrible man, but he is not sucicidal. Although there is no doubt that he could sell weapons to Al-Queda, it seems very unlikely that he would. First, OBL hates him. Second, if Iraq produced a nuke do you think they would be eager to sell it someone else? I doubt it. The pride of having a nuke is too much. Also, Saddam would realize that if he sold any WMDs and they were used against hte US, we would blame him first and he would die.

This also goes back to the point about why we didn't invade when he stopped allowing the weapons inspectors to do their job.

In short, I think the administration has tried to scare people into believing that Saddam must be dealt with directly, however, the past shows that he could easily be contained.
 

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,983
0
0
Originally posted by: Morph
Originally posted by: Alistar7
we are hardly blowing people up, thats a stark contrast to the actual weapons and their precision that have been used. we will wind up killing less civilians than the regime has.

Saddam's ties to terrorists, his known WMD and his willingness to use thme harldy makes this a "paranoid" attack.

Where are the WMD, Alistar? Where are they??? Huh??



do you honestly believe Saddam gave his soldiers Cipro tablets out of concern for their safety from the very likely (as you would believe) event the evil Americans attacked them with anthrax??
Maybe he wanted to ensure he had some protection left....
 

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,983
0
0
Originally posted by: Czar
Originally posted by: Alistar7
Originally posted by: Czar
Originally posted by: chowderhead
Originally posted by: Gaard
<<France should take a principled stand and be reject any post-war profiteering. >>

Why? For not fighting along side us? Or for threatening to veto any resolution authorizing force? Or for some other reason?

Being against the war and threatening a veto are principled stands. Now France wants to get in on the post-war rebuilding, drawing up plans for their Oil companies to win contracts. Do you see any disconnect here?
You resist the rush to war (based hopefully on principles), do not support the actions or the troops in harms way once war starts, and still want/expect to profit from the results of the war.
Hell no.

what about the country that first said it would veto.. Russia... strange everyone keeps forgetting that

Well obviously they didn't want the US stumbling upon the fact they illegally sold the Iraqi government cruise missiles and GPS jamming equipment in clear violation of UN resolutions, just as the Germans and French had skirted the collective will of the UN and sold arms to Iraq.
did they? says who.. bush... with out any proof so far
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2884895.stm

but why isnt anyone bitching about Russia using its veto.. why does everyone always bitch abour france like it was the only country opposed to this war


that information came from interational wire news reports, not Bush, but the revelation of your bias is hardly suprising, lol.

Maybe because until the russian cruise missiles and GPS systems were found, along with the German businessman arrested today for his attempts to sell weaopons to Iraq, the French's opposition was the most hyprocritical, with their sales of mirage parts and lucrative deals lined up IF saddam stayed in power and sanctions were lifted. With a change in government thye would lose all that money. Their arguement about the "need" for UN approval is a joke when you factor in they sold weapons against UN the mandates they signed off on........ They were supposed to DISARM, not ARM Saddam....
 

Czar

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
28,510
0
0
Originally posted by: Alistar7
Originally posted by: Czar
Originally posted by: Alistar7
Originally posted by: Czar
Originally posted by: chowderhead
Originally posted by: Gaard
<<France should take a principled stand and be reject any post-war profiteering. >>

Why? For not fighting along side us? Or for threatening to veto any resolution authorizing force? Or for some other reason?

Being against the war and threatening a veto are principled stands. Now France wants to get in on the post-war rebuilding, drawing up plans for their Oil companies to win contracts. Do you see any disconnect here?
You resist the rush to war (based hopefully on principles), do not support the actions or the troops in harms way once war starts, and still want/expect to profit from the results of the war.
Hell no.

what about the country that first said it would veto.. Russia... strange everyone keeps forgetting that

Well obviously they didn't want the US stumbling upon the fact they illegally sold the Iraqi government cruise missiles and GPS jamming equipment in clear violation of UN resolutions, just as the Germans and French had skirted the collective will of the UN and sold arms to Iraq.
did they? says who.. bush... with out any proof so far
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2884895.stm

but why isnt anyone bitching about Russia using its veto.. why does everyone always bitch abour france like it was the only country opposed to this war


that information came from interational wire news reports, not Bush, but the revelation of your bias is hardly suprising, lol.

Maybe because until the russian cruise missiles and GPS systems were found, along with the German businessman arrested today for his attempts to sell weaopons to Iraq, the French's opposition was the most hyprocritical, with their sales of mirage parts and lucrative deals lined up IF saddam stayed in power and sanctions were lifted. With a change in government thye would lose all that money. Their arguement about the "need" for UN approval is a joke when you factor in they sold weapons against UN the mandates they signed off on........ They were supposed to DISARM, not ARM Saddam....
omg.. did you know that China has US made weapons.. that must mean that US sold China weapons!!!
rolleye.gif
 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
1
0
Originally posted by: Czar
Originally posted by: chowderhead
Originally posted by: Gaard
<<France should take a principled stand and be reject any post-war profiteering. >>

Why? For not fighting along side us? Or for threatening to veto any resolution authorizing force? Or for some other reason?

Being against the war and threatening a veto are principled stands. Now France wants to get in on the post-war rebuilding, drawing up plans for their Oil companies to win contracts. Do you see any disconnect here?
You resist the rush to war (based hopefully on principles), do not support the actions or the troops in harms way once war starts, and still want/expect to profit from the results of the war.
Hell no.

what about the country that first said it would veto.. Russia... strange everyone keeps forgetting that

I wonder if etech forgot about this. He must've, otherwise he'd be saying Russia is to blame for this war, not France. ;)

 

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,983
0
0
and the UN resolution that the US signed that says selling those arms to the Chineese would be illegal was????? You know, the one you imply they violated like the French, German, Chineese, and Russians have regarding illegal arm sales to Iraq.

I'm sorry if you just jumped in and saw those four countries and thought I was talking about those who opposed the war, easy mistake, do I need to point out the irony?

Czar, this was directed at you......What UN resolution did the US sign and then violate regarding arms sales to China?

If I link you to the UN page would that help? ;)
 

Czar

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
28,510
0
0
Originally posted by: Alistar7
and the UN resolution that the US signed that says selling those arms to the Chineese would be illegal was????? You know, the one you imply they violated like the French, German, Chineese, and Russians have regarding illegal arm sales to Iraq.

I'm sorry if you just jumped in and saw those four countries and thought I was talking about those who opposed the war, easy mistake, do I need to point out the irony?

Czar, this was directed at you......What UN resolution did the US sign and then violate regarding arms sales to China?

If I link you to the UN page would that help? ;)

the point is that the US doesnt sell weapons to China, but "somehow" they end up there
 

Morph

Banned
Oct 14, 1999
747
0
0
Alistar,

Ok you win this one. I can admit when I'm wrong. I wasn't aware Iraq admitted to having anthrax. But your logic is still flawed. Iraq claims that they've destroyed the anthrax. They cannot prove the non-existance of something, but that in itself is not proof of its existence.

Here's an analogy. The cops arrest you cause they think you were cooking meth in your basement. They have no real proof, but they manage to break you down and you admit that you once made 5 gallons of meth. But, you tell them, your conscience got the best of you and you poured it down the drain. Now, according to your logic, because this 5 gallons is unaccounted for, that is proof enough that this 5 gallons of meth exists somewhere and they should be able to convict you and lock you up.
 

etech

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
10,597
0
0
Originally posted by: Gaard
Originally posted by: Czar
Originally posted by: chowderhead
Originally posted by: Gaard
<<France should take a principled stand and be reject any post-war profiteering. >>

Why? For not fighting along side us? Or for threatening to veto any resolution authorizing force? Or for some other reason?

Being against the war and threatening a veto are principled stands. Now France wants to get in on the post-war rebuilding, drawing up plans for their Oil companies to win contracts. Do you see any disconnect here?
You resist the rush to war (based hopefully on principles), do not support the actions or the troops in harms way once war starts, and still want/expect to profit from the results of the war.
Hell no.

what about the country that first said it would veto.. Russia... strange everyone keeps forgetting that

I wonder if etech forgot about this. He must've, otherwise he'd be saying Russia is to blame for this war, not France. ;)


One, do you have a link that shows that Russia was the first to say they would veto any resolution that involved force and second, yes it doesn't really matter which of the countries said it, the logic still stands.
 

Czar

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
28,510
0
0
Originally posted by: etech
Originally posted by: Gaard
Originally posted by: Czar
Originally posted by: chowderhead
Originally posted by: Gaard
<<France should take a principled stand and be reject any post-war profiteering. >>

Why? For not fighting along side us? Or for threatening to veto any resolution authorizing force? Or for some other reason?

Being against the war and threatening a veto are principled stands. Now France wants to get in on the post-war rebuilding, drawing up plans for their Oil companies to win contracts. Do you see any disconnect here?
You resist the rush to war (based hopefully on principles), do not support the actions or the troops in harms way once war starts, and still want/expect to profit from the results of the war.
Hell no.

what about the country that first said it would veto.. Russia... strange everyone keeps forgetting that

I wonder if etech forgot about this. He must've, otherwise he'd be saying Russia is to blame for this war, not France. ;)


One, do you have a link that shows that Russia was the first to say they would veto any resolution that involved force and second, yes it doesn't really matter which of the countries said it, the logic still stands.
Russia and Veto
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2837943.stm

France and Veto.... few hours later
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2838269.stm

edt. forgot the second link :p
 

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,983
0
0
Iraq was required and AGREED the burden of proof of destruction was on them 100%. If they had done so don't you think they would have provided the proof to avoid what is happening right now?
Since they haven't, you are willing to TAKE THEIR WORD?

Your analogy doesnt work because the facts are not the same, but I can try fixing for ya..

The cops arrest you ( our attack in 91), during your prosecution (our war) you agree to account for and prove you destroyed all of your meth if said prosectuion will be stopped, upon your compliance.
You admit you had thousands of pounds of meth (anthrax), yet never offer any evidence to show how or where it was destroyed. Do you feel the prosecution would feel you had kept your part of the bargain or do you think they would just "take your word" ?

Why would they be required to show you still had the meth when you admitted possesion already? They gave Saddam a way out, for all this talk of liberation, had he complied quickly the UN would have been out of Iraq in a couple of years and he would have still maintained full power. Not to mention the ability to operate without international oversight, using the full value of the Iraqi oil reserve to rebuild what had been lost with strictly conventional ( nculear as well, remember there are no sanctions, no inspections, he complied, the matter was out of anyones hands) weapons. If the man had any intelligence he would have taken this route.


 

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,983
0
0
czar I understand how arms are brokered through third and fourth parties (nations), but the originating nation is generally very aware of this and their final INTENDED owner, and they keep a close eye on the companies that sell to other countries as well. While there are businesses involved, the goverment of their nations are still responsible for ensuring their compliance, not blindly looking away or worse yet colluding.
 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
1
0
<<the logic still stands.>>

There was supposed to be a March 17 deadline in the doomed 2nd resolution, right? Does your logic tell you that inspections would've continued after that deadline had the resolution been adopted?
 

etech

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
10,597
0
0
Originally posted by: Gaard
<<the logic still stands.>>

There was supposed to be a March 17 deadline in the doomed 2nd resolution, right? Does your logic tell you that inspections would've continued after that deadline had the resolution been adopted?

We'll never know since the oppurtunity to present a united front to Saddam was lost. It's a shame, that was the only possible way to have him to disarm peacefully.

 

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,983
0
0
Originally posted by: etech
Originally posted by: Gaard
<<the logic still stands.>>

There was supposed to be a March 17 deadline in the doomed 2nd resolution, right? Does your logic tell you that inspections would've continued after that deadline had the resolution been adopted?

We'll never know since the oppurtunity to present a united front to Saddam was lost. It's a shame, that was the only possible way to have him to disarm peacefully.

Agreed, no possibilities should have been unilaterally dismissed before even being considered. The fact that certain compromises invloving any real ultimatums regarding the use of force, the only thing Saddam has shown respect for, were not even a possibility made the whole thing seem pointless. However I am glad the US and others made the effort, there was never any doubt they were going in anyway, those that suggest we don't respect the rule of international law didn't analyze our efforts there correctly.