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

[LunarRay]

The movie "the day the earth stood still" comes to mind..

Until there is a power that no one can defeat whose only purpose is to prevent wars and the events that cause the wars we will just have to settle for the next best thing .. an imperfect power on a noble quest...

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: Alistar7

Originally posted by: LocutusX

Originally posted by: Alistar7

"Your self-righteous "noble quest" to prove that everyone in the world supports this action is pathetic. Have you even read the editorials published in the numerous links I posted before? What, you think editors at "Newsweek", "Los Angeles Times", and "The Washington Post" are all biased leftists who don't use facts to base their arguments? Give me a break."

No, actually I have used the Post to support this position quite well, are you done with your rhetoric yet? Your self righteous attacks on me still dont change the fact all I am asking for is the number of countries opposed. This is factual information not subject to interpretation or bias. I will now do the impossible and take it down to TWO words for your simple mind.

HOW MANY?

HOW MANY?

HOW MANY?

HOW MANY?

HOW MANY?

HOW MANY?

According to your beloved president Bush, you are either with us or against us in the war against terrorism. So 45 for, 152 against, (197 countries in the world if you don't know where that's from) straight from your president's mouth. Now STFU.

 

[sambao21]

This is my first post on this thread and I want to first just say that I'm not for the war. I'm not saying I'm a pacifist and oppose all wars. Sometimes wars are necessary to bring about certain change. But, I'm just not understanding why this is the route that Bush decides to take. I know that patience is running low, but patience has been running low for a long time. Why did Bush decide now is the time? Also, I haven't heard of Clinton ever pushing for war, but that could be I'm not informed enough.

I think that either Bush is really just upset at Iraq because truly he wants to disarm them, or maybe he has other motives. Seeing how his family made it's fortune from oil, and how the Gulf War was really just a war to maintain a strong hold on oil prices and not letting Iraq control it's oil and Kuwaiti oil and making the call on prices which could affect the us oil prices, which the bush family has a strong interest in.

I think that there could've been a more diplomatic way about all this. We could pressure the U.N. more and pressure other countries to do their own investigations into Iraq. I think after enough time and enough pressure the world may realize, what obviously the Bush administration has realized, that Saddam needs to be toppled. But Bush does not have that time to spare. Elections, the economy, and other issues forces Bush to make a decision now or pass up his chance to be "great." This could be a way to shift focus away from the deteriorating economy, or it could be his way of maintaining his job in the upcoming election, or it may just be that he wants to take care of oil prices now while he can as president before he's out of office.

I know that I may sound very anti-Bush, and maybe I am, but that's because he has yet to do anything that would make me believe he's doing this because there's truly a need for this war right now. Iraq does not pose an immediate danger to the U.S. or any other countries, and with the diplomatic route there is still enough time. But like I said, there's time for US and other nations, but there's not enough time for Bush, because it seems without this war or a miraculous boom in economy, he's not likely to be re-elected, but that's just my prediction.

I see that the official reason for this war is because Iraq has broken the cease-fire agreement and has not disarmed, but truly this excuse sounds more like some kind of legal fuss. It's not a clear and decisive reason to act the way we're acting. Also, I think that US may not have the legal right to actually be engaging in this war, but since Iraq is not following the laws, then I guess the exempts the US also (that must be the Bush administrations train of thought).

I don't support this war, and that does not make me less of an American. I do not support Saddam, and I do not support Iraq. I support the troops fighting in the cold dry desert, but I do not support the politicians that sent them there. The troops shouldn't be there in the first place. They follow orders, and so it's not their fault that this is happening, but the ones who give the orders should reevaluate their decisions.

But there's a least one good thing on TV right now, NCAA Baby!!!

 

[Alistar7]

really, i will shut up as soon as you link to that offical list ofcountries that have PUBLICLY stated their opposition, you seem so sure of your superior intellect, go find on the web what NOT ONE PERSON HAS BEEN ABLE TO FIND< WHY?

we know not ALL countries even voiced an opinion, so your incredibly simplistic approach is hardly accurate.

HOW MANY AGAINST? OFFICIALY, with proof or you can take your own advice and STFU.

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: sambao21
This is my first post on this thread and I want to first just say that I'm not for the war. I'm not saying I'm a pacifist and oppose all wars. Sometimes wars are necessary to bring about certain change. But, I'm just not understanding why this is the route that Bush decides to take. I know that patience is running low, but patience has been running low for a long time. Why did Bush decide now is the time? Also, I haven't heard of Clinton ever pushing for war, but that could be I'm not informed enough.

I think that either Bush is really just upset at Iraq because truly he wants to disarm them, or maybe he has other motives. Seeing how his family made it's fortune from oil, and how the Gulf War was really just a war to maintain a strong hold on oil prices and not letting Iraq control it's oil and Kuwaiti oil and making the call on prices which could affect the us oil prices, which the bush family has a strong interest in.

I think that there could've been a more diplomatic way about all this. We could pressure the U.N. more and pressure other countries to do their own investigations into Iraq. I think after enough time and enough pressure the world may realize, what obviously the Bush administration has realized, that Saddam needs to be toppled. But Bush does not have that time to spare. Elections, the economy, and other issues forces Bush to make a decision now or pass up his chance to be "great." This could be a way to shift focus away from the deteriorating economy, or it could be his way of maintaining his job in the upcoming election, or it may just be that he wants to take care of oil prices now while he can as president before he's out of office.

I know that I may sound very anti-Bush, and maybe I am, but that's because he has yet to do anything that would make me believe he's doing this because there's truly a need for this war right now. Iraq does not pose an immediate danger to the U.S. or any other countries, and with the diplomatic route there is still enough time. But like I said, there's time for US and other nations, but there's not enough time for Bush, because it seems without this war or a miraculous boom in economy, he's not likely to be re-elected, but that's just my prediction.

I see that the official reason for this war is because Iraq has broken the cease-fire agreement and has not disarmed, but truly this excuse sounds more like some kind of legal fuss. It's not a clear and decisive reason to act the way we're acting. Also, I think that US may not have the legal right to actually be engaging in this war, but since Iraq is not following the laws, then I guess the exempts the US also (that must be the Bush administrations train of thought).

I don't support this war, and that does not make me less of an American. I do not support Saddam, and I do not support Iraq. I support the troops fighting in the cold dry desert, but I do not support the politicians that sent them there. The troops shouldn't be there in the first place. They follow orders, and so it's not their fault that this is happening, but the ones who give the orders should reevaluate their decisions.

But there's a least one good thing on TV right now, NCAA Baby!!!

no doubt you're misinformed, just go watch b-ball and aks yourself why leaders of 45 countries are pledging support for a war based on Bush's personal desire with potentially severe political consequences for their decision. One can easily understand their willingness to slash their own politcal throats over a man (bush) who hardly has much repsect internationally.

 

[Alistar7]

How many rchiu?


Love your style, swoop in unsuspected, level a personal attack, then run rather than face the consequences of your idiocy, you operate and think just like a terrorist....

 

[sandorski]

Fun with Math

A(Total countries in the world) - B(Total countries supporting Iraq war) = C(Total countries not supporting Iraq war)

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: sandorski
Fun with Math

A(Total countries in the world) - B(Total countries supporting Iraq war) = C(Total countries not supporting Iraq war)

yet another troll dodging the question and the facts, not EVERY country has PUBLICY stated their position for or against, we know 45 have voiced their support, how many against?

 

[B00ne]

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

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

 

[Alistar7]

you do realize the longer you whine and go around claiming the MAJORITY of the world is against this war while not even being able to QUANTIFY the number you say makes this a clear majority makes you look like a trolling a-hole.

 

[DanJ]

Alistar, "85% of the military effort is American". That's not tremendous support. So while we might have some symbolic support (much from countries that frankly can't help us much), this is primarily a U.S. action.

 

[Alistar7]

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

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

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

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

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: DanJ
Alistar, "85% of the military effort is American". That's not tremendous support. So while we might have some symbolic support (much from countries that frankly can't help us much), this is primarily a U.S. action.

Don't bother, you didn't provide the "List".

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: DanJ
Alistar, "85% of the military effort is American". That's not tremendous support. So while we might have some symbolic support (much from countries that frankly can't help us much), this is primarily a U.S. action.

Dan there are far more types of support other than military, other countries did offer military suport that was politely declined, but we hardly need them, they would be more of a logistical nightmare on the battlefield at this stage, and can their training and equipment offer anything even equal to ours?

45 countires publicly stating support to ??? against? give me the total of those opposed, I will calculate the level "disparity" in question...

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: DanJ
Alistar, "85% of the military effort is American". That's not tremendous support. So while we might have some symbolic support (much from countries that frankly can't help us much), this is primarily a U.S. action.

Don't bother, you didn't provide the "List".

Here is the breakdown of the 45 for, now where is the list of opposed or even an accurate number??????

 

[Alistar7]

Oh I forgot how you operate san, i forgot to say goodbye before I exposed your ignorance and watched you run like a french-canadian convinced the gypsys are planning an imminent attack....

 

[Alistar7]

HOW MANY OPPOSED?

 

[Alistar7]

LET ME HELP YOU SAN, 2 comes after 1, there ya go, you should be done counting and have my answer......

LMAO

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: sandorski
Fun with Math

A(Total countries in the world) - B(Total countries supporting Iraq war) = C(Total countries not supporting Iraq war)

Bush: "You are either with us or against us."

 

[DanJ]

Originally posted by: Alistar7

Originally posted by: DanJ
Alistar, "85% of the military effort is American". That's not tremendous support. So while we might have some symbolic support (much from countries that frankly can't help us much), this is primarily a U.S. action.

Dan there are far more types of support other than military, other countries did offer military suport that was politely declined, but we hardly need them, they would be more of a logistical nightmare on the battlefield at this stage, and can their training and equipment offer anything even equal to ours?

45 countires publicly stating support to ??? against? give me the total of those opposed, I will calculate the level "disparity" in question...

Alistar, take a look at the countries that are supporting us. Here's the list so far with a couple "expecteds" added:

Afghanistan, Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Colombia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Hungary, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, the Netherlands, Nicaragua, the Philippines, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom and Uzbekistan. Plus Kuwait, Cyprus, Iceland, Bahrain, Qatar.

"El Salvador, Nicaragua and Colombia - where the US is funding a huge anti-drugs war."
"Ethiopia and Eritrea, are bitter rivals who are both seeking US support in a boundary dispute"
"Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Iceland...are seeking US financial or military support through Nato."

This is all taken from the BBC article linked above.

Yes, some countries are providing assistance, but you know some countries are allying with us to get support from us in the future, as they can't offer much, but they can add to our list to show greater global support, no matter how small the country is.

All I'm saying is that of those countries above, very few are significant; support isn't that high. We had a bigger military coalition going into Desert Storm.

And think about world opinion after 9-11. Just about everyone was for us, where has that gone.

 

[B00ne]

Originally posted by: Alistar7

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: DanJ

Originally posted by: Alistar7

Originally posted by: DanJ
Alistar, "85% of the military effort is American". That's not tremendous support. So while we might have some symbolic support (much from countries that frankly can't help us much), this is primarily a U.S. action.

Dan there are far more types of support other than military, other countries did offer military suport that was politely declined, but we hardly need them, they would be more of a logistical nightmare on the battlefield at this stage, and can their training and equipment offer anything even equal to ours?

45 countires publicly stating support to ??? against? give me the total of those opposed, I will calculate the level "disparity" in question...

Alistar, take a look at the countries that are supporting us. Here's the list so far with a couple "expecteds" added:

Afghanistan, Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Colombia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Hungary, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, the Netherlands, Nicaragua, the Philippines, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom and Uzbekistan. Plus Kuwait, Cyprus, Iceland, Bahrain, Qatar.

"El Salvador, Nicaragua and Colombia - where the US is funding a huge anti-drugs war."
"Ethiopia and Eritrea, are bitter rivals who are both seeking US support in a boundary dispute"
"Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Iceland...are seeking US financial or military support through Nato."

This is all taken from the BBC article linked above.

Yes, some countries are providing assistance, but you know some countries are allying with us to get support from us in the future, as they can't offer much, but they can add to our list to show greater global support, no matter how small the country is.

All I'm saying is that of those countries above, very few are significant; support isn't that high. We had a bigger military coalition going into Desert Storm.

And think about world opinion after 9-11. Just about everyone was for us, where has that gone.

Support is support, look at the nations in the EEU, they are all failry significant with a majority supporting us, all I have been asking for anyway is the number of countries that have publicy stated their opposition. Everyone is claiming the MAJORITY is against the war, answer me this, how can you determine which one is a majority when the value of one is not known?

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: B00ne

Originally posted by: Alistar7

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

 

[B00ne]

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

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

 

[DanJ]

Originally posted by: Alistar7

Originally posted by: DanJ
Alistar, take a look at the countries that are supporting us. Here's the list so far with a couple "expecteds" added:

Afghanistan, Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Colombia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Hungary, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, the Netherlands, Nicaragua, the Philippines, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom and Uzbekistan. Plus Kuwait, Cyprus, Iceland, Bahrain, Qatar.

"El Salvador, Nicaragua and Colombia - where the US is funding a huge anti-drugs war."
"Ethiopia and Eritrea, are bitter rivals who are both seeking US support in a boundary dispute"
"Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Iceland...are seeking US financial or military support through Nato."

This is all taken from the BBC article linked above.

Yes, some countries are providing assistance, but you know some countries are allying with us to get support from us in the future, as they can't offer much, but they can add to our list to show greater global support, no matter how small the country is.

All I'm saying is that of those countries above, very few are significant; support isn't that high. We had a bigger military coalition going into Desert Storm.

And think about world opinion after 9-11. Just about everyone was for us, where has that gone.

Support is support, look at the nations in the EEU, they are all failry significant with a majority supporting us, all I have been asking for anyway is the number of countries that have publicy stated their opposition. Everyone is claiming the MAJORITY is against the war, answer me this, how can you determine which one is a majority when the value of one is not known?

Support's not really support. I'm sure Bush would like to add some larger, more powerful countries to the list (France, Russia, China, Germany, Japan (actual support), etc.). If every country in Central and South America supported us and no one else, then that wouldn't be much support, but would be a chunk of countries, right? (strictly an example)

The majority is against the war on theory of the war I believe. Preemptive is a dangerous precident to set. What happens if Japan decides that a preemptive strike on NK is in their interest as they fear the power of NK. Do we back them? We'd have to, right? As NK has everything Iraq has and more. It opens pandora's box of legalizing (well, in theory) this type of warfare, that countries can attack without being attacked. The countries that don't support us don't think Saddam is a great guy, they just think that this shouldn't be a U.S. lead war, it should be a U.N. lead war (no matter how slow the process), or not a war at all as Saddam hasn't attacked anyone in quite a while.

That's my thoughts at least.