War on Iraq

[Mubbers]

Originally posted by Sazar
mubbers... your ENTIRE reasoning for the war was just shot to crap with that post...



you cannot go into details about this war w/o taking into account dubyah... and his dad if it comes to it...

you seem to forget the us government itself had a knack for testing various devices on its own people... remember tuskeegee ? I mean come on... do not forget also that the kurds are separatists in the country... to saddam they are not going to be considered citizens if he can help it...

now as for your plans... how often has this worked ?

you CANNOT assisinate saddam.. that would make him a martyr and I will NOT feel safer with this knowledge and the legions of new suicide bombers this would breed...

saddam is a product of us 'intervention' in the region and now he is not liked because he has taken his perception of 'control' and 'dominance' too far...

there is a lack of targets for bush after 9/11 and afghanistan... he is therefore taking the most direct course of action... attack saddam... he is easily dislikeable which makes the job easier...

beyond all that... do you REALISE how much it is going to cost in terms of MONEY and MANPOWER to take action v/s iraq and keep a force there... beyond the billions already spent to bribe countries to join the 'coalition' v/s terrorism... ?

I dunno... I just can't see justification for military action v.s iraq in light of what I KNOW and what I KNOW the us goverment should KNOW...

if a war must be fought... it would be better for it to be fought for something more meaningful.. and something that would not paint a gigantic bullseye on our nation...

I think we have long worn out the sympathy garnered from 9/11.. where nations may have stood aside when the us went into afghanistan... the same can't be said for iraq..

Sorry Sazar, you've completly lost me there! "shot to pieces" why?

The only reasoning for a war I put forward was that Saddam had killed 5000 of his own citizens with mustard gas - a vile act. It was an example of a brutal dictator committing one of many acts of oppression against the people he has a moral duty to protect.

You countered this by saying that it didn't really matter because he viewed the kurds as sepratists and thus it was OK. Frankly Sazar that is a bizarre line of reasoning.

It's like me saying that because Scotland is a separatist region of the UK and has actively sought to break it up that the English would be justified in dropping nerve gas on Edinburgh!!! Strewth!!!

You are also justifying this on the basis that it is logical to Saddam Hussein and therefore OK. Saddam Hussein is a psycopathic monster. What he thinks is OK is not OK - yes? No?

The reason that I don't want to discuss GWB anymore is that every time GWB is mentioned it always seems like hype to me "his daddeys war" etc... rant rant rant. If you're ranting it's personal. If it's personal it's not a valid argument.

Personally I despise Tony Blair. But as you know I support his stance on Iraq. I haven't let my dislike for TB effect my arguments -

I'm not so sure about some of you???

As for the other stuff - you countered my views on the available options. Fine, that is indeed why we're debating in this thread.

But does putting these views forward make me hell bent on war like Iceman says. No it does not. During this thread I have seen precious little in the way of ideas from the 'appeasment' camp.

What I have seen a great deal of is the kind of feeble excuse you typify by saying:

saddam is a product of us 'intervention' in the region and now he is not liked because he has taken his perception of 'control' and 'dominance' too far...

That because the west created him we should now do nothing? That is like saying that because you raised a problem child it's your fault and therefore you cannot do anything about it.

I would say it is precisiely because of this that we owe it to the rest of the world to sort out our mess.

Mubbers

 

[Mubbers]

Originally posted by Ziptrx

So you believe "the CIA, FBI and the majority of political leaders" when they say there is no link between Al Queda and Iraq.

You have accepted what they say as the truth.

Good.

So when the same people tell you that there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, naturally you also believe that too?

There is NO proof that Iraq has WMD.

That’s an amazing double standard.

You personally have seen no evidence either way that Iraq/Al Queda are linked yet you are perfectly happy to believe the above people when they say that there is no link. You are doing this because it fits in with your view and supports your arguments.

But you have also not seen any evidence showing Iraq to have or have no WOMD. YET when the same above people are telling you that Iraq does have WOMD you don’t believe it because it doesn’t fit your argument! :huh:

The UN suspects that Iraq may have WMD, but again there is no solid evidence just speculation.

Speculation then the use of the mustard gas that killed 5000 Iraqi people in 1988?
Mustard gas is a WOMD.

He is disarming. The missiles he is destroying are against the UN resolution, therefore according to the UN he is disarming.

The whole point of this debacle is to disarm Iraq of WOMD. Missiles are a vehicle. The Iraqi’s might as well be blowing up buses. In all likelihood a bio-weapon will be deployed on a bus or an aeroplane, in the west, rather than on a next to useless Al-Samouhd II missile.

I think we’re gonna have to agree to disagree on this issue.

There is a US law or international law stating that assassinations are not permitted. That is the reason that Saddam was not killed the first time.

Interesting. If Saddam had been killed at the end of the first Gulf War as a result of military action would that have been an assassination? I don’t believe so. Open to opinion…

That was the plan of the first Gulf War. It failed.

Did not really fail. The war was stopped because of public opinion. We the public (and people in this thread also) are now saying the job should have been done first time around. Quite. The same public is now apparently horrified that we should be going to war now.

Blame the media if you will for this mess. It is they that seemingly decide what “we” the public want.

We are trying that now, by dropping information urging the Iraqi people to stand together against Saddam. It has yet to succeed.

It won’t succeed, it’s nonsense! What the chap interviewed in the mosque was after was weapons!! Like I said – it would not end happily.

There is a reason they hate us. Bush holds a side for Isreal, despite what Sharon does. Sharon is just as guilty has Arafat, when it comings to attacking the other.

Exactly the reason why little has been done to sort this out. Both sides are at it.

A note on religion.....it's a joke.

Common ground! Unfortunately nobody is laughing.

Last, the US is full of corruption. Isreal should be under attack from the UN the way Iraq has. Cheney said something along the lines of "We must go to war because we have to many troops over there. Either go to war or start moving the troops". It feels that Bush just wants to go to war since we have close to 300k troops in the Middle East.

Yes it’s a lot of materiel to move all that way for nothing. Yet if serious disarmament had taken place there would be no war, of that I am sure.

Mubbers, since you are so hell bent about Iraq having WMD, why have you yet to say anything about North Korea? …

Well the thread said Iraq…. Personally (unlike the USA) I only have enough guns to fight a war on a single front

In my opinion with all the double standards going on, the "Axis of Evil" right now should be the US, Britain and Isreal.

Yeah we are so evil. Evil in going in to the Balkans. Evil in going into Somalia. Evil in ousting the Taliban. Evil in taking a stand against terrorism. Pure evil.

Mubbers

Footnote:

Lybia is heading the UN commission on Human Rights. :huh:

 

[ZipTriX]

Originally posted by Mubbers

That’s an amazing double standard.

No it's not. Those people, listed, came out openly admitting that there is no solid evidence that Iraq is linked with Al Queda. You don't provide proof to the people of country on a subject that is not creating harm. Bush wants war on Iraq about WMD, then he should provide the solid evidence.

You personally have seen no evidence either way that Iraq/Al Queda are linked yet you are perfectly happy to believe the above people when they say that there is no link. You are doing this because it fits in with your view and supports your arguments. But you have also not seen any evidence showing Iraq to have or have no WOMD. YET when the same above people are telling you that Iraq does have WOMD you don’t believe it because it doesn’t fit your argument! :huh:

Don't twist my words or try to state what it is that I believe. When Bush can do what Kennedy did, with Cuba, then I will support Bush. Not before hand and definately not off speculation. Bush and Blair are trying to convince the world that Iraq has WMD, so they can go to war. They should provide the solid proof that Iraq possess WMD. The world should not take the words of these men, because they say Iraq has them. If Bush was declaring war on Iraq because of links with Al Queda, then I would want the solid proof showing that they are linked together.

Speculation then the use of the mustard gas that killed 5000 Iraqi people in 1988?
Mustard gas is a WOMD.

No **** smart one. We're talking about the present, not before the first Gulf War.

Interesting. If Saddam had been killed at the end of the first Gulf War as a result of military action would that have been an assassination? I don’t believe so. Open to opinion…

Yes it would have been, that is why he was never killed. There was a "No Assassination Law" in effect during the first war, that Bush Jr has gotton rid of.

Did not really fail. The war was stopped because of public opinion. We the public (and people in this thread also) are now saying the job should have been done first time around. Quite. The same public is now apparently horrified that we should be going to war now.

The first war there was a reason with solid proof. Also when the first happened, I was to young to give a **** about America. This time there is no solid proof.

Yeah we are so evil. Evil in going in to the Balkans. Evil in going into Somalia. Evil in ousting the Taliban. Evil in taking a stand against terrorism. Pure evil.

That is your belief, and I will not a remark about unlike you did to me. Stating what I believe and what I don't. You believe what you will, but in the end I hope that this war is not a mistake. If it is a mistake, then I pray that the US and Britain experience extreme repercussions of the war. Maybe it will teach them next time provide the solid evidence, wait for UN backing and have the public's support.

 

[Sazar]

Originally posted by Mubbers
Sorry Sazar, you've completly lost me there! "shot to pieces" why?

The only reasoning for a war I put forward was that Saddam had killed 5000 of his own citizens with mustard gas - a vile act. It was an example of a brutal dictator committing one of many acts of oppression against the people he has a moral duty to protect.

You countered this by saying that it didn't really matter because he viewed the kurds as sepratists and thus it was OK. Frankly Sazar that is a bizarre line of reasoning.

It's like me saying that because Scotland is a separatist region of the UK and has actively sought to break it up that the English would be justified in dropping nerve gas on Edinburgh!!! Strewth!!!

You are also justifying this on the basis that it is logical to Saddam Hussein and therefore OK. Saddam Hussein is a psycopathic monster. What he thinks is OK is not OK - yes? No?

The reason that I don't want to discuss GWB anymore is that every time GWB is mentioned it always seems like hype to me "his daddeys war" etc... rant rant rant. If you're ranting it's personal. If it's personal it's not a valid argument.

Personally I despise Tony Blair. But as you know I support his stance on Iraq. I haven't let my dislike for TB effect my arguments -

I'm not so sure about some of you???

As for the other stuff - you countered my views on the available options. Fine, that is indeed why we're debating in this thread.

But does putting these views forward make me hell bent on war like Iceman says. No it does not. During this thread I have seen precious little in the way of ideas from the 'appeasment' camp.

What I have seen a great deal of is the kind of feeble excuse you typify by saying:



That because the west created him we should now do nothing? That is like saying that because you raised a problem child it's your fault and therefore you cannot do anything about it.

I would say it is precisiely because of this that we owe it to the rest of the world to sort out our mess.

Mubbers

basically... the argument that because saddam has gassed peoples within his country he is therefore open to warfare by other nations does not sit well with me... specially when I know other nations have done the same sort of experimentation or used weapons/materials v/s their own troops... usa anyone ?

I never said it was ok for saddam to gas the peoples btw... read again... I said he would consider them to be destabalising forces... and take the actions he deemed necessary... I am not saying the actions are correct... I am just trying to put things in perspective... remmeber also the human rights atrocities commited by KUWAIT v/s palestinian nationals in kuwait @ the end of the first gulf war...

concerning dubyah... he has a personal vendetta... thats plain as day... he also has very political reasons for WANTING a war... if you have seen his planned election manifesto leaked to the press.. you would know what I am talking about.. as well as others... his ENTIRE political agenda for the next elections does not concern the economy or international affairs or anything meaningful... it consists of 9/11 and the CONTINUING war on terrorism... mind the leak occured in the middle of last year... go figure...

now as far as the rest of the stuff... there is no need to fight a war... that is my take... there is no reason presented as to show that there is a reason for this war that will potentially cost north of 100 BILLION usd... the evidence presented is thin and the logic is weak...

heck bush and powell keep harping links to procurement of nuclear materials from tunisia... which has been designated a FAKE... I think that does tell you something about some of the so-called concrete evidence...

this is not like hitler in germany or milosevic... this is a different situation... I have yet to hear a VALID reason for the war to occur and for the risk of instability to the region...

and what exactly is teh problem with libya ? do not raise lockerbie and the 2 individuals as a point... is there another or does khaddafi just happen to be an easy target...

 

[Perris Calderon]

there are two reasons for this war

1) Bush thinks it will get him re elected

2) his daddy wants him to finnish his folly

 

[Geffy]

Originally posted by Mubbers
I know exactly what you are referring to, some helpful chap posted the entire resolution on a forum not so far from here...

I agree the standards imparted by the US but more so the UN do seem somewhat 'flexible'.

However I'd like to point out a few of key differences that I think shed light on why we have two diverese outcomes:

1) The Israeli's are friends of the US and are not threatening death and destruction on the US/West etc..

2) They have WOMD (don't they?) yet appear unlikely to ever use them or proliferate them unless first attacked in a similar fashion.

3) The UN resolution you posted (if correct) called for the mutual respect of everyones borders and sovereignty. Clearly with terrorist bombings here and Israeli incursions there this has not happened.

4) Democracy within the US prevents them from acting against Israel. This is the same democracy you would prpabably like to see stopping the war.

You cannot have it both ways.

Mubbers

but they are still flouting UN resolutions just like Iraq, so therefore there are double standards, it shouldnt matter about the rest of it, simply that they are flouting the resolutions

 

[Mubbers]

Originally posted by Sazar
basically... the argument that because saddam has gassed peoples within his country he is therefore open to warfare by other nations does not sit well with me... specially when I know other nations have done the same sort of experimentation or used weapons/materials v/s their own troops... usa anyone ?

It's an example of a pattern of behaviour which stretches from the commission of repeated vile acts on his own people to aggressive use of force against neighbouring countries. We're only getting about 5 post's to the page at the mo' so I didn't want to list all the things Saddam has done which I believe warrants his removal.

A good example of other countries using WOMD on their own population and neighbouring countries is of course South Africa. They used Anthrax on tribal populations. As a result they were disarmed by the UN. Why should Iraq be different?

I never said it was ok for saddam to gas the peoples btw... read again... I said he would consider them to be destabalising forces... and take the actions he deemed necessary... I am not saying the actions are correct... I am just trying to put things in perspective... remmeber also the human rights atrocities commited by KUWAIT v/s palestinian nationals in kuwait @ the end of the first gulf war...

No of course not, sorry if that's how it appeared. Unfortunately the thing that has been lost in this debate is that Saddam is evil and something does need to be done about him. We should talk about that as much as the flaws in GB I & II.

I don't know much about the Kuwaiti attrocities you speak of. However as they are currently occupied by US forces maybe you should suggest to you local congressman that something is done about it?

concerning dubyah... he has a personal vendetta... thats plain as day... he also has very political reasons for WANTING a war... if you have seen his planned election manifesto leaked to the press.. you would know what I am talking about.. as well as others... his ENTIRE political agenda for the next elections does not concern the economy or international affairs or anything meaningful... it consists of 9/11 and the CONTINUING war on terrorism... mind the leak occured in the middle of last year... go figure...

GB That's definitely an issue for Americans to discuss - I cannot really comment on the internal politics that are being played out in the USA in respect to this. While we get as much international news as you do we have none of the domestic trouble & strife that you are basing your opinion on.

now as far as the rest of the stuff... there is no need to fight a war... that is my take... there is no reason presented as to show that there is a reason for this war that will potentially cost north of 100 BILLION usd... the evidence presented is thin and the logic is weak...

Time will tell!

Personally I agree with you some of the evidence presented to the public is not as good as it could be. But one thing above all other things convinces me that it is still worth taking this action.

If the merest chance exists that Iraq has developed bio-weapons then we have to go in. The unspeakeable horrors that would be unleashed on the whole world should a 'proper' bio-weapon be used are indescribable. In my mind it is something that cannot be ignored.

this is not like hitler in germany or milosevic... this is a different situation... I have yet to hear a VALID reason for the war to occur and for the risk of instability to the region...

Two wars in the space of 5 years?. Is that not unstable enough?

Even the Germans could not beat that, taking a leisurely 15 years to start another! And in comparison look at the measures that were placed on Germany after WWII - are they allowed WOMD? They are not even allowed offensive units outside of their own borders (I believe this is the case).

The UN was formed precisely because of dictators like Hitler with one of its missions being to STOP people like that destabilising the world into war.

Given it's failure on so many other occasions to do anything about these kinds of regimes is it any wonder that we are in this situation again?

and what exactly is teh problem with libya ? do not raise lockerbie and the 2 individuals as a point... is there another or does khaddafi just happen to be an easy target...

Did I mention Lockerbie? No, the point is this: Lybia has the 2003 chair for the United Nations Commission for Human Rights. A paradox as Lybia, ruled by a dictator is not a country known for its advances in the field of human liberty.

First link I found on google to this subject

Combine this with the inaction over Kosovo and it shows clearly that the United Nations is as shallow as it is ineffective. Why should we set so much store by the UN when they are thus?

Mubbers

 

[Mubbers]

Originally posted by Geffy
but they are still flouting UN resolutions just like Iraq, so therefore there are double standards, it shouldnt matter about the rest of it, simply that they are flouting the resolutions

They most certainly are and so then are the Palestinians.

Does that mean we should do nothing about Iraq as well?

Mubbers

 

[Mubbers]

Originally posted by dealer
there are two reasons for this war

1) Bush thinks it will get him re elected

2) his daddy wants him to finnish his folly

You changed your post Perris

I must admit I prefered the 1st version!

Mubbers

 

[Perris Calderon]

my first post was too emotional

mubbers

the only person pushing for war is Bush

sorry

every other head of state knows what Bush knows

yet he's the only one that thinks war is called for at this time

if nothing else, this has got to be alarming to you

unless you think Bush is somehow more concerned for the safety of the world against Iraq then everyone else.

now, how could that possibly be?

is he paranoid?

this war is nothing but an attempt to get reelected...that's it

 

[Mubbers]

It's an emotional subject.

The only thing to hope for now is a favourable outcome for all the ordinary people involved. I hope the Iraqi people can be freed of Saddam swiftly and with as little loss of life as possible. I hope that our soldiers can come home with as little loss of life as possibe. I also hope the same can be said for the ordinary Iraqi soldiers.

I also hope that Allied forces can prove to the world that we were right to do this and that we can help rebuild Iraq to be a much better place.

Mubbers

 

[Sazar]

Originally posted by Mubbers
It's an emotional subject.

The only thing to hope for now is a favourable outcome for all the ordinary people involved. I hope the Iraqi people can be freed of Saddam swiftly and with as little loss of life as possible. I hope that our soldiers can come home with as little loss of life as possibe. I also hope the same can be said for the ordinary Iraqi soldiers.

I also hope that Allied forces can prove to the world that we were right to do this and that we can help rebuild Iraq to be a much better place.

Mubbers

therein lies the problem... the burden of proof is on iraq to prove it does NOT have something... which IMO is harder than proving it DOES have something...

there is no allied force either... it is basically the USA and UK with a few paid cronies...

whats that? oh its the SAME thing that the elenamederos nesletter thinger found so terrible about libya... but this is obviously a different matter right

 

[Sazar]

simply put.. I cannot see justification for a war where potentially thousands of civilians will die based on innuendo and rumours and lack of hard facts...


how can this be considered anything OTHER than a human rights violation...

 

[Geffy]

Originally posted by Sazar
how can this be considered anything OTHER than a human rights violation...

Speaking of Human Rights Violations why is the american government not hasseling China about its violations.. simply put because of the financially friendly atmosphere there. America only does something when it has something to gain by the action.

 

[Sazar]

Originally posted by Geffy
Speaking of Human Rights Violations why is the american government not hasseling China about its violations.. simply put because of the financially friendly atmosphere there. America only does something when it has something to gain by the action.

as does any other country...

the question is not entirely about the ethics of the US but also the situation @ hand...

I have been guilty of some us bashing... but lets not get too carried away...

 

[Burpster]

speaking of ignoring UN resolutions ...Israel is the clear winner in this catagory. i dont see anyone doing anything about that.

just today there was a news release stating an Israeli bulldozer crushed to death an American women. her crime was trying to stop the bulldozer from leveling a Palestinian house.

 

[Sazar]

Originally posted by Burpster
speaking of ignoring UN resolutions ...Israel is the clear winner in this catagory. i dont see anyone doing anything about that.

just today there was a news release stating an Israeli bulldozer crushed to death an American women. her crime was trying to stop the bulldozer from leveling a Palestinian house.

the house was supposedly harboring terrorists or something... and is a common israeli practise to destroy home of the suspects... happens all the time...

only thing is an american woman was run over so there is more press coverage... and naturally this is an 'accident'

benny... when will you finally join the ranks and stop the madness... let your cow beat some sense into everyone in the region

 

[Mubbers]

Originally posted by Sazar

whats that? oh its the SAME thing that the elenamederos nesletter thinger found so terrible about libya... but this is obviously a different matter right

I only skimmed the 1st paragraph to make sure it was talking about the same thing - it was as I said quite simply the very first link to that bit of info that popped up on Google.

Oddly I spent 10 minutes searching the UN site and found no reference to chairs past or present of this commission. Not a helpful site!

You have to admit though, Lybia chairing the human rights commission


Mubbers

 

[Maveric169]

Well the biggest things to me is this.
Saddam has used WOMD on his own people as well as rivial factions (the kurds) when there really was no need to use them, it was simply for the sake of using them (basically an excuse to test them) which says to me thathe has no moral problems using at any time against anyone. If he was willing to use WOMD against people that were of no real threat to him, what would he against the U.S. who is a real threat to him?

As far as the U.S. government not revealing much credible evidence against saddam, there is a good reason for that. For one it would weaken our position militarily to the whole world what are inteligence and survalience capabilies are, as well as warn Iraq of all the things we can see and a good indication of what we cannot. Keep in mind that this is one of the very few times that the military and the government has even let the public in on what the U.S.'s plans are before a decisive decision was made. And that was probley only because of the press, and agreements made with them to control information. And while yes we all would like to know all the details of what is really going on, that information puts american lives in risk.

As it is there is way too much information out there, as if I were saddam right now withthe clock ticking down on my 48 hours, and I wanted to do as much dammage as possible, I would set the oil fields to blow with 12 hours remaining, move all command and control sections, mine the northern front, move as many women and children into all previous command and control facilites and make that fact known, launch pre-emptive strikes against all u.s. targets at the same time, all the while moving myself (saddam) to a secure location. I would set explosive charges on all chemical factories, and blow them to release as much of the stored agents as possible before the installations are destroyed.

So what is the purpose off all this, very simply, there is so much information available from the press that saddam "should" know up to 70% of what the U.S. plans to attack. Way too much information.

The bottom line is that saddam has had every chance for the last 12 years to run a productive dictatorship without pissing off the U.S. and other countries. Look at North Korea (although they recently ****ed up too), China, Africa, Israel, Palestine, Pakistan, Jordan, ect. There are dozens of countries that are totally represive, tryant, dictatorship, and/or comunist run that we not mess with. Why, because they don't make waves in our little pond.

Is Bush right to goto war with Iraq, I belive he is. Is his public reasoning right, I think it is. Is the real reason were going to war with Iraq the same as what Bush wants us to belive, probley not. But the do the ends justify the means? Yes, as long as americans make sure that the government doesn't forget about all the things that they promised. (ie: rebuilding the Iraq government, rebuilding Iraq the country, and helping the Iraq people durring the interm) But while these are all great and noteworthy goals the U.S.'s past experience has proved that these "promisses" are rarley held true. That is where I have the problem. My philosphy^sp is don't make promisses that you have not intention of keeping. But only time will tell.

Well that is all my babbling. I will sit down now.

 

[Mubbers]

Originally posted by Geffy
Speaking of Human Rights Violations why is the american government not hasseling China about its violations.. simply put because of the financially friendly atmosphere there. America only does something when it has something to gain by the action.

Geffy instead of slagging off the US and others for trying to do something about some of the evil in this world why not tell us about all the evil nutters you have mentioned, like China and Israel. Tell us also about some of the others who you choose to ignore like Iraq, Palestine, North Korea, Burma and Zimbabwe.

Tell us what should be done about them.

Or, seeing as you are so intent against action in Iraq tell me why you think Saddam Hussein should remain in power. Tell me how you think the Iraqi people, the Middle East and the rest of the world will be better off with Saddam Hussein still at the helm.

Please.

Mubbers