|
|
Post by mape on Apr 13, 2005 19:41:22 GMT -5
One thing that pisses me off is how an argument for going into Iraq was to fight for "our" freedom and for a safe and free world. Let's face it, Saddam was as harmless as a fly.
Prior to the war there were two no-fly zones, constant surveillance, tight sanctions, and scud missles that were as accurate as a blind man playing baseball. He wasn't going to hurt anyone outside his borders.
So then they say, what about those people within his country. It's no secret that his history with human rights isn't necessarily a good one. And it's no secret that he didn't like the kurdish population, or the shiite population. But the argument of "he gassed his own people" is one that is used too often and too readily. There is no clear cut evidence as to how many people were gassed in the incident in question, and who's gas was it (It was during the Iran-Iraq war and both countries were known to have chemical weapons. And one should note that the weapons the Iraqi army had were all supplied by the Americans - in response to the Russians supplying the Iranians).
The most probable cause for the deaths of up to 5000 people in Halabja was that they were caught in a crossfire during the Iran-Iraq war. A CIA report even stated that the gas used was one that was only used by Iran.
So they went into Iraq to find these WMDs that never existed. Or to get rid of a dictator - with technology the way it is, how hard would it have been to remove Saddam on his own, and his other party members. I don't think destroying a whole country was worthy of that. And i don't understand why they are still occupying Iraq. Those American kids are dying there (and no one here is ever told about that) for no reason at all.
I wonder if you ask most Iraqis which Iraq they would rather have - one under Saddam, or one that has been completely flattened. Watching a documentary i heard an iteresting line by an Iraqi woman who was interviewed - it went something like, "under Saddam life was hard, but at least we could sleep at night".
Meanwhile you got countries like North Korea and China who parade their Nuclear weapons on the streets, yet no one ever talks of going after them. What about the people that are suffering in those nations.
|
|
|
|
Post by lionsden® on Apr 13, 2005 21:17:53 GMT -5
The United States and the world has a duty to disarm a rogue nation like Iraq.
Saddam Hussein is a tyrant that has demonstrated a complete disregard for human life and should be brought to justice.
The people of Iraq are an oppressed people, and the world has a duty to help these people.
The oil reserves of the region are necessary to the world's economy. A rogue element like Saddam threatens the oil reserves of the entire region.
The practice of appeasement only fosters even bigger tyrants.
By removing Saddam Hussein, the world of the future is safer from terrorist attacks.
The creation of another nation favorable to US interests in the Middle-east.
The removal of Saddam Hussein would uphold previous UN resolutions and give the body some credibility.
|
|
|
|
Post by albertzz on Apr 13, 2005 23:13:54 GMT -5
Lionsden:
"The United States and the world has a duty to disarm a rogue nation like Iraq."
Let's analyse this statement abstractly shall we. Forget your position and just think about what you said. Why are they a rogue nation and why do we have a duty to disarm them?
Presumably because they are a threat to world peace. Are they? No. No, they are not. They were, at least to regional peace, and then they were dealt with. Had they done anything since? Besides fabricated evidence? No. So were they a threat to world peace? No. Further, why exactly do they not have a right to wmd like anyone else, like the US, like ISRAEL for god's sake! Why? b/c the international community said so. Your line "the US AND THE WROLD" was pivotal: Any transgression of world order is an affront to world order and must be dealt with by the world order, namely the UN. Conversely, to attack someone BECAUSE YOU DON"T LIKE THEM is to BE the aggressor - TECHNICALLY YOU become the affront to world order. CONsidering that Iraq wasn't doing anything then the only aggressor here was the US. (HAd it got UN approval it would have been a different story...)
"Saddam Hussein is a tyrant that has demonstrated a complete disregard for human life and should be brought to justice."
Arguably. this is true. However, does this mean that the US should bring him to justice? NO! It has no jurisdiction to do so.
Saddam Hussein broke international law therefore he must be brought to justice according to international law, to try to oust him yourself in violation of international law is ludicrous since the basis for ousting him is his violation of internatinal law
If you don't want to use international law then what do you have left - The US didn't like Saddam so they attacked Iraq. Saddam didn't like Kuwait so he attacked it. THEY ARE EQUIVALENT - if your argument is interest based and not grounded in international law and so you have lost your ability to condemn saddam since he is merely doing what you are doing too - violating international law
"The people of Iraq are an oppressed people, and the world has a duty to help these people."
True to some extent. But if you're making a moral argument then it is a pretty weak one. Why? B/c while it might be desirable to help people it is not if you violate all sorts of norms that contribute to a good and peaceful society. Just as while it might be desirable to feed a starving person, it is not if you break into a store to steal food to then give to that person. Why? Because there are better ways of going about it.
Further, IRaq EVEN IF it was a good thing to do was NOT the RIGHT thing to do - to be the RIGHT thing to do it had to be the BEST thing to do - it was not - there are much worthier causes - both humanitarian or security-wise or humanitarian and security-wise for the US to do - it is not the right thing to do to help a hungry man if a starving man is lying next to him.
"The oil reserves of the region are necessary to the world's economy. A rogue element like Saddam threatens the oil reserves of the entire region."
This hardly constitutes enough of a reason to invade. In fact THIS IS THE EXACT SAME ARGUMENT SADDAM HIMSELF ADVANCED against KUWAIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! - it was essential to Iraq's economy that kuwait not oversupply oil!
You cannot base your reason for attacking Iraq on the fact that it is in your interest because then, to universalize that principle, it is ok waht Iraq does if it is in their interest and so therefore attacking Kuwait was ok b/c it was in thier interest to do so- and so you have lost any grounds upon which to base your view that what Iraq did was wrong - itw as just doing what it wants and you're just doing what you want and there's nothing mroe to it - what it did wasn't wrong it's just what it does - much like us or anyone else - what a sad philosophy that is - yet while this logically follows from your position you won't confess to it - you want to maintain on the one hand that your reason for attacking is based in self-interest, and to claim that this is a legitimate basis for foreign policy but also to condemn those who act in self-interest. you can't have it both ways. You are implicitly admitting that your reason for attacking Iraq is baseless since it is based on a view that iraq's actions are illegitimate yet you have admitted that they are.legitimate b/c state's actions are legitimate simply b/c they are state's actions
"The practice of appeasement only fosters even bigger tyrants."
There's nothing I hate more than misapplied historical analogies. (well, that's not quite true) Appeasment had worked very well for Britain appeasing the US from taking Canada and in many other instances. It is simply not true that it NEVER works or ALWAYS works and this dogmatism is precisely the problem that informs your current dogmatism. As in partially due to the SUCCESS of appeasment it was tried on Hitler and thought he was appeasable. Turns out he wans't. Lesson? It's dumb to rely on historical analogies. Make sure thye apply first. Now, is Saddam appeasable - CLEARLY the evidence suggests that he was =- he DIDN't have WMDs and he only attacked Kuwait in the first place because he thought the US wasn't going to do anything - he thought they feared another Vietnam and the US embassador in Iraq gave him the impression they wouldn't interfere in "arab to arab" relations. Furthermore, even if he did have WMDs he WOULDn't use them against the US - dictators want one thing above all else - to survive - so he would never attack the US.
"By removing Saddam Hussein, the world of the future is safer from terrorist attacks."
Well NO actually. NOT AT ALL!!!!
Why?
That money could have been better spent ensuring that Russian stockpiles that can't be properly defended don't get into the hands of terrorists. Also it could have been used to deal with, oh, I dunno Countries that ACTUALLY HAVE WMDS!!!!! (and don't say they didn't know - they did know they just refused to a) listen b) exaggerrated the case c) didn't look at other countries d) made their mind up to go to war long before it was an issue - RIGHT after 9/11 there as a plan to attack Iraq - why? rummy et co. are all left over from bush sr's presidency and the gulf war was a hollow victory for them)
Further, Iraq had virtually NO terrorists before the war (there is no connection btwn Al-Q and Iraq - another lie!) yet NOW the Iraq war has stimulated a massive terrorism recruitement effort and Iraq itself is a HOTBED OF TERROR! So, the time and money diverted to ousting a comparatively wussy dictator and to rebuild what was an at least robust state that posed NO harm to the international community could have been diverted to ACTUALLY addressing terrorism instead of a) creating possible resentment, as well as recruitment and b) being unable, due to lack of funds, ensure proper security at home or deal with actual aggressors
"The creation of another nation favorable to US interests in the Middle-east."
Not necessarily at all. Maybe but not necessarily. Also, do some research. Of the US 16 attempts to build democracies all but 4 (germany and japan - both developed) and two small latin american countries FAILED - is it likely to fail in a country with nationalism problems, with huge population, ethnic divisions, underdeveloped and no prior history of democracy when all other countries it has been tried in with these characteristics have failed - YES! - hopefully not but statistically it's almost a certainty
"The removal of Saddam Hussein would uphold previous UN resolutions and give the body some credibility."
I fail to see how violating an institution as well as international law lends it credibility.
No offense, but PLEASE PLEASE stop reading us.gov or whatever crap propaganda you've been reading and do some impartial objective research and thinking on your own...
|
|
|
|
Post by globe on Apr 14, 2005 4:11:36 GMT -5
By removing Saddam Hussein, the world of the future is safer from terrorist attacks. If you really, really believe that lions, then fair play to you, but maybe you should stop believing all the retoric that comes out of the Oval Office, look at the evidence and make your own mind up. If you do that, you'll see just how ridiculous that statement is. By invading Iraq, the UK and the US are even more hated in that region of the world than they ever were before hand. Just that in itself makes us more likely to be attacked. I wonder if you ask most Iraqis which Iraq they would rather have - one under Saddam, or one that has been completely flattened. Watching a documentary i heard an iteresting line by an Iraqi woman who was interviewed - it went something like, "under Saddam life was hard, but at least we could sleep at night". I know two Iraqi guys, and they said exactly the same thing to me. |
|
|
|
Post by Noel's Barmy Army on Apr 14, 2005 5:17:02 GMT -5
The United States and the world has a duty to disarm a rogue nation like Iraq. Saddam Hussein is a tyrant that has demonstrated a complete disregard for human life and should be brought to justice. The people of Iraq are an oppressed people, and the world has a duty to help these people. The oil reserves of the region are necessary to the world's economy. A rogue element like Saddam threatens the oil reserves of the entire region. The practice of appeasement only fosters even bigger tyrants. By removing Saddam Hussein, the world of the future is safer from terrorist attacks. The creation of another nation favorable to US interests in the Middle-east. The removal of Saddam Hussein would uphold previous UN resolutions and give the body some credibility. hey, who knew Donald Rumsfeld was a member of the live4ever.us forum... |
|
|
|
Post by Eggy on Apr 14, 2005 5:37:33 GMT -5
hey, who knew Donald Rumsfeld was a member of the live4ever.us forum... i did... |
|
|
|
Post by DixonHill on Apr 14, 2005 5:58:32 GMT -5
hey, who knew Donald Rumsfeld was a member of the live4ever.us forum... just cos you think the Iraq war was wrong, doesn't make it so. |
|
|
|
Post by pizzy on Apr 14, 2005 6:42:37 GMT -5
just cos you think the Iraq war was wrong, doesn't make it so. no, it's just a coincidence that it is ;D |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2005 6:55:50 GMT -5
This is why when u bartend u never discuss politics man,,,peoples views are so diverse it can cost u tips if u say something others disagree with, so any future bartenders out there remember this thread before discussing politics  |
|
|
|
Post by Moorish on Apr 14, 2005 6:57:01 GMT -5
Not to get off topic, but if the US had a "duty" to stop terrorists it's a damn shame so much American money was pumped into the IRA over the last 30 years. They were bombing and murdering in this part of the world for decades!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2005 6:58:40 GMT -5
Not to get off topic, but if the US had a "duty" to stop terrorists it's a damn shame so much American money was pumped into the IRA over the last 30 years. They were bombing and murdering in this part of the world for decades! oh boy  ,,not even gonna touch that 1 |
|
|
|
Post by lionsden® on Apr 14, 2005 8:29:33 GMT -5
hey, who knew Donald Rumsfeld was a member of the live4ever.us forum... LMAO ;D I just found that on the internet somewhere and decided to post it cos I knew it would get to someone, and the typicals came out ;D Most of those views are vague and ridiculous. I didn't spend an hour typing like albert  |
|
|
|
Post by albertzz on Apr 14, 2005 11:08:17 GMT -5
um, ok,
sorry for taking your views and the issue seriously and trying to respond to them as well as I could. I'm glad that you did this to rile us all up that was very kind.
|
|
|
|
Post by Noel's Barmy Army on Apr 14, 2005 13:55:24 GMT -5
just cos you think the Iraq war was wrong, doesn't make it so. I-N-T-E-R-N-A-T-I-O-N-A-L L-A-W W-A-S B-R-O-K-E-N and it actually had to be spelt out to you  LMAO ;D |
|
|
|
Post by DixonHill on Apr 14, 2005 13:58:37 GMT -5
I-N-T-E-R-N-A-T-I-O-N-A-L L-A-W W-A-S B-R-O-K-E-N and it actually had to be spelt out to you LMAO ;D again, just because say it was wrong, doesn't make it so. stop trying to force your point over. |
|
|
|
Post by Noel's Barmy Army on Apr 14, 2005 14:02:06 GMT -5
hold on a minute, laws AREN'T opinions...
if u break a law, u dont stand up in court and say, "well, your honour Judge , u say I broke the law, but that's just your opinion," and expect to be let off!
it's called a FACT.
|
|
|
|
Post by lionsden® on Apr 14, 2005 14:18:50 GMT -5
hold on a minute, laws AREN'T opinions... if u break a law, u dont stand up in court and say, "well, your honour Judge , u say I broke the law, but that's just your opinion," and expect to be let off! it's called a FACT. Christ, who hasnt invaded another country at one point in time. HYPOCRITES |
|
|
|
Post by daysleeper on Apr 14, 2005 14:33:49 GMT -5
hold on a minute, laws AREN'T opinions... if u break a law, u dont stand up in court and say, "well, your honour Judge , u say I broke the law, but that's just your opinion," and expect to be let off! it's called a FACT. well actually a lot of laws do come down to opinion. the application of law depends upon the individual judges interpretations. this is especially true of case law and at the time of the iraq war, the advice given to the UK government (and i assume the US too) by the top legal brass in this country was that the war would be legal due to the previous UN resolutions. to me, you can argue about the legality of it all you want - it doesnt matter shit. the fact is that the UN hasnt got the power or influence to rule over the truly powerful countries. Even if the UN decided the war was illegal it still wouldnt have the balls to haul Bush or Blair or anyone else up in front of a war crimes tribunal. the 6 or so countries with true economic, political and military power do whatever they want and only go with the rest of the UN when it suits them |
|
|
|
Post by lionsden® on Apr 14, 2005 15:18:01 GMT -5
well actually a lot of laws do come down to opinion. the application of law depends upon the individual judges interpretations. this is especially true of case law and at the time of the iraq war, the advice given to the UK government (and i assume the US too) by the top legal brass in this country was that the war would be legal due to the previous UN resolutions. to me, you can argue about the legality of it all you want - it doesnt matter shit. the fact is that the UN hasnt got the power or influence to rule over the truly powerful countries. Even if the UN decided the war was illegal it still wouldnt have the balls to haul Bush or Blair or anyone else up in front of a war crimes tribunal. the 6 or so countries with true economic, political and military power do whatever they want and only go with the rest of the UN when it suits them Well spoken  |
|
|
|
Post by Noel's Barmy Army on Apr 14, 2005 15:37:36 GMT -5
well actually a lot of laws do come down to opinion. the application of law depends upon the individual judges interpretations. this is especially true of case law and at the time of the iraq war, the advice given to the UK government (and i assume the US too) by the top legal brass in this country was that the war would be legal due to the previous UN resolutions. to me, you can argue about the legality of it all you want - it doesnt matter shit. the fact is that the UN hasnt got the power or influence to rule over the truly powerful countries. Even if the UN decided the war was illegal it still wouldnt have the balls to haul Bush or Blair or anyone else up in front of a war crimes tribunal. the 6 or so countries with true economic, political and military power do whatever they want and only go with the rest of the UN when it suits them this is an absolute nonsense. Under International Law: - According to articles 41 and 42 of the United Nations Charter, no member state has the right to enforce any resolution militarily unless the UN Security Council determines that there has been a material breach of its resolution, decides that all nonmilitary means of enforcement have been exhausted, and then specifically authorizes the use of military force.Furthermore, under UN Security Council Resolution 687 no military enforcement mechanisms were specifiedSecurity Council Resolution 1441 does not render lawful the use of armed force against Iraq. It simply provides for “serious consequences” if Iraq does not comply with the obligations placed upon it. In the context of Chapter 7 of the Charter of the United Nations, the expression “serious consequences” is not synonymous with, nor a warrant for the use of, armed force. If the United States can unilaterally claim the right to invade Iraq due to that country’s violation of UN Security Council resolutions, other Security Council members could logically also claim the right to invade other member states that are in violation of UN Security Council resolutions. For example, Russia could claim the right to invade Israel, France could claim the right to invade Turkey, and Great Britain could claim the right to invade Morocco, simply because those targeted governments are also violating UN Security Council resolutions. The U.S. insistence on the right to attack unilaterally could seriously undermine the principle of collective security and the authority of the United Nations and in doing so would open the door to international anarchy. The unilateral launching of a general war against Iraq is a breach of peace and crime of aggression under international law. These crimes entail the responsibility of not only the concerned states, but also of the individuals who, voluntarily and knowingly, participate in its perpetration. Shows how much you know b/c firstly the case must pass through the domestic courts before they go before the international courts and there are law suits pending against bush and blair in both the US and the UK. |
|
|
|
Post by albertzz on Apr 14, 2005 16:09:35 GMT -5
Thank you Noel's Barmy Army
I can't believe you gys honestly think it is remotely desirable that power politics should determien what is right or what is wrong - seriously - besides saying you can is not an argument for what you should do and it completely undermines your case for going to Iraq in the first place, lionsden you didn't even bother to make your own arguments didnt' defend them against my refutation and then proceeded to label us hypocrites when clearly you don't understand it for it is not hypocrtiical at all - INF ACT that's th epoint - YOUR position is hypocritical - either you should start thinking or stop talking
|
|
|
|
Post by daysleeper on Apr 14, 2005 16:16:54 GMT -5
Shows how much you know b/c firstly the case must pass through the domestic courts before they go before the international courts and there are law suits pending against bush and blair in both the US and the UK. yeah i didnt know that. thanks for pointing it out because it supports my argument that the UN is an impotent joke of an organisation. Or am i the only person who finds it completely bizarre and illogical that a breach of international law has to be debated in a domestic court? what is the point in that? the UN and the international courts should have the power (and the balls) to uphold the laws they have made without any domestic involvment you called my post nonsense - but i never made any judgment on the legality of the war. i was stating what the lawyers told the british government at the time- they said the war was legal. that is a fact. for such an articulate person you may want to look that particular word up in the dictionary sometime..... ;D jks but seriously - it is up to the judges and lawyers of the international courts to decide whether or not that war was illegal or not. Time will tell what they decide... but i can promise you that Bush and Blair will never be brought up in a war crimes trial over it it wont happen! even if it was illegal - the act of bringing them up on charges is too politically sensitive to be allowed. it wont happen. and that is my point - that the UN has very little real power over the major countries of the world and it is because the UN has little power that countries such as the US will continue to act unilaterally to protect their own interests. all the major countries do it - whether they're breaking UN resolutions, international law or trading agreements (everyone loves to break trading agreements....) it doesnt matter - they will still do it. you can argue over the legality all you want mate but until the big guys decide they actually want to truly enforce and maintain an international legal and economic framework- you're wasting your breath and that wont happen as long as China is a communist country... |
|
|
|
Post by daysleeper on Apr 14, 2005 16:24:35 GMT -5
I can't believe you gys honestly think it is remotely desirable that power politics should determien what is right or what is wrong desirable or not - its the way it is. i cant believe an intelligent person like you doesnt realise that power and money still come above morals in this world. and anyway, who decides what is right and wrong? you? me? the UN? whoever decides it - there will be someone who disagrees with it. and that fact alone means that power comes into play... |
|
|
|
Post by albertzz on Apr 14, 2005 16:25:13 GMT -5
In response to your comments first I'm going to quote myself: Thank you Noel's Barmy Army I can't believe you gys honestly think it is remotely desirable that power politics should determien what is right or what is wrong - seriously - besides saying you can is not an argument for what you should do and it completely undermines your case for going to Iraq in the first place, lionsden you didn't even bother to make your own arguments didnt' defend them against my refutation and then proceeded to label us hypocrites when clearly you don't understand it for it is not hypocrtiical at all - INF ACT that's th epoint - YOUR position is hypocritical - either you should start thinking or stop talking What I'm saying is that fostering an atmosphere in which international law is enforceable is highly desirable and the US should be condemned for breaking it (I"m assuming they did) The idea that countries do what they do is a tautology - and it isn't what they SHould do look - technically OUR society ISN"T enforceable! OUR LAWS ARE NOT ENFORCEABLE - if we all did what we wanted it'd be anarchy - we don't we obey even when it isn't in our interest - we need these norms ! they can be built - people obey geneva dconventions on treating prisoner's properly - that is incredible and a great step - they don't have to technically and if they win it's unenforceable but they do! |
|
|
|
Post by Noel's Barmy Army on Apr 14, 2005 16:51:45 GMT -5
and that is my point - that the UN has very little real power over the major countries of the world and it is because the UN has little power that countries such as the US will continue to act unilaterally to protect their own interests. all the major countries do it - whether they're breaking UN resolutions, international law or trading agreements (everyone loves to break trading agreements....) it doesnt matter - they will still do it. its the other way around...its because rogue nations like the US and the UK continue to act unilaterally to protect their own interests is wot is undermining the UN in the 30's it was the nazi, japanese and italians that undermined the League of Nations - they were brutal dictatorships. Now why have two nations which are supposedly the bastions of democracy, the UK and the US, conceptuallly, doing the same things as much as castigate the US for it, I completely accept that the UK is equally as culpable. |
|
"]http://tenbobrevolution.blogspot.com
LMAO ;D
Nov 4, 2024 5:04:30 GMT -5