War on Iraq: yes or no?

[Phreakmeister]

The United States have vowed to lead an international coalition against Saddam Hussein in a war on Iraq, if the weapons inspections would fail. Is this (the war, not the threat of war) the right way or not? And why?

[weldordave]

US has VOWED?? International coalition in a WAR WITH IRAQ??? I think you have put words and phrases together to suit your purpose. How about a prez excerpt that says "...the US has vowed to lead an international coalition in a war with Iraq..." I've reread all recent speeches as supplied by the White House info pages and even BBC clips of speeches and have not heard of any of this. You say "The United States have vowed..." My Senators and representatives pages say nothing of our "vowing to lead an int. coalition... blah, blah..." Are you getting bored with the slow American way and trying to expedite a war? Not very noble of a non-combatant in a country with no weapons. Put down the sword that others have to swing, boy.

[Phreakmeister]

Dave, if you want to be so stubborn to believe you are right, then read again. Read the statements made by Ari Fleischer, by George W. Bush, by Dick Cheney, by Colin Powell, by Donald Rumsfeld, even by Tony Blair.

This has nothing to do with my personal opinions. This is a poll among DL-members to see how they feel about the (coming?) war on Iraq. Is something wrong with trying to poll that here? If you don't feel like answering, then don't. Nobody's forcing you to do so.

And dave, leave that "boy", boy. It doesn't make you look any more mature, it only makes you look desperate and ludicrous.

[Ateo]

Q: Would we (the US) be going to war with Iraq right now if 9/11 had never happened?

A: No.

Q: So this war must have something to do with 9/11, right?

A: Yes.

Q: So Iraq must have played some part in the 9/11 attack, I take it?

A: Wellll...we're getting into tricky territory here...

Q: "Tricky"? Either Iraq was a player or not. I mean, it's a simple question.

A: No comment. Look, Saddam needs to come clean. That's what this is all about. It's about Saddam coming clean.

Q: But what does this have to do with 9/11? The war against terrorism?

A: Saddam is one of them.

Q: (pause) So he's...middle eastern? Or is there more to it? Would you care to extrapolate?

A: He....uh...let me put it this way: there are signs that point to him being involved.

Q: Signs? Is there any factual information, and if there is would you care to share it?

A: No--it's not the responsibility of the US to prove that Saddam is involved; it's the responsibility of Saddam to prove that he doesn't have weapons of mass destruction.

Q: but...

A: He killed his OWN PEOPLE. Don't you understand?

Q: Wait...

A: He gassed innocent women and children. HIS OWN PEOPLE.

Q: But what does that have to do with the attack on the World Trade Center?

A: The attackers were evildoers. Saddam is an evildoer.

Q: But why not concentrate your efforts on the evildoers who actually did evil on you, instead of a guy who did evil on Kuwait ten years ago?

A: Axis Of Evil

Q: what?

A: He humiliated my daddy

Q: but what about bin Laden?

A: Bin Laden is Clinton's fault! He had the chance to assasinate him, but he pussied out!

Q: Like your daddy pussied out with Saddam?

A: You're a commie pinko.

Q: No, I'm just a guy asking questions

A: Leave my daddy out of it

Q: You're the one who brought him up

A: No, he brought me up, meathead.

Wah wah wah wahhhhhh....

:rolleyes:

[weldordave]

Originally posted by Phreakmeister
Dave, if you want to be so stubborn to believe you are right, then read again. Read the statements made by Ari Fleischer, by George W. Bush, by Dick Cheney, by Colin Powell, by Donald Rumsfeld, even by Tony Blair.

This has nothing to do with my personal opinions. This is a poll among DL-members to see how they feel about the (coming?) war on Iraq. Is something wrong with trying to poll that here? If you don't feel like answering, then don't. Nobody's forcing you to do so.

And dave, leave that "boy", boy. It doesn't make you look any more mature, it only makes you look desperate and ludicrous.
Still no answer on where all these phrases came from? Should we infer that you made them up to garner support to your scud cause?(That which lacks direction)

[Phreakmeister]

You want me to quote the people I mentioned to show that the US government has indeed vowed to lead an international coalition in a war on Iraq if the weapons inspections fail?

Fine, here we go:

On the eve of the NATO summit, President George W. Bush called Wednesday for a "coalition of the willing," to help the United States disarm Iraq, should world pressure fail to persuade Saddam Hussein to give up the weapons voluntarily. "It's very important for our nations as well as all free nations, to work collectively to see to it that Saddam Hussein disarms," Bush told a news conference with Czech Republic President Vaclav Havel at Prague Castle. "If the collective will of the world is strong," Bush said, "we can achieve disarmament peacefully. However, should he choose not to disarm, the United States will lead a coalition of the willing to disarm him."
(source: Washington Times (http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breaking/20021120-054754-7050r.htm))

The issue is whether or not Mr. Saddam Hussein will disarm like he said he would. We're not interested in hide and seek inside Iraq. The fundamental question is, in the name of peace, in the name of security, not only for America and the American people, in the name of security for our friends in the neighborhood, in the name of freedom, will this man disarm? The choice is his. And if he does not disarm, the United States of America will lead a coalition and disarm him, in the name of peace.
- George W. Bush during a speech in Shreveport, Louisiana (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/12/20021203-4.html)

Last month, Saddam's regime said it would deal with U.N. inspections. Saddam has made such pledges before and he has violated them all -- time and time again. We have now called an end to Saddam's game. Under the terms of the U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441, Saddam must disclose the extent of his chemical, nuclear, and biological weapons by December 8th. And this time deception will not be tolerated. This time, as the President has said, delay and defiance will invite the severest consequences. The demands of the world will be met, or action will be unavoidable. Either Saddam Hussein will fully comply with the United Nations resolution, or the United States and a coalition of other nations will disarm Saddam Hussein.
- Dick Cheney during a speech in Denver, Colorado (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/12/20021202-4.html)

I'll give you more in due time, but right now I have more important business to attend to: my study.

[AWPrime]

In the next months we must be on our guard. The PR on both sides will try to bring or break war.

The (pre)Golfwar PR was mostly based on lies. But these lies were not revieled before the war started (exp. dying babies).

So check everything!

[w1che]

If Saddam doesn't want a war then all he has to do is do what he said he would to end the last war. Do away with his WMS.. He said he would, so now is the time for him to put up or shut up..

If the rest of the world doesn't want this war.. Then they should see that he does just that.. I think they should send a few cry babies off this board over there. He would give them up in two days to get them out of his country.. Or he would at least shoot them because he has a BIG GUN..:cool :D

[aclu14]

Saddam IS putting up all his weapons, not like he's dumb enough to use them anyway.

Does anyone else think that the Iraqi regime should be done away with simply because of ther crimes against humanity.

[aclu14]

Oh? And would the same go for Israel and American corporations based in China?

[w1che]

aclu14 read this real slow... If he gets 3 or 4 nukes and then makes a move to take over the rest of the oil producing countries in the area. Oil goes up to a 100 bucks a bl the rest of the world goes down the tube because they can't buy the oil... Who is going to go take him out then when he could kill everyone you sent over & still have 2 nukes left... Can we call on your country to do the job?

You have to look at the bigger picture..

[Sjax]

Originally posted by T.A.F.K.A.M.
Does anyone else think that the Iraqi regime should be done away with simply because of ther crimes against humanity.
Yes! But I dont think a war against Iraq is the solution. It didnt get rid of them the first time, just like USA werent able to get rid of Castro and bin Laden with violence. The list is long.

[AWPrime]

Every nation in the world has or is committing crimes against humanity. So that argument can be used against any nation if you dig deep.



example:

http://free.freespeech.org/americanstateterrorism/ChronologyofTerror.html

Sjax,

Just for the record, in the first war in the gulf, the intention was to remove Iraq's occupation of Kuwait, not to topple the rigime. And as far as violence, it is indeed the answer. Bombs speak louder than words.

And AWprime, I would agree that you can find some crimes against humanities that every nation has committed at one point or another. But what goes on in Iraq now, and what has gone on under Saddam Hussien's leadership is unspeakable acts of violence and torture to the Iraqi people. The Nazi's that commited crimes against humanity in the second world war, were brought to trail and Saddam is guilty of the same acts.

[Sjax]

Bombs and words arent the two only options. As this thread, and quite a lot of politicians, proposes there is also the option of a revolution in Iraq, supported by the international community.
This has in many situations proved to be a lot more effective than bombs.

[Phreakmeister]

Originally posted by w1che
Can we call on your country to do the job?

W1, your country is the same as ACLU's...

[aclu14]

Wuncheee - read this real slow.

Saddam is not stupid. He may be an @sshole, but he is not stupid. He's got power and the only thing he's afraid of is losing his power. He is smart enough not to use any wmd that he may or may not have. The only thing he's PROVEN to have is a few old Scuds that can't make it to the Mediterranean, nevermind US soil.

[Phreakmeister]

Arguments against the war

(These arguments do not necessarily reflect my personal opinion but are merely meant to give an overview of the arguments opponents of a war on Iraq give to support their 'conviction')

- Hardly any international support
- War will create hate in the Arab world
- War will deepen the crisis in the Middle East
- Innocent victims will fall
- US forces will suffer casualties
- Tactically practically impossible
- Against international law and US constitution
- It was even an American who made pre-emptive strikes illegal (Daniel Webster 1837)
- War will cause Saddam to use his WMD arsenal
- Devastating effects on the economy
- Oil prices will rise
- Support for terrorism will grow
- Saddam poses no threat to the western world
- Weapons inspections/United Nations should disarm Saddam
- There is no (proven) link between Saddam and Al Qaeda
- Who will succeed Saddam?
- War will lead the people into the hands of conservatives and fundamentalists, in and outside of Iraq
- Attacking Iraq would hurt the war on terror
- Don't turn the war on terror into a crusade
- First make Afghanistan safe and viable
- Iran could hamper US efforts by mining the Gulf, as they did in 1988
- First show the evidence against Saddam
- The real problem in Iraq is not Saddam, it's the sanctions
- Iraq is a sovereign nation, of which Saddam is the legal leader, who even got to power and remained in power through US aid
- Don't become a rogue state yourself
- Not in the name of the majority of the American people
- Attacking Iraq won't stop Jihad, it will actually start a jihad
- Attacking Iraq will isolate the US from its allies and alienate the rest of the world from the US


Arguments for the war

(These arguments do not necessarily reflect my personal opinion but are merely meant to give an overview of the arguments supporters of a war on Iraq give to support their 'conviction')

- Saddam has WMD
- Saddam is a menace to his people
- Saddam has already invaded Kuwait and Iran, gassed the Kurds and bombed Israel, who knows who's next
- Taking away Saddam means taking away the main supporter/sponsor of Palestinian terrorism
- He has deceived the UN, UN weapons inspections and the international community
- Jihad-fighters should be intimidated
- The War Powers Act gives the US government the right to attack Iraq
- Saddam must be toppled, which won't happen without military action
- Anticipatory self defense is recognized by International Law.
- Waiting for multilateral approval denies the sovereignty of the US, which actually violates the U.N. Charter.
- Iran must realize what the consequences are if the ayatollah's carry on their current policy




Does anyone know more arguments for and against the war?

[w1che]

aclu14... I guess you didn't read my post slow enough.. The key word is Nukes...

Man you do know more than the CIA though... Maybe you should send the CIA an email & let them know all you do about Iraq..

Oh by the way I did read your post real slow & it still didn't make any sense... :cool

[aclu14]

What about nukes?

And the CIA has their heads up their @sses, as with much of the DC bigwigs, so they're useless.

[w1che]

Quote from ACLU14... And the CIA has their heads up their @sses, as with much of the DC bigwigs, so they're useless.
>>>>>

And you don't? How can you even think you know more than the Bigwigs as you call them. I understand most 15 year olds think they do but guess what?? They don't...:rolleyes:

There may be some hope for you but I'm a little worried about that... :cool

[kontulib]

W1che:
There may be some hope for you but I'm a little worried about that... :cool


In your case, all hope is gone W1che :wink

- War will lead the people into the hands of conservatives and fundamentalists

The only one that I really find a problem with, Phreak is this one....I can't help but think that this came from your own personal opinions, or that of people with views, such as your own.....

TAFKAM

[Phreakmeister]

Originally posted by T.A.F.K.A.M.
The only one that I really find a problem with, Phreak is this one....I can't help but think that this came from your own personal opinions, or that of people with views, such as your own.....

TAFKAM

I personally agree with this view, but it is here as an argument used by opponents of the war on Iraq, which my post was about: arguments of opponents and supporters of a war on Iraq.

It is a true argument, regardless of the view one has. War radicalizes and polarizes.
How does this work in this particular case?
Iraqi's are very patriottic. Perhaps even more so than Americans. No matter how many times the US government says that the war (which is imminent) is against Saddam and not against Iraq, the only thing the Iraqi's experience are the bombs falling and the Iraqi propaganda. Waging war on Iraq makes it very easy for conservatives and fundamentalists to say: "See, I told you, this is not about terrorism, this is about islam, this is about us." This statement may be so untrue, when people hear and feel bombs falling around them all the time and the only story they hear is this one, they are very likely to believe this. And in the emotions of anger, frustration, sadness and whatever other emotion, the Iraqi's are more susceptible than usual to fundamentalists within Iraq.

[AWPrime]

Originally posted by T.A.F.K.A.M.


And AWprime, I would agree that you can find some crimes against humanities that every nation has committed at one point or another. But what goes on in Iraq now, and what has gone on under Saddam Hussien's leadership is unspeakable acts of violence and torture to the Iraqi people. The Nazi's that commited crimes against humanity in the second world war, were brought to trail and Saddam is guilty of the same acts.


I really mean every current goverment has committed them direct or indirect.

[Phreakmeister]

Originally posted by AWPrime
I really mean every current goverment has committed them direct or indirect.

Not the Belauan government!!!!! :wink

[AWPrime]

Originally posted by Phreakmeister


Not the Belauan government!!!!! :wink

Ain't Belauan a language?

Do you mean 'The Republic of Palau'?

[Phreakmeister]

Originally posted by AWPrime
Ain't Belauan a language?

Belauan is the adjective to Belau or Palau, referring to both the language and the people of Palau.

Do you mean 'The Republic of Palau'?

I most certainly do

[AWPrime]

What if the inspectors find no weapons of mass destruction?

Would Bush still attack?

Would the rest of the world rebel?

Would Saddam win the city wars?

[Phreakmeister]

Originally posted by AWPrime
What if the inspectors find no weapons of mass destruction?

It means Saddam has hidden them very well.
Some time ago, Saddam ordered/purchased a shipload of insulation material. I don't know what buildings in Iraq he thinks need insulation. What the insulation material does, is obstruct radar and satellite imaging. Ideal to cover up underground depots.

Would Bush still attack?

Possibly, but not definitely

Would the rest of the world rebel?

Possible, but unlikely

Would Saddam win the city wars?

More likely than a lot of people think