13-09-2002 00:39									#31
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Resolution 687 (adopted in 1991): Demanded Iraq provide full, final and complete disclosure of all aspects of its programs to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometers. It also called for all information concerning all holdings of such weapons, their components and production facilities and locations, as well as all other nuclear programs, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to nuclear-weapons-usable material, without further delay. It created the U.N. Special Commission (UNSCOM) and called on inspection teams to be given "immediate, unconditional and unrestricted" access to any and all areas, facilities, equipment, records and means of transportation which they wish to inspect. Resolution 1205 (adopted in 1998): Condemned "the decision by Iraq of 31 October 1998 to cease co-operation ... as a flagrant violation of resolution 687 (1991) and other relevant resolutions." Resolution 1284 (adopted in 1999): Established the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) to replace UNSCOM. It said UNMOVIC would ensure "the verification of compliance by Iraq with its obligations ... (to reinforce a) system of ongoing monitoring and verification."

And Iraq did not comply and thus far will not comply.

Though its not on the Hitler level, isn't that appeasement?

	13-09-2002 00:40									#32
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by orange What about France?

Absolutely.

	13-09-2002 00:45									#33
	Inflate your Upload Space

Economic war is like shooting yourself in the foot.

	13-09-2002 00:53									#34
	Tired of ads?

The main problem I have with this war is that it's a personal vendetta against Saddam Hussein. It's not about chemical weapons or human rights or the UN, it's about a man who has stubbornly refused to crawl away and die for the last 11 years.

It could be argued that killing Saddam would still be the right thing to do even if it's for the wrong reasons, but the right thing to do involves a lot more than dashing in, putting a bullet in him, and pulling everyone back out before he's cold and abanoning the Iraqis to their fate. I've read a lot of crap about how killing Saddam will magically make the Middle East into a liberal democratic paradise, and I think the U.S. in particular and the world in general doesn't have it in them to stick around and make it work.

	13-09-2002 00:54									#35
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Here's a nice quote from http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul52.html

quote: QUESTIONS THAT WON'T BE ASKED ABOUT IRAQ by Rep. Ron Paul, MD In the House of Representatives, September 10, 2002 Soon we hope to have hearings on the pending war with Iraq. I am concerned there are some questions that won’t be asked – and maybe will not even be allowed to be asked. Here are some questions I would like answered by those who are urging us to start this war. 1. Is it not true that the reason we did not bomb the Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War was because we knew they could retaliate? 2. Is it not also true that we are willing to bomb Iraq now because we know it cannot retaliate – which just confirms that there is no real threat? 3. Is it not true that those who argue that even with inspections we cannot be sure that Hussein might be hiding weapons, at the same time imply that we can be more sure that weapons exist in the absence of inspections? 4. Is it not true that the UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency was able to complete its yearly verification mission to Iraq just this year with Iraqi cooperation? 5. Is it not true that the intelligence community has been unable to develop a case tying Iraq to global terrorism at all, much less the attacks on the United States last year? Does anyone remember that 15 of the 19 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia and that none came from Iraq? 6. Was former CIA counter-terrorism chief Vincent Cannistraro wrong when he recently said there is no confirmed evidence of Iraq’s links to terrorism? 7. Is it not true that the CIA has concluded there is no evidence that a Prague meeting between 9/11 hijacker Atta and Iraqi intelligence took place? 8. Is it not true that northern Iraq, where the administration claimed al-Qaeda were hiding out, is in the control of our "allies," the Kurds? 9. Is it not true that the vast majority of al-Qaeda leaders who escaped appear to have safely made their way to Pakistan, another of our so-called allies? 10. Has anyone noticed that Afghanistan is rapidly sinking into total chaos, with bombings and assassinations becoming daily occurrences; and that according to a recent UN report the al-Qaeda "is, by all accounts, alive and well and poised to strike again, how, when, and where it chooses"? 11. Why are we taking precious military and intelligence resources away from tracking down those who did attack the United States – and who may again attack the United States – and using them to invade countries that have not attacked the United States? 12. Would an attack on Iraq not just confirm the Arab world's worst suspicions about the US – and isn't this what bin Laden wanted? 13. How can Hussein be compared to Hitler when he has no navy or air force, and now has an army 1/5 the size of twelve years ago, which even then proved totally inept at defending the country? 14. Is it not true that the constitutional power to declare war is exclusively that of the Congress? Should presidents, contrary to the Constitution, allow Congress to concur only when pressured by public opinion? Are presidents permitted to rely on the UN for permission to go to war? 15. Are you aware of a Pentagon report studying charges that thousands of Kurds in one village were gassed by the Iraqis, which found no conclusive evidence that Iraq was responsible, that Iran occupied the very city involved, and that evidence indicated the type of gas used was more likely controlled by Iran not Iraq? 16. Is it not true that anywhere between 100,000 and 300,000 US soldiers have suffered from Persian Gulf War syndrome from the first Gulf War, and that thousands may have died? 17. Are we prepared for possibly thousands of American casualties in a war against a country that does not have the capacity to attack the United States? 18. Are we willing to bear the economic burden of a $100 billion war against Iraq, with oil prices expected to skyrocket and further rattle an already shaky American economy? How about an estimated 30 years occupation of Iraq that some have deemed necessary to "build democracy" there? 19. Iraq’s alleged violations of UN resolutions are given as reason to initiate an attack, yet is it not true that hundreds of UN Resolutions have been ignored by various countries without penalty? 20. Did former President Bush not cite the UN Resolution of 1990 as the reason he could not march into Baghdad, while supporters of a new attack assert that it is the very reason we can march into Baghdad? 21. Is it not true that, contrary to current claims, the no-fly zones were set up by Britain and the United States without specific approval from the United Nations? 22. If we claim membership in the international community and conform to its rules only when it pleases us, does this not serve to undermine our position, directing animosity toward us by both friend and foe? 23. How can our declared goal of bringing democracy to Iraq be believable when we prop up dictators throughout the Middle East and support military tyrants like Musharraf in Pakistan, who overthrew a democratically-elected president? 24. Are you familiar with the 1994 Senate Hearings that revealed the U.S. knowingly supplied chemical and biological materials to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war and as late as 1992 – including after the alleged Iraqi gas attack on a Kurdish village? 25. Did we not assist Saddam Hussein’s rise to power by supporting and encouraging his invasion of Iran? Is it honest to criticize Saddam now for his invasion of Iran, which at the time we actively supported? 26. Is it not true that preventive war is synonymous with an act of aggression, and has never been considered a moral or legitimate US policy? 27. Why do the oil company executives strongly support this war if oil is not the real reason we plan to take over Iraq? 28. Why is it that those who never wore a uniform and are confident that they won’t have to personally fight this war are more anxious for this war than our generals? 29. What is the moral argument for attacking a nation that has not initiated aggression against us, and could not if it wanted? 30. Where does the Constitution grant us permission to wage war for any reason other than self-defense? 31. Is it not true that a war against Iraq rejects the sentiments of the time-honored Treaty of Westphalia, nearly 400 years ago, that countries should never go into another for the purpose of regime change? 32. Is it not true that the more civilized a society is, the less likely disagreements will be settled by war? 33. Is it not true that since World War II Congress has not declared war and – not coincidentally – we have not since then had a clear-cut victory? 34. Is it not true that Pakistan, especially through its intelligence services, was an active supporter and key organizer of the Taliban? 35. Why don't those who want war bring a formal declaration of war resolution to the floor of Congress? Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.

	13-09-2002 01:08									#36
	Inflate your Upload Space

Well, Jaakko, these are all reasons why AMERICANS wouldn't like to go to war with Iraq. Why should Europeans, and other nations be against it ?

	13-09-2002 01:13									#37
	Suffering from ads?

The SOP is that you don't go to war against countries that pose no threat to you. Convince me otherwise and you'll have something.

	13-09-2002 01:16									#38
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Ron, Your reasoning is impeccable. Well put.

	13-09-2002 01:17									#39
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by DinoDoc BTW, who does top your "must be toppled" list Bugs?

The current regime in Burma.

5 years ago I'd have said Suharto of Indonesia, but there's been big improvements there. China features high up the list, but I fear that's pretty unlikely.

	13-09-2002 01:28									#40
	Got spare money?

Going after Saddam "cuz he's so bad and wants to do bad things" (as offered by Bush in his speech tonight) also poses the realpolitik problem of legitimising "pre-emptive" defence, IOW war of aggression.

Then there's the problem of ignoring the people of the area, who I can guarantee will become even more hostile towards the busybody invading at the drop of a hat. Building up a working democracy would also be hugely expensive with no short term benefits, ensuring that no self-serving politician will do it properly. A real ideologue could do it, but somehow I have trouble seeing that happening with people like Bush & Blair, or with other euro governments for that matter.

	13-09-2002 01:34									#41
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Ron, As to your point about liberals and war, Roosevelt was one of the best wartime leaders we will ever see and he was a liberal.

I understand Blair will make the case against Saddam in the SC. Good choice - another liberal.

Now if Schroeder would only calm down a little.

	13-09-2002 01:38									#42
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Schroeder just needs an issue to rally the support of the German left right now. I'm sure his rhetoric will be toned down after the election.

	13-09-2002 01:39									#43
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: The SOP is that you don't go to war against countries that pose no threat to you. Convince me otherwise and you'll have something.

a case can be made in The US' Involvement in WWII in europe.

	13-09-2002 01:39									#44
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Azazel Well, Jaakko, these are all reasons why AMERICANS wouldn't like to go to war with Iraq. Why should Europeans, and other nations be against it ?

more to the point, why should they be for it?

	13-09-2002 01:43									#45
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Azazel a case can be made in The US' Involvement in WWII in europe.

Did you know the decision of which side to pick was put to a vote in the Congress?
And even then they only joined the war once Hitler declared war on the US.

And a case can also be made that a successful Nazi Germany would have posed a direct threat to the US, much like the USSR actually did.

Edit: I'd like to clarify that my position isn't that the threat has to be direct. You'll need to judge on a case by case basis, and Iraq certainly doesn't qualify for an invasion. Tinhorn dictators are and will be plentiful in the world, and war will not change that.

	13-09-2002 02:02									#46
	Put an end to popups!

well, don't you think that one less would improve it ? Believe me , I have no selfish reasons to argue for a war against Iraq. I'll probably have to sit in a bomb shelter , and wear a gas mask. But I am willing to take the risk, for the overall improvement of the situation in the region, because I believe that this is the right thing to do. Plus , it (doubtfully) may lead to a change in Arab society. And if that will happen, it would mean prosperety for this region.


btw, Don't get me wrong, I am not saying I am this hero , or something.

	13-09-2002 02:06									#47
	Suffering from ads?

The "War of aggression" point just doesn't make sense to me. As far as I can see, the question should just be "is it justified?". On humanitarian grounds, in this case, I'd argue that it was.

That might seem a bizarre statement, but seeing as this regime uses nerve gas on it's own people, I think it's appropriate.

	13-09-2002 02:07									#48
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Drake Tungsten quote: there was no reason to support Kuwait in the Gulf War either, but at very least we were able to point to a smoking gun. This may be the dumbest thing I've heard in a while. No reason to support Kuwait? I guess Iraq's waging of an agressive war against another state in blatant violation of international law doesn't qualify as a reason to you...

I'm talking about the United States as an individual nation, International Law aside. Of course Kuwait was a soverign nation, and of course it had the right to exist. The UN did something because Iraq under Hussein violated Kuwait's right to exist.

What I am saying is that the United States as an individual nation had no reason to declare war. I think Bush was too active in the Gulf War...we led a coalition rather than simply sending troops to a UN organized coalition.

It was phrased a bit oddly, sorry for the confusion.

quote: And Iraq did not comply and thus far will not comply. Though its not on the Hitler level, isn't that appeasement?

Not even close. Hitler 'annexed' other nations. Violating Versailles (which was already a joke...) by having a military, not paying off the war debt, occupying the Rhineland...wasn't really a big deal until Germany took over other nations. That's where appeasment goes wrong. You never sell out someone's soverignty just to avoid war, at least, if you do, you don't express this to the aggressor in the way that Munich did to Hitler.

Hasn't Iraq been more or less compliant in the last year? Moreso than in the past? Why aren't we looking at that favorably?

Face it...if this is really a war on terror and rogue states with WMD, it wouldn't be Iraq, it would be Saudi Arabia and Iran.

	13-09-2002 02:09									#49
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Ron Jeremy The "War of aggression" point just doesn't make sense to me. As far as I can see, the question should just be "is it justified?". On humanitarian grounds, in this case, I'd argue that it was.

Why just Iraq then? How about India or China? Pakistan, Iran?

	13-09-2002 02:10									#50
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Hasn't Iraq been more or less compliant in the last year?

No.

	13-09-2002 02:15									#51
	Increase the size of your Attachments

India is a democracy. I'd be up for action against China, however.

	13-09-2002 02:17									#52
	Remove this text

I'm still undecided on the matter, since I don't know that much about it (bores the hell out of me), but I'm leaning towards not invading.

Iraq is a foreign sovereign country, they're free to do what they want. I don't like setting precedents where the US invades people who have different political agendas, and I'm really suspicious about how Bush is trying to link Iraq to 9-11. That tells me he doesn't really have any reasons, and he just wants to draw people's attention away from the fact that Osama is still AWOL...

	13-09-2002 02:23									#53
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Ron, legally it would be a war of aggression, should the US go ahead without UN's approval. Getting that approval will make me disapprove an attack a lot less, assuming I get to see some real evidence of wrongdoings, ie. other than defying the UN and being a bad boy.

However, I personally believe an invasion of Iraq at this point would be another gross mistake on the West's behalf, increasing the level of hatred towards it considerably. I also believe it'd lead to just another brand of dictatorship, as I don't for a second trust the current US government to have the will to commit to a proper rebuilding process.

	13-09-2002 02:24									#54
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: I'd be up for action against China, however.

They could throw ballistic missiles at you. Are you sure you'd really support a war with China? Would you be willing to go fight yourself, rather than just sending others?

	13-09-2002 02:25									#55
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Asher, I must have missed something. But how is Bush trying to link Saddam to 9/11? I think he simply listed all the UN resolutions Saddam violated. The bit about al Qaida being in Iraq was acknowledged to have occurred after the fall of the Taliban.

	13-09-2002 02:26									#56
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Oh, and by the way, my opinion on the Persian Gulf War was that it was in no way justified. Not only was it illegal, with no declaration of war, but it wasn't our business in the slightest.

	13-09-2002 02:26									#57
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by orange Not even close. Hitler 'annexed' other nations. Violating Versailles (which was already a joke...) by having a military, not paying off the war debt, occupying the Rhineland...wasn't really a big deal until Germany took over other nations. That's where appeasment goes wrong. You never sell out someone's soverignty just to avoid war, at least, if you do, you don't express this to the aggressor in the way that Munich did to Hitler.

Oh, I see, so we should wait until after the fact...



again

	13-09-2002 02:26									#58
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Ned Asher, I must have missed something. But how is Bush trying to link Saddam to 9/11? I think he simply listed all the UN resolutions Saddam violated. The bit about al Qaida being in Iraq was acknowledged to have occurred after the fall of the Taliban.

Not specifically, it's just part of his "War on Terrorism".

	13-09-2002 02:28									#59
	Get a bigger avatar today!

The US is supporting regimes with similar violations of UN resolutions BTW, such as Israel (sorry guys). Merely defying the UN can't be a casus belli, or the black helicopter boys will suddenly have a point.

	13-09-2002 02:31									#60
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by The Emperor Fabulous Oh, I see, so we should wait until after the fact... again

Ah, but there isn't even any pretence on Iraq's part that it will "annex" other nations. It got it's but kicked after invading Kuwait, and it hasn't made a hostile move since.