 |
| |
|
|
Joseph
|
 |
Ca. USA
Feb 2000
time: 21:25
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Guynemer
Hope this doesn't get closed.
I've been having an internal debate with myself for months now.
On the one hand, Saddam Hussein is a bad, bad, bad guy, an autocratic dictator, and we would all be better off if he were not in power. |
He is having people killed from day to day if they do not kiss his A22 the correct way.
quote:
On the other hand, in Iraq, women can drive cars, go to college, walk alone without a head scarf, have jobs, etc. In Saudi Arabia, "our great ally," women are chased back into a burning building if their faces become uncovered during their escape. So don't tell me that this war is about human rights. |
I agree. The lady Air Force Lt. Col. who protested was passed over for full Col. a few weeks ago.
quote:
On the one hand, I don't doubt that Saddam Hussein has working on developing chem and bio weapons, and at least has fantasies about working on nukes. |
He does have the weapons. Watch the news tomorrow when the UN head inspector tells the SC about his report.
quote:
On the other hand, there is no proof of any of this. And even if it were true, it's not like he has the capability to strike the US with these weapons. North Korea, on the other hand... So don't tell me that this war is about weapons. |
Only Bush know.
quote:
On the one hand, chances are awful good that there are Al Queda elements living in Iraq, plotting against the Western world.
On the other hand, OBL hates Saddam, called him an infidel--he appealed to the people of Iraq, not the Iraqi government. And there is certainly more Al Queda activity going on in the territory of our dear, dear friends Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. So don't tell me that this war is about terrorism. |
Again only Bush know and he is not saying his true intention.
quote:
On the one hand, I acknowledge that victory is assured and likely easy to accomplish.
On the other hand, the madman of Baghdad will almost certainly use tactics that will guarantee significant loss of civilian life, no matter what the eventual military loss. Moreover, victory will only remain as such as long as a friendly government remains in place in Iraq, requiring a continued military presence for years--possibly decades--thereby inciting continued terrorist threats against us. So don't tell me that this war is about expediency.
I am willing to support war against Iraq, as long as someone can tell me just what the hell the war is supposed to be about. |
Again only Bush knows. Wish I did.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Guynemer
|
|
I appreciate the compliments. And Vel, I think that is a better reason than most to support the war, except the UN (obviously) isn't the one prosecuting the war. It seems that instead of only tin-pot dictators thumbing their noses at the UN, the United States will now be doing the same.
The UN is a glorious idea that can, and should, work. But it won't have a chance if we start undermining it as well.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Velociryx
|
 |
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:25
|
|
Quite true, Guy....I would say though, that it is not the fault of the UN that they are not the ones prosecuting this war.
Given the current structure OF the UN in its present form, they really ARE little more than a paper tiger, and must rely on their prominent members to act for them.
In this case, while I disagree with Bush's stance that action must be taken immediately, it is clear that we cannot delay for long (on the one hand, our forces are nearing critical mass....if we do not follow through, then WE lose diplomatic clout, and on the other, UN resolution 1441 calls for "dire consequences" if the terms of the resolution are not met. Given that every other option has been tried (sanctions, no fly zones, inspections), there aren't any other dire consequences remaining....thus, even if the UN lacks the will to enforce its own resolution, I think Bush is right in his willingness to enforce it for that group....his methodology, however, leaves MUCH to be desired, there is no doubt).
And, I wholeheartedly agree that the first, best thing that the USA could do to improve its diplomatic standing around the world is to make itself subject to UN resolutions, even when....*especially when* the rulings are not in favor of the US. We must lead by example in that regard, and demonstrate that we are willing to abide by the same rules that we expect everyone else to.
To do less, sorely undermines our position.
-=Vel=-
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Urban Ranger
|
|
Apolyton Duke of Off-Topic
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Velociryx
Nope.
But in this case, it's not just one violation. It is a clearly defined pattern of defiance, beginning right after Gulf War One. UN resolutions were written to enforce the destruction of Saddam's arsenal. That resolution was ignored.
Later, the UN Inspectors were kicked out.
Before that, Saddam played a little game of "Gas The Kurds"
Given his track record, given that we put this wholesome individual in power, and given that his actions could spur others like him to act much the same way, an example must be made.
A very stern, strong example, I think.
-=Vel=- |
Vel, Israel has been defying UN resolutions for far longer than Iraq, yet not only the US hasn't condemned the country for doing so, the US hasn't even cut off aid.
Clearly, defying the UN is not a reason.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:25
|
|
10 days of intesne air bombing would be a serious consequence, which is all resolution 1441 calls for. That the 'serious consequence" would be regime change was desided by the Bushies long ago.
If the admin. has a coherent exit planb, a coherent vision for Iraq that would trully lead to a better ME without creating significant short term and long term forms of blowback, then I would abstain instead of voicing endless arghuments against. But the admin. has no coherent exit plan. As we speak, they envision a minimum of 2 years full occupation and US military rule, and think most likely it will be more. They have showed little if any ideas about the possible political upheavels, hell, the office delegated with serious planning as of the aftermath was created 3 weeks ago. 3 weeks ago I think most people here knew the war is inevitable, and yet that is when these people get to planning the long aftermath. And I fail to see how this will help the anti-Al Qaeda (because that is what the war on terror is) campaign. I have never taken seriously, because I see the arguments as laughably moronic, that Saddam would, under any ciscumstance except the one we will give him soon enough, give WMD to anyone not under 100% his direct control.
As for the humanitarian notions: I have grown not cynical, but hard-hearted to these. There are many forms of suffering and suffering in many places. Given the limited resources due to man current selfishness, I think our resources need to be carefully used, and the people of Iraq, while they suffer, are nowhere near the list of those that suffer most. If the point is just to spread freedom, we have better work to do elsewhere.
Oh, and a little gem form the NYTimes:
quote:
Still, while there is a high degree of awareness, substantial conflict and confusion exist among the public about Iraq and the antiterror campaign, so much so that 42 percent of those polled said they believed Saddam Hussein was involved in the Sept. 11 attacks. Neither the Bush administration nor any other authority has alleged such involvement. |
Maybe this is one of the reasons support for the Iraq war in the US remains high....
|
|
| |
|
|
|
KrazyHorse
|
 |
Macedonia
May 2001
time: 00:25
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Velociryx
Would it be best? Absolutely.
But that isn't what we've got.
If you can outline some other "serious consequences" that don't involve putting troops on Iraqi soil, I'd dearly love to hear them.
And *if* we are to put troops on Iraqi soil, then the only responsible way to do it is in full force, hit him hard, and get it over with.
To take yet another half measure would draw the conflict out, give Saddam time to set fire to the oil fields, and endanger the civillian population.
In this instance, a half measure is the worst possible play.
All the other "consequence" cards are already on the table.
So...either the UN is a joke, and ought to get out of the business of writing resolutions it has no intention of enforcing, or we end it.
-=Vel=- |
What you've done is decided that the US is judge and jury as to what "serious consequences" are.
If you mean that Saddam is a bad character and your nation has decided what's best, then fine:go for it. Nobody will stop you.
But don't for a second pretend that you're upholding the will of the security council. Because I find it hard to believe that it would have unanimously passed such a resolution. And therefore any attempt to abuse the interpretation of it is a subversion of the UNSC's will.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:25.
Apolyton Time is 00:25. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
14-02-2003 07:49
Good job. You display remarkable evasiveness. Maybe we should stop appeasing you! War! War against Vel! 
)
|