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

[Stark]

In the US you have the right to remain stupid.

Anything you say can and will be directed against your country.

You have a right to have TV cameras or reporters present any time you want to protest.

If you are not famous enough to have TV cameras present, a celebity will echo your thoughts free of charge.

Do you understand your rights?




I'm still waiting for an well educated, knowledgeable argument against this war.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Stark

I'm still waiting for an well educated, knowledgeable argument against this war.

What? Not happy with:

Bush is an idiot
Gore should be President
Bush is taking up where his daddy left off
Bush isn't very diplomatic and I don't like him so this war is wrong
Bush will be killing innocent Iraqis
Bush just wants to appease Israel
Iraq has never threatened the U.S. directly, hence, we're the aggressor

 

[jaeger66]

Originally posted by: Stark



I'm still waiting for an well educated, knowledgeable argument against this war.

The cause is just. The manner in which it was handled is a national embarassment. The world agrees that Saddam is a blight on the planet, and yet we couldn't even convince the GERMANS to go to war. In 1991 the world wrote us checks to pay for the war, while next week Congess will vote on an 80 billion dollar tax bill to pay for this round. And I'm sure it won't be the first such bill. I feel bad for the Iraqis whose homes will be bombed into the 9th Circle of Hell, but I feel worse about the economy in America.

 

[Stark]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Stark

I'm still waiting for an well educated, knowledgeable argument against this war.

What? Not happy with:

Bush is an idiot
Gore should be President
Bush is taking up where his daddy left off
Bush isn't very diplomatic and I don't like him so this war is wrong
Bush will be killing innocent Iraqis
Bush just wants to appease Israel
Iraq has never threatened the U.S. directly, hence, we're the aggressor

you forgot no war for oil... the absolute centerpiece of any good anti-war mindset.

 

[SnapIT]

Originally posted by: Fencer128
I live in the UK - the BBC describes this as the most divisive war in living memory. I can see that too.

Why is it that this war has split opinion in so many countries like no other I can think of? Regardless of your viewpoint (for or against) - why do you think their is such disagreement compared to other military campaigns?

Cheers,

Andy

Because in this case, the agressor is the good guy, or is supposed to be the good guy, a country that has shown such arrogance and refusal to even sit down and discuss... well... the US went against the right of the people, diplomatically, it's a destroyed nation...

The agressor in this war drove his will through, no matter what... i hope, so very much that the UN turns when it comes to the rebuilding of Irak, the US will rule it, let them pay for it...

 

[SnapIT]

Originally posted by: LH

You're an idiot. All of these wars have and are being protested, you're just not listening. Look in the countries where the wars are taking place (that allow free speech/dissidence), there are plenty of protestors. Not to mention groups from the United States who are protesting the wars.

No you are the fvcking idiot.

Where are the supposed millions protest our war with Iraq, that are protesting these various wars. There are NOT millions protesting these wars, the people protesting are cheifly those involved with the war. I have NOT seen people in other countries take the street for one of these wars. Not in the US, France, Germany, etc. Hell France and Germany did nothing to stop genocide in Kosovo, or Rwanda, let alone protest.

Im not listening? No I am Im just not seeing the world care as much about non US led wars. I watch not just american news channels, but British, German, and Russian. So dont make assumptions, they just make you look like and ass.

The global world just doesnt give a sh!t about non US led wars.

In kosovo, the us "accidently" bombed the news station, in afghanistan the us "accidently" bombed the news stations... could it be because the bombing and the pictures of injured and dead civilans hurts the US cause?

The us bombed a refugee convoy on their way out of kosovo, did you know this? no? ehhh... wonder why? because it would not be part of the news you are allowed to hear?

78 refugees dead... i know their faces, i helped bury them...

 

[Stark]

Originally posted by: SnapIT

Originally posted by: Fencer128
I live in the UK - the BBC describes this as the most divisive war in living memory. I can see that too.

Why is it that this war has split opinion in so many countries like no other I can think of? Regardless of your viewpoint (for or against) - why do you think their is such disagreement compared to other military campaigns?

Cheers,

Andy

Because in this case, the agressor is the good guy, or is supposed to be the good guy, a country that has shown such arrogance and refusal to even sit down and discuss... well... the US went against the right of the people, diplomatically, it's a destroyed nation...

The agressor in this war drove his will through, no matter what... i hope, so very much that the UN turns when it comes to the rebuilding of Irak, the US will rule it, let them pay for it...

I'm still waiting to hear an intelligent debate against this war... although the "US is a destroyed nation" is original.

 

[SnapIT]

Originally posted by: Stark
In the US you have the right to remain stupid.

Well obviously, as you are still in the US...

 

[SnapIT]

Originally posted by: Stark

Originally posted by: SnapIT

Originally posted by: Fencer128
I live in the UK - the BBC describes this as the most divisive war in living memory. I can see that too.

Why is it that this war has split opinion in so many countries like no other I can think of? Regardless of your viewpoint (for or against) - why do you think their is such disagreement compared to other military campaigns?

Cheers,

Andy

Because in this case, the agressor is the good guy, or is supposed to be the good guy, a country that has shown such arrogance and refusal to even sit down and discuss... well... the US went against the right of the people, diplomatically, it's a destroyed nation...

The agressor in this war drove his will through, no matter what... i hope, so very much that the UN turns when it comes to the rebuilding of Irak, the US will rule it, let them pay for it...

I'm still waiting to hear an intelligent debate against this war... although the "US is a destroyed nation" is original.

Well, it does not have any support in the UN which means that it is basically a criminals war... but as you do not know your head from your ass, i doubt you know anything about those rules...

This is a war, where one agressor has invaded another country against the will of the UN, this is NO different than what Irak has done before... this marks the beginning of a new world order, i think it is sad to see such an arrogant self absorbed nation as the nation who is supposed to uphold moral...

 

[jaeger66]

Originally posted by: Stark


I'm still waiting to hear an intelligent debate against this war

I gave you one, you ignored it. How convenient.

 

[desy]

Well it didn't divide the French and Germans!
50 years ago these boys were killin each other, now they stand united.
Good to see these age old enemies getting along!!

 

[SnapIT]

Originally posted by: jaeger66

Originally posted by: Stark


I'm still waiting to hear an intelligent debate against this war

I gave you one, you ignored it. How convenient.

You have to agree with him, otherwise you are not intelligent... it's a Bushism he has adopted...

 

[SnapIT]

Originally posted by: desy
Well it didn't divide the French and Germans!
50 years ago these boys were killin each other, now they stand united.
Good to see these age old enemies getting along!!

Yes, if they can get over the WWII, i wonder why it is so hard for americans who were born like 40-50 years later...

It's always dragged up, but we should all forget what happened earlier than that... (the french made the US the US... but that sucks, so forget about it)

 

[SuperTool]

Because the reasons for this war are very Dubyaous
This has put preemptive war definition upside down, in such a way that it can justify any agression by any country on any other country.
It no longer requires that the country doing the preemption be in imminent and immediate danger from the country being preempted. It only requires that there be a chance that the second country might attack the other country in some distant future. Any country in the world might attack any other country in the world in the future, or at least there is no way to prove otherwise. Anything could happen theoretically.
So if you want to start a war, just say the other country is going to attack you at some point in the future, and that's enough justification.

 

[BatmanNate]

My take on the situation is that one faction of people tends to argue that Iraq is guity of X atrocity and Y violation, whilst the other faction does not argue this, but instead does not think that being guilty of said violations necesitates war on this scale. The argument is on two different levels, which in my opinion is what causes the division. If everyone would have stepped back and looked at the big picture, I believe the outcome would have been different.

 

[Fencer128]

The cause is just. The manner in which it was handled is a national embarassment. The world agrees that Saddam is a blight on the planet, and yet we couldn't even convince the GERMANS to go to war. In 1991 the world wrote us checks to pay for the war, while next week Congess will vote on an 80 billion dollar tax bill to pay for this round. And I'm sure it won't be the first such bill. I feel bad for the Iraqis whose homes will be bombed into the 9th Circle of Hell, but I feel worse about the economy in America.

Yep.

Since we seem to be sounding off here - this is my current view of the situation. "I'll change my mind when I hear an intelligent arguement otherwise"

IMHO an arguement against a war is a moot point. The arguement for most (myself included) has been and always will be about the fact that in respect to the international diplomacy by way of the UN:

i) The US had their own timetable
ii) The US showed disrespect for the international process

Need examples

a) Unsustainable troop build up occured (ie Money sets deadline for war).

b) US could not convince the UNSC to their timetable - so they slander it. France, Germany, Russia, etc. set deadlines for inspections (120 and then 45 days or so I believe - but this was not good enough for the US/UK). When these are rejected a 2nd resolution is proposed - which is then threatened with an unconditional veto by France - they see it as a way to start a war without having to proceed with the proposed inspection timetable. (Conspiracy theories abound by this point!)

c) The 2nd resolution is withdrawn (blamed on France) when quite obviously the real reason is that there is a chance that the UNSC (ie the international community) will not give it a majority vote (Blair had already stated that unreasonable vetoes would be ignored). US/UK then decides it doesn't "need" the UN after all (which is just great for the other 99% of the world - not).

End result - war starts (as it most likely would have always done so) - but at the cost of the credibility of the UNSC and - in a lesser sense - the EU.

I'm waiting for the "but the UN wouldn't have enforced its own resolutions....." well, if we'd used a negotiated form of the timetable presented by the other nations - maybe we'd know for sure).

[Putting on flame retardant suit ]

"Convince me otherwise - I'm sometimes wrong"

Andy

 

[MainFramed]

to many stickys!!! we dont need this thread sticked, stick to the reg. Offical War thread!

We'll be the judge of that not you. This thread will serve the purpose for discussions about the merits of the conflict, posting opinions of Anti War Protests, etc.

 

[Fencer128]

Didn't realise this was stickied until that comment!

Andy "My first sticky"

 

[BooGiMaN]

Originally posted by: SnapIT

Originally posted by: LH

You're an idiot. All of these wars have and are being protested, you're just not listening. Look in the countries where the wars are taking place (that allow free speech/dissidence), there are plenty of protestors. Not to mention groups from the United States who are protesting the wars.

No you are the fvcking idiot.

Where are the supposed millions protest our war with Iraq, that are protesting these various wars. There are NOT millions protesting these wars, the people protesting are cheifly those involved with the war. I have NOT seen people in other countries take the street for one of these wars. Not in the US, France, Germany, etc. Hell France and Germany did nothing to stop genocide in Kosovo, or Rwanda, let alone protest.

Im not listening? No I am Im just not seeing the world care as much about non US led wars. I watch not just american news channels, but British, German, and Russian. So dont make assumptions, they just make you look like and ass.

The global world just doesnt give a sh!t about non US led wars.

In kosovo, the us "accidently" bombed the news station, in afghanistan the us "accidently" bombed the news stations... could it be because the bombing and the pictures of injured and dead civilans hurts the US cause?

The us bombed a refugee convoy on their way out of kosovo, did you know this? no? ehhh... wonder why? because it would not be part of the news you are allowed to hear?

78 refugees dead... i know their faces, i helped bury them...

ok im tired of hearing from you how bad the USA is..so tell us exactly how you would have handled this situation...by the way what is it exactly that you do...first your part of the UN then ur a special ops type person ..now your a grave digger?
im confused as to what your profession is..oh and by the way please dont forget to lay out your plans on handling saddam im very interested in listening to what you have to say

 

[Stark]

Originally posted by: jaeger66

Originally posted by: Stark



I'm still waiting for an well educated, knowledgeable argument against this war.

The cause is just. The manner in which it was handled is a national embarassment. The world agrees that Saddam is a blight on the planet, and yet we couldn't even convince the GERMANS to go to war. In 1991 the world wrote us checks to pay for the war, while next week Congess will vote on an 80 billion dollar tax bill to pay for this round. And I'm sure it won't be the first such bill. I feel bad for the Iraqis whose homes will be bombed into the 9th Circle of Hell, but I feel worse about the economy in America.

Sigh...

Russia, China, and France were the three countries who started calling for an easing of sanctions against Iraq thereby crippling the original arms inspection process with Scott Ritter and co. Those were three of the primary countries which allowed the first coalition to gain such worldwide acceptance. When they abandonded the idea of disarmament, the inspections were doomed. As a result, the UN security council failed to enforce the obligations Saddam agreed to.

Now, because of US pressure, they recently called for a resumption of inspections. The failure of Blix to have any clue about the missles that were just fired towards Kuwait shows how well Saddam was agreeing to disarmament... the same pattern he's shown since the cease-fire in GW1.

We spend more on military than all the countries of Europe combined and it's not even a significant percentage of the GNP. Why sould we care if the rest of the world won't help pay for this war? That seems to be the main argument of the "middle of the roaders," but do we want to start basing our foreign policy on how much others are willing to shell out to make it happen? That's insanity! Using that logic, the UN should do whatever the US wants it to... we pay the most to support it.

So sorry, your argument is still baseless and stupid.

 

[Fencer128]

Thought I'd quickly make this point about the "legality" of the war.

IMHO and bearing in mind that I am a layman - the UN (and therefore international law) has a history of being judged against the actions of the UN. The fact that 1441 contains the ambiguous (bet everyone wished that was clarified at draft right now!) statement "serious consequences" means that someone could argue this meant "invasion".

For these reasons alone I cannot see how any accusation of "illegality" can possibly stick with regard to the current action. If you are completely anti-war - I can see why you would press this issue and hope it supported your view - but as a balanced bystander, I don't see a good case.

Andy

 

[jaeger66]

Originally posted by: Stark

So sorry, your argument is still baseless and stupid.

Yes, I know. You just want people to agree with you so you don't have to think. Anyone else is "unintelligent". The point, o genius of the universe, is that I'd rather my tax dollars go to something useful instead of destroying/rebuilding Iraq. 80 billion is just for starters.

 

[Mill]

[sarcasm]Stark- Don't even attempt to argue with Jaegar. He is world's above both of us in the debate column. You see how he handled your last post? Didn't even reply to the bulk of it. Just a quick jab that completely defeated your whole argument. [/sarcasm]

 

[Stark]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Because the reasons for this war are very Dubyaous
This has put preemptive war definition upside down, in such a way that it can justify any agression by any country on any other country.
It no longer requires that the country doing the preemption be in imminent and immediate danger from the country being preempted. It only requires that there be a chance that the second country might attack the other country in some distant future. Any country in the world might attack any other country in the world in the future, or at least there is no way to prove otherwise. Anything could happen theoretically.
So if you want to start a war, just say the other country is going to attack you at some point in the future, and that's enough justification.

Double sigh...

Yes, we are being pre-emptive... and we should be whenever any country makes aims at acquiring WMD. The club of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapon owning nations is a closed circle. It IS a double standard. This is the new policy that we have been forced to adapt because the UN has shown it is unable to do so. A reasonable human being should have no argument against this.

The US has the power to destroy all life on the planet... several times over. It has not used this power. That's why we are the ones who should enforce the policy that ensures that no other country EVER acquires this sort of power... especially totalitarian monsters and crazed dictators.

 

[Stark]

Originally posted by: jaeger66

Originally posted by: Stark

So sorry, your argument is still baseless and stupid.

Yes, I know. You just want people to agree with you so you don't have to think. Anyone else is "unintelligent". The point, o genius of the universe, is that I'd rather my tax dollars go to something useful instead of destroying/rebuilding Iraq. 80 billion is just for starters.

sucks to live in the wealthiest country in the history of the planet...

sucks to live up to the obligations that come with it...