10-10-2002 15:23									#61
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

I think that as Saddam has used Mass Destroy weapons on Iraq's people, he will not delay using nuclear weapons on his enemies, so we must crush him before Iraq get Nuclear Weapons.

	10-10-2002 15:26									#62
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

i was aluding to GWB's stance towards saddam

and i think saddam would use weapons of mass destruction if only intimidated by america...because if he knows hes gonna die then he has no reason not to use them.

i think saddam is actually a very shrewd person and is more concerned with his own preservation than power...thats how hes been able to stay in power all these years yet have only one massive confrontation with america all these years.

Last edited by MRT144 on 10-10-2002 at 15:31

	10-10-2002 15:33									#63
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by MRT144 i was aluding to GWB's stance towards saddam

Dubya's seem more based on fear than on reason. There may good reasons to attack Sadam. For instance Sadam has clearly violated the peace treaty in his efforts to evade inspection. The question is whether that is enough reason to start killing people. I don't see where Bush has shown that is the only option at present. It doesn't help that Bush has a dangerous radical in charge of the Defense Department which shows a lack of judgment on his part.

	10-10-2002 18:51									#64
	Increase Your PM Length

I say that we should give Europe to Saddam to appease him.

	10-10-2002 19:11									#65
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Serious answer: because it could save the lives of millions starving in Iraq. The only other way to do this is to drop all economic sanctions, which would destroy what's left of the UN's credibility and reward Saddam for his defiance.

Flippant answer: there's not enough to watch on television at the moment.

	10-10-2002 19:24									#66
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: because it could save the lives of millions starving in Iraq. The only other way to do this is to drop all economic sanctions, which would destroy what's left of the UN's credibility and reward Saddam for his defiance.

Lots of people should die so we can save face?

quote: Chris did leave out that David is an Anarchist

	10-10-2002 19:31									#67
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

"One person commits suicide about every 40 seconds, one person is murdered every 60 seconds and one person dies in armed conflict every 100 seconds".

	10-10-2002 19:35									#68
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Ramo Lots of people should die so we can save face?

Well, lots of people ARE dying as a result of stiff-necked pride on BOTH sides.

I don't want this to continue indefinitely.

	10-10-2002 19:39									#69
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

How is war possibly a better solution than ending sanctions?

	10-10-2002 19:46									#70
	Put an end to popups!

Hussein has had longer than you've known about your male appendage to comply with inspections.

	10-10-2002 19:56									#71
	Increase the size of your Attachments

I don't see that as particularly relevant. I don't see Saddam (with nukes) as more dangerous than, for instance, Musharraf.

My main problem with war is that its aftermath likely won't be handled responsibly; Iran is part of the axis of evil so we probably won't see Shiite autonomy and Shrub et al. are too chickenshit to piss off Turkey so we'll almost certainly see an end to Kurdish autonomy (whether from Baghdad or Anakara).

	10-10-2002 19:56									#72
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by Ramo How is war possibly a better solution than ending sanctions?

Because of the obvious hazards in allowing Saddam to re-arm, and because the UN is backed into a corner. If it goes down, the long-term effects are likely to be even more negative than those of a war with Iraq (especially as high-tech wars don't kill as many civilians as they used to).

...Though a badly-conducted war with Iraq, with no UN backing or international support, would be a political disaster for the whole Middle East. It's a dicey situation. I'm not exactly enthusiastic about war.

	10-10-2002 20:49									#73
	Increase the size of your Attachments

No one wants war...

Might certainly does make right.

I still don't see how Morality has anything to do with a decission to declare war. All because ppl are going to die? This makes no sense. Morals are personal issue and I really don't see either side using them in a decision to declare war, ever.

It may just be schemantics but I see the justification of war more as an issue of humanity, and not of politics, sanctions, and definitly not morals. Politics, sanctions, and morals may cause war but the most certainly do not justify it.

I agree with Jack the Bodiless

	10-10-2002 22:32									#74
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Because of the obvious hazards in allowing Saddam to re-arm,

As far as I can see, the primary problem with Saddam acquiring WMD's is that he'll have more political clout in the regional stage. As the Gulf War demonstrated, he's not stupid enough to actually use them, given the consequences.

quote: and because the UN is backed into a corner. If it goes down, the long-term effects are likely to be even more negative than those of a war with Iraq (especially as high-tech wars don't kill as many civilians as they used to).

Again, civilian deaths during the war will probably be far less than civilian deaths due to mismanagement of its resolution, which is my primary concern. I have no doubt many Kurds will be slaughtered after the war is over...

	10-10-2002 23:20									#75
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Okay, this is the only reason why the UN and US should take out Saddam:

The Gulf War ended in a cease fire treaty. In this treaty, Saddam agreed to dismantle WMDs and limit LRM range. When Saddam kicked the Weapons Inspectors out in '98, he VIOLATED THIS TREATY! Therefore, since '98, the US and UN WERE AT WAR WITH IRAQ. However, because of buracracy and Clinton more worried about polls then the treaty, Iraq was left alone.

BY EVERY LEGAL RIGHT, BUSH CAN SEND GROUND TROOPS DOWN ON IRAQ NOW.

However, Bush is not doing that, and allowing congress to debait about this issue. Be GLAD he is going this.

Just my little voice.

	11-10-2002 00:19									#76
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Thank you Thrawn!!!

	11-10-2002 00:21									#77
	Got spare money?

Chris - I hate most of his views too. But he asked a question in a nice tone and gave you all an opportunity to speak on it. So why does everyone automatically snap?

	11-10-2002 00:22									#78
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Thrawn - Congress never declared war. There was never a war where US declared war on Iraq. Bush just sent troops to restore Kuwait.

	11-10-2002 00:26									#79
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by orange Thrawn - Congress never declared war.

Can you show me, in the Constitution, what form a DoW is supposed to take and how it compares to the resolution Congress passed in Gulf War: Round 1?

	11-10-2002 00:27									#80
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

there's a difference between a declaration of war and a resolution to send troops.

	11-10-2002 00:29									#81
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by orange there's a difference between a declaration of war and a resolution to send troops.

1) You didn't answer my question.

2) What is the substantive difference between the two?

Edit: If you really want to hang a President out to dry for an illegal war, it would be Clinton.

	11-10-2002 00:51									#82
	Got spare money?

Who really cares if it was "technically" a war? The point Thrawn has made, and I made towards the begining of the thread, is that Sadam violated his terms for peace/cease fire/whatever you want to call it (but not the oppisite of "war", I guess). And, for that reason he should pay...

War, n - a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations

usually? Well we did tell him that those were our boys stompin' his butt. Any ways, I don't see anything about congress here. Thus, it was a war. Legal or not. And, the war had terms by which it ended. Terms, which, Sadam did not keep.

	11-10-2002 08:56									#83
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by orange Chris - I hate most of his views too. But he asked a question in a nice tone and gave you all an opportunity to speak on it. So why does everyone automatically snap?

For the very reason that we know we will see David (Whom is an OK kid with dopey ideas) say the same things he always says, no matter what reason you post, he will post the same isolationist postion, so it becomes a lesson in futillity.

I HAVE stated my postion a number of times, a leagal attack, based on Saddam showing his normal disdain for inspectors and such, he did this for years, I believe he will do exactly the same.

Also, people on Apolyton often say Bush is doing this wrong and that, but if you look at athe record, he has followed international law every step of the way, he is requesting authority from Congress, petitioning the UN, consulting the allied and Arab powers, at no time has he acted unilaterally, it's only the assumption he might in the future that people seem to react on.

Look at Bush's war record on Afghanistan, people here thought that after 9/11 the US would bomb at random all kinds of civilian targets, yet the Bushies waited, planned, then launched a precision and effective attack, all withen the law.

I find it annoying that NOBODY EVER gives this man the benifit of the doubt, from his record he certainly has earned it.

But many here react as if he committed a number of war crimes and wants to commit more, and based on what?

There own personal hatred of him, not the record.

I'm not saying that's everybody, but it is the majority, or so it seems.

	11-10-2002 09:54									#84
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

It would be interesting to compare it with the original Gulf War and/or Afghanistan, as far as warfare goes.

And Saddam's regime has been making too much noise lately, it needs to be shut up.

	11-10-2002 10:10									#85
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

What are you guys talking about? Inspectors, WMD... Pro-war arguments are simpler than that and reduce to the question of whether you want cheap and reliable oil or not.

	11-10-2002 10:17									#86
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

A simplictic and inacurate thing to say, Vagabond.

If Oil was the determining factor, all the US need do is pronouce Saddam has complied with all resolutions, and lift all sanctions, and buy all it wants.

Iraq has said numerous times it would sell all US companies wanted to buy if sanctions were lifted.

The "Oil" argument goes against both logic and US self interest, and can be dismissed out of hand.

	11-10-2002 10:31									#87
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by Chris 62 If Oil was the determining factor, all the US need do is pronouce Saddam has complied with all resolutions, and lift all sanctions, and buy all it wants. Iraq has said numerous times it would sell all US companies wanted to buy if sanctions were lifted.

If the US agreed to that, it would have lost its face. Therefore, realistically, the US didn't have such an option. War is currently the only possible path to Iraqi oil for the US (unless Saddam is ousted in a different way).

	11-10-2002 10:34									#88
	Got spare money?

This nation isn't overly concerned with "face", if you believe that greed is the determining factor.

It will have lot no face whatsoever, in fact, it would gain prestige, as many don't want Iraq molested in any way, so again, that argument simply doesn't hold water.

	11-10-2002 10:42									#89
	Put an end to popups!

You disregard one important circumstance, Chris. Namely, the fact that "face" costs a lot of money (indirectly though) -- even more than Iraqi oil.

And after what had been said and done by you about Iraq, you WOULD have lost face.

	11-10-2002 10:51									#90
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I disagree, Bush would look like a hero, having "forced" Saddam to comply, yet sparing the Iraqi people a war, he probaly would win the Nobel Peace prize, and it wouldn't cost the US a cent.

In fact, it would SAVE billions in war costs.