06-01-2003 02:42									#61
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

But should the Americans be the ones to oust Saddam?

'Regime change' in my mind is insufficient justification for war against Saddam.

	06-01-2003 02:51									#62
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Ned I would just like to point out that Iraq is the one who made the unprovoked attacks - twice. Of course this is wrong. This is why the world put Saddam on probation. I find it amazing how so many can ignore the facts in their determined propagandistic effort to blame the US for every world problem.

I was unaware Saddam had ever attacked the US? He has been attacked and punished for those transgressions. I'm not blaiming the US, I'm pre-emptively saying they shouldn't do it.

quote: saddam needs to be ousted. can we all agree to that?

Well, no, not really. I don't see how what the United States will put there will be any better than Saddam. However, more importantly, I think using military force to change a ruler because you don't like them is wrong. We (the whole of the Western World, but mostly directed at the US and Britain) have no business forcing countries to change their rulers. It is not our decision to make. Moreover, that is not enough justification for war, as obiwan said.

	06-01-2003 02:53									#63
	Increase Your PM Length

The viewpoints of the author of this thread get odder by the day.
Really, David. At first, when you started your rambling crap, I was only half-serious that you should leave.
Now, let me help you with your bags.

	06-01-2003 03:01									#64
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

He has a right to be hear and air his views. Do you have a counter-argument. For an American maybe it is a little strange, but many many people I've met are so vehemently anti-war that they would side with him. Why do you have a right to spew patriotic, warmongering crap, yet somebody else can't say that it's wrong and we shouldn't be doing this? Because he has odd views he is not allowed to express them?

	06-01-2003 06:54									#65
	Support Apolyton

I'm not anxious to see British troops go to the gulf and die for Bush's political agenda. If Bush was really serious about stopping countries with non-democratic governments from having WMDs then he'd need to attack China & Pakistan & North Korea too. Somehow I suspect that won't be happening.

I'd prefer to see no-one die then have to say who'd I prefer to die. Naturally in ideal circumstances you'd hope the aggressor in any combat should be the one to pay the price and lose. Of course being British, British lives being lost is abhorrent to me.

Calling someone a traitor because they would prefer any aggressor to die rather than the defender is just farcical. Oh no what a cad! Stone him, he'd like to see the end of aggressive wars! B*stard!

Surely patriotism shouldn't require you to be a slave to your government? I'm patriotic but that doesn't mean I'll cheer the government for causing lives to be lost in a pointless act.

Saddam does indeed need to go but who would replace him? I believe the reason that he was not removed at the end of the gulf war was twofold.

a) The UN mandate did not ask for it and thus the coalition would have fallen apart if the US had tried

b) Remove Saddam and you have a massive power vacuum. He's spent the last X years removing any possible challenger to his leadership, pretty much no-one is left who wants/could handle the job.

Any external leader imposed by the US on the Iraqis will need to be protected by US force or risk being overthrown. Then you're looking at a real long term US presence in the region. Will the US honour that? Will they want to keep their troops there if the Iraqis inflicted heavy casualties through guerilla tactics? I suspect the cost might well be too high and the US would leave.

If that happened, who'd be the ones who would have to sort it out? The EU would, as we'd be stuck with a highly dangerous problem on our borders. Now can you see why most of the EU doesn't exactly trust Bush in his actions?

Finally trying to get someone to quit the forums for their opposing views is pathetic. You don't have to read what they say but as long as you claim to be an intelligent rational person you have to accomodate other's views as more often than not they have a valid point of view too.

	06-01-2003 08:00									#66
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Demerzel I'm not anxious to see British troops go to the gulf and die for Bush's political agenda. If Bush was really serious about stopping countries with non-democratic governments from having WMDs then he'd need to attack China & Pakistan & North Korea too. Somehow I suspect that won't be happening.

On that note, why stop with "non-democratic" nations? Surely "democratic" nations have a chance to become "non-democratic" one day.

	06-01-2003 08:42									#67
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by SlowwHand The viewpoints of the author of this thread get odder by the day. Really, David.

Maybe you should stop opening his threads.

	06-01-2003 11:02									#68
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Demerzel I'm not anxious to see British troops go to the gulf and die for Bush's political agenda. If Bush was really serious about stopping countries with non-democratic governments from having WMDs then he'd need to attack China & Pakistan & North Korea too. Somehow I suspect that won't be happening. I'd prefer to see no-one die then have to say who'd I prefer to die. Naturally in ideal circumstances you'd hope the aggressor in any combat should be the one to pay the price and lose. Of course being British, British lives being lost is abhorrent to me. Calling someone a traitor because they would prefer any aggressor to die rather than the defender is just farcical. Oh no what a cad! Stone him, he'd like to see the end of aggressive wars! B*stard! Surely patriotism shouldn't require you to be a slave to your government? I'm patriotic but that doesn't mean I'll cheer the government for causing lives to be lost in a pointless act. Saddam does indeed need to go but who would replace him? I believe the reason that he was not removed at the end of the gulf war was twofold. a) The UN mandate did not ask for it and thus the coalition would have fallen apart if the US had tried b) Remove Saddam and you have a massive power vacuum. He's spent the last X years removing any possible challenger to his leadership, pretty much no-one is left who wants/could handle the job. Any external leader imposed by the US on the Iraqis will need to be protected by US force or risk being overthrown. Then you're looking at a real long term US presence in the region. Will the US honour that? Will they want to keep their troops there if the Iraqis inflicted heavy casualties through guerilla tactics? I suspect the cost might well be too high and the US would leave. If that happened, who'd be the ones who would have to sort it out? The EU would, as we'd be stuck with a highly dangerous problem on our borders. Now can you see why most of the EU doesn't exactly trust Bush in his actions? Finally trying to get someone to quit the forums for their opposing views is pathetic. You don't have to read what they say but as long as you claim to be an intelligent rational person you have to accomodate other's views as more often than not they have a valid point of view too.

1) The UK has been in the Gulf since '91, supporting the UN mission there. The UN demanded that Iraq disarm as a condition for a cease firm. The UK supported that UN resolution.

2) In retrospect, the Coalition's commander in chief's offering a cease fire to Saddam was a gigantic mistake. Had the Coalition gone on to Bagdad, it is unclear that the Coalition would have collapsed.

3) David Floyd's advocacy is protected by the 1st Amendment. However, his sentiments are treasonist. Thirty years ago, Jane Fonda went to Hanoi and said she stood with them against the US. Many of us opposed the war. But, so long as our opposition remained in the form of public protests, our opposition was protected by the First Amendment. But going to Hanoi like that during the middle of the war and advocating an American defeat was treason. There are many in the US who continue to be angry that the government did not file charges against her.

4) Demerzel, to the extent you personally agree with David Floyd, you too have declared yourself the enemy of the UN, the United States and the UK. It is one thing to protest the war or policy. But when war starts, to urge that the enemy kill your fellow citizens and defeat on your own country militarily is treasonist. I hope you understand the distinction.

If any member of the Senate or House, or any member of Parliament were to rise and say what David said, I have no doubt they would be expelled from those august bodies. What he said is way beyond the pale.

	06-01-2003 11:10									#69
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Demerzel If Bush was really serious about stopping countries with non-democratic governments from having WMDs then he'd need to attack China & Pakistan & North Korea too. Somehow I suspect that won't be happening.

To the best of my knowledge the Pakis, North Koreans, and Chinese are not in violation of any U.N. resolutions. Iraq is in violation of (last I heard) 15 of them.

	06-01-2003 13:18									#70
	Got spare money?

Slowwhand, I'm still waiting for a counterargument. You can bring your buddies along and team up on me, even.

	06-01-2003 13:39									#71
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

As long as the innocent people aren't killed, the US should step in and end it once and for all.

But America is probably just as screwed up. It's fall will come, but it won't happen like any other empire has fallen, it will fall from the inside out. America has got to be the vainest country of all time; it's sickening.

	06-01-2003 13:48									#73
	Inflate your Upload Space

see?

	06-01-2003 18:46									#74
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Ned 1) The UK has been in the Gulf since '91, supporting the UN mission there. The UN demanded that Iraq disarm as a condition for a cease firm. The UK supported that UN resolution. 2) In retrospect, the Coalition's commander in chief's offering a cease fire to Saddam was a gigantic mistake. Had the Coalition gone on to Bagdad, it is unclear that the Coalition would have collapsed. 3) David Floyd's advocacy is protected by the 1st Amendment. However, his sentiments are treasonist. Thirty years ago, Jane Fonda went to Hanoi and said she stood with them against the US. Many of us opposed the war. But, so long as our opposition remained in the form of public protests, our opposition was protected by the First Amendment. But going to Hanoi like that during the middle of the war and advocating an American defeat was treason. There are many in the US who continue to be angry that the government did not file charges against her. If any member of the Senate or House, or any member of Parliament were to rise and say what David said, I have no doubt they would be expelled from those august bodies. What he said is way beyond the pale.

Actually, they have. Many politicians have said in the House of Commons that they oppose the war, and some have gone as far as to say they hope it is unsuccessful. How has he declared himself an ememy of the UK? Most UK Citizens do not want to go to war, by all our latest polls. Even many politicians do not wish to go to war. He is not saying he wishes the enemy to kill fellow citizens, he is saying he wishes the aggressor to lose, whoever that aggressor may be. That is what David said aswell. Indeed, David asked what the difference between killing US soldiers and killing Iraqi soldiers is. He is not advocating fighting for Iraq, he is advocating not fighting at all.

While you keep saying the UK, or the US supports a certain resolution, I am unsure what you mean. The UK government may support something that the people do not. It is not treasonist to go against the government.

quote: Originally posted by Ned 4) Demerzel, to the extent you personally agree with David Floyd, you too have declared yourself the enemy of the UN, the United States and the UK. It is one thing to protest the war or policy. But when war starts, to urge that the enemy kill your fellow citizens and defeat on your own country militarily is treasonist. I hope you understand the distinction.

Has anyone said they wish to kill their fellow citizens? All David, Demerzel, and myself have done is publicly protested against the war. And while I see the distinction, I also see a distinction between killing your fellow citizens and hampering your countries forces from killing others. Nobody (to my knowledge) has said we should all fight for Iraq. We are saying we shouldn't be fighting Iraq in the first place.

	06-01-2003 20:29									#75
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Most UK Citizens do not want to go to war, by all our latest polls.

How does UN sanction effect the numbers?

	06-01-2003 20:50									#76
	Get a bigger avatar today!

UN sanction? Economic sanctions on Iraq or sanctioning attacking Iraq if they have WMDs?

To be honest, from what I've seen on discussions and various reports, most people do not care whether the UN supports it or not. The last poll I'm aware of, about 3 weeks ago, shows that over 70% did not support war at that time, and that over 50% do not trust Blairs intelligence documents stating that Saddam has WMDs. It even went as far as that almost 50% would not support a war, even if it was proven that Saddam has WMDs. Personally, I am not convince that he has them, and I would not want war even if he did, as I don't believe he will use them. If he did use a WMD on another nation, that is justification for war in my eyes. But until then, the UK and US has no business in bombing Iraq. Indeed, I think we should remove many of the economic sanctions, and finally let the people of Iraq have some of the medication and quality of life that we enjoy.

	06-01-2003 21:04									#77
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Where can I find the most recent polling data? The most recent one I can find is from October and it doesn't match your numbers.

	06-01-2003 22:00									#78
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by tandeetaylor Maybe you should stop opening his threads.

Three things :
1) No one rattled your cage, Tandee
2) Maybe he should consider not being so insulting.
3) Maybe if you had remained in service, you'd have a clue to what I'm saying, rather than running your mouth in ignorance.

	06-01-2003 22:14									#79
	Support Apolyton

The answer is rather simple and something David has chosen to ignore in this and other posts.

The maxim of applying overwhelming force in warfare to limit casualties applies. If war is to occur anything (within reason i.e. no WMD ethnic cleansing etc.) that is done to shorten its duration (and implicit to this is the fact that if US take casualties the hostilities will drag out) lessens the casualties to all involved.

If the intention of the post is that massive casualties will teach the US a lesson and make the US less likely to conduct aggression in the future, I think this fallacy.

So in summary if you go to war, make your aggression as forceful as you can, Shorten its duration and thereby eliminate needless suffering and casualties to all involved.

I speak not to the reasons for war moral or otherwise but simply on how war should be conducted.

	06-01-2003 22:21									#80
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Ogie, Massive casualties in Vietnam forced us to change our views about how to conduct military operations. This is why Powell insisted that if we go into Kuwait, we do so with overwhelming force.

But anyone who would wish another Vietnam on the United States, or for that matter, anyone else, is truly immoral. War can be just. But if fought, as you said Ogie, war must be fought in a way to minimize the loss of life on both sides.

	06-01-2003 22:21									#81
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

David ignores everything, and evidently has sucked Tandee into the whirling vortex of his whining.

BTW, David. I don't need any help with you in anything.
As far as your rattling around about Iraq, go do your own research.

	06-01-2003 22:24									#82
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Drogue UN sanction? Economic sanctions on Iraq or sanctioning attacking Iraq if they have WMDs? To be honest, from what I've seen on discussions and various reports, most people do not care whether the UN supports it or not. The last poll I'm aware of, about 3 weeks ago, shows that over 70% did not support war at that time, and that over 50% do not trust Blairs intelligence documents stating that Saddam has WMDs. It even went as far as that almost 50% would not support a war, even if it was proven that Saddam has WMDs. Personally, I am not convince that he has them, and I would not want war even if he did, as I don't believe he will use them. If he did use a WMD on another nation, that is justification for war in my eyes. But until then, the UK and US has no business in bombing Iraq. Indeed, I think we should remove many of the economic sanctions, and finally let the people of Iraq have some of the medication and quality of life that we enjoy.

The nut of what you are saying is that we should have removed Saddam in '91 and not punished Iraq with sanctions.

I wholeheartedly agree with this.

But the numbskulls of '91 chose the route of sanctions and inspectors. It is now too late to change course.

	06-01-2003 22:38									#83
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Ogie, that didn't answer David's question, though.

The use of the best strategies to minimize casualties in war is irrelevant to whether or not the war itself is moral (which is indeed the question).

The simple question is why should David feel that wishing the aggressor in a war to lose that war--if he believes the aggressor to be in the wrong--be so bad?

I like to think that, were I living in Germany in 1939, I would be one of the few who believed Nazi aggression was wrong and was hoping for the defeat of the Germans in their unjust war. I would hope that Poland, Norway, France, etc. were able to beat the German army and end Hitler's quest for continental domination.

Nobody here is wishing for catastrophic U.S. losses. I don't want anyone to die over this nonsense, especially American service members. To be sacrificed on the altar of international politics is a terrible thing, and I would hold Bush accountable as a criminal were he to commit U.S. forces to attacking Iraq unjustly.

But, were we to suddenly invade Iraq tomorrow, I would indeed say the U.S. deserved to lose the war for being the unprovoked aggressor.

	06-01-2003 22:39									#84
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Ned Ogie, Massive casualties in Vietnam forced us to change our views about how to conduct military operations. This is why Powell insisted that if we go into Kuwait, we do so with overwhelming force. But anyone who would wish another Vietnam on the United States, or for that matter, anyone else, is truly immoral. War can be just. But if fought, as you said Ogie, war must be fought in a way to minimize the loss of life on both sides.

Ned,

I'm glad you referred to Vietnam and yes I agree. My point is that both Vietnamese and US casualties would have been much much less if the war we engaged in was a total war with concrete objectives and not a limited one, and thereby extension anything that prolongs a war, as was the case in the Vietnam, more casulaties were needlessly caused to both sides.

I agree that the casualties we sustained caused us a temporary change in views but 20 years later (one generation) we were willing to deploy and go to war.

	06-01-2003 22:42									#85
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Ned The nut of what you are saying is that we should have removed Saddam in '91 and not punished Iraq with sanctions. I wholeheartedly agree with this. But the numbskulls of '91 chose the route of sanctions and inspectors. It is now too late to change course.

And I say, too late now. While I think even the first Gulf War was of dubious merit, I don't believe that now, 10 years after the fact, can we rectify that particular strategic blunder by making an attack on flimsy provocation, especially since we have left Iraq relatively alone for the past 10 years.

I have no problem with a continued stance of military containment. However, the economic sanctions need to either be greatly eased or lifted, as that has what has caused more grief to the Iraqi people than anything else.

	06-01-2003 22:44									#86
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Boris,

It indeed is the crux of his question(s).

Davids posed the questions:

But my question is, why is it OK for US soldiers to kill Iraqis, but not OK for Iraqis to kill US soldiers? Why is it OK to wish that the US conducts a bloodless (for the US) campaign, destroying the Iraqi military (and incidentally killing thousands), but not OK to wish that the US gets frustrated in its aggression, and takes several thousand (several tens of thousands, even) of casualties?

I make the assumption that if war has been engaged then as monstrous as it is it needs to be done quickly for all participants.

His questions are framed as to why it is important that casualties are minimized thereby implicitly stating that war has already been engaged.

The other arguements as to the morality of the war, should be and have been discussed ad nauseum in other posts.

	06-01-2003 22:51									#87
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

I think your misinterpreting his question. I don't think he cares about the minimalization of casualties, I think he cares about the moral justification of the war in the first place and the victory of the aggressor.

If someone engages in war immorally (i.e. unjust aggression), then they deserve to lose the war, from a moral standpoint. Now, inevitably that will result in the aggressor suffering a lot of casualties. But that's not the same thing as actively wanting people on the aggressor's side to die.

While it may seem contradictory, I think it's a valid position, because the crux is that the aggressor shoudn't be doing what it is doing in the first place. It makes little sense to believe your country is engaging in a morally unjust war and then, once that war is embarked upon, say you hope for a victory in that war.

Strategy isn't the issue here, morality is.

	06-01-2003 23:01									#88
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

No I don't think I am misinterpreting the question.

The morality of the war plays no role what so ever. If a war is engaged (short of having no war at all) the best conclusion is to make it as short as possible.

If massive casualties ensue to the aggressor, it is the equivalent of two wrongs. Massive aggressor casualties means by definition massive victims casualties as no party wins when it cmes to war. Therefore IF war is engaged it needs to be as short as possible.

I would counter and say lets for arguement sake assume that we are morally in the wrong. Massive US casulaties ensue requiring a longer occupation massive destruction of Iraqi civilians and infrastructure etc. Does the fact that the US pulled out as was the case in Vietnam make the sitaution better? Did the fact that the US was showed up erase the massive casualties of the supposedly innocent Iraqi's.

The answer is a resounding No. Two wrongs do not make a right.

One counter arguement to this is the assumption that it will prevent the aggressor nation (in this case supposedly the US) from engaing in war in the future. Vietnam shows us that effect is short term (one generation). Hence IMO it is fallacy to think this is valid. (unless of course you are French who haven't wanted to fight a war since WW1 )

The only other counter to this is that the will to wage war will cause a cessation of hostilities, in todays world of massive firepower I think by the time the general public express that will and get it to a point of action the damage will be immense.

Last edited by Ogie Oglethorpe on 06-01-2003 at 23:08

	06-01-2003 23:05									#89
	Increase the size of your Attachments

I see you point Boris, and vicariously Floyd's, but i don't agree.

I understand everything you last post said. It makes perfect sense that someone morally opposed to a certain war would seem to be hypocritical to wish for victory, but i don't like that one bit.

The only way we're going to lose is if masses of servicemen die, and that will probably only happen if saddam uses chemical / biological / nuclear weapons. I don't want to see anyone die like that, especialy voulnteers sworn to defend America.

Saddam does that TO HIS OWN PEOPLE. Something needs to be done about him, that much is clear, the his people are too weak, and the balance of power of the region to fragile to do much of anything. It must be done. America can do it.

If you're morally oppopsed to the war, there is little to no chance for anyone to swing you to our side, and thats understandible. But wishing death upon your brothers doesn't fly right in my eyes. Sure, a true Marxist, humanitarian, whatever will tell you all brothers, but we all know damn well the world hasn't grown that much. The life of an American is worth more than that of an Iraqi, in my eyes, especially an Iraqi defending a despotic regime that does nothing good for it's people. Maybe you've reached a higher plane than i have Boris, Floyd, et al., but for me, I'd rather the Americans win with minimal losses.

	06-01-2003 23:09									#90
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by tandeetaylor The only problems with that statement are that the only country ever to have used nuclear weapons and the only country threatening to kill great numbers of people is the United States, logistically Iraq could not attack America, only American troops that are in places they shouldn't be, Iraq was never "belligerent" toward the United States until we decided we should defend Kuwait, and, as far as I know, Iraq has never threatened to attack the United States.

But they have attacked other countries...without porvocation...and done incredible destruction...remember the burning oil wells. After the Gulf War they made an agreement. Now we are holding them to it. Like good libertarians.