23-03-2003 02:18									#31
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by johncmcleod Azazel, since when is it our job to judge who's evil and who's not? Since when are we the world police? And, is it our problem?

we stepped up a while ago. we can't just step back down.

do like the idea of being the world police? no. but we did it, and if we just went back into isolation again we'd still be prey to terrorists with a grudge. it's the way it is.

quote: If what you said is true, then another country, let's say Russia, would have the right to invade us after the Vietnam war. If we could invade a country because we say they're evil (even if they are) then the gov could call an innocent nation evil and then invade them.

anyone here want to defend the Vietnam war to any substantial degree? righty-o.

lets not forget russians in afghanistan, either. pretty much every nation with a speck of power has done something they regret.

	23-03-2003 02:38									#32
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by UberKruX lets not forget russians in afghanistan, either. pretty much every nation with a speck of power has done something they regret.

That was the Soviet Union, not Russia.

	23-03-2003 02:54									#33
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Willem That was the Soviet Union, not Russia.

someone's not up on their beatles

why couldn't we say that Vietnam was in "old america", or "cold war america"? surely, those were different times.

	23-03-2003 03:04									#34
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Azazel My main reason for supporting the process of his removal from power is that he is an evil dictator that has caused the death of many people in his country. The other arguments are just cherry on the cream topping. Why not some other guy? a) He's one of the ones that are easier to remove. b) If there is a better candidate ( from the point of possibility of removal, as well), I say, go ahead. But if he's the best possible, I'll be ok with that too.

Azazel, this is the main reason I support the war too. Several years ago, when Milosevic began his war of ethnic cleansing in Yugoslavia, I was appalled. At the time, I wholly supported direct American intervention into the conflict. We did not intervene for very long time. While Clinton procrastinated, thousands of Croatians, Bosnians and Kosovars were raped and killed by this madman.

I don't think the world should tolerate people like Milosevic or Saddam. We should go after them all.

The issue of disarmament is somewhat of a pretext that justifies the war legally. But in reality the reason we are going after Saddam is because he's a brutal dictator and we are liberating Iraq. This ultimately is the same reason why we went after Milosevic and his brutal régime.

Last night, Peter Jennings interviewed two organizers of today's New York antiwar protest. He asked them why they were against the war. Neither of the them gave a clear answer. At best I could understand from what they said was that they were against the war because of the overall trends in US foreign-policy. They, of course, did not state what those trends were. Their answer amount at to a nonanswer.

While the organizers do not say so, I think they also believe that the primary reason why we're attacking Saddam's régime is to liberate Iraq. They are against that. It establishes a rule that United States is willing to use force against dictators, most particularly against anti-American dictators. Of course historically, most anti-American dictators are Communists.

Also, on a slightly different topic, I have heard reports that the French were not going to cooperate with United States and Britain at all on admistration of Iraq. They said they were not going to release the UN money in French banks that are the Iraqi oil proceeds earmarked for the UN oil for food program. In other words France will not support humanitarian aid for Iraq so long as the US and UK are in charge.

Who allowed France to steal the UN money?

	23-03-2003 04:09									#35
	Inflate your Upload Space

Ned: it would be wise to stop believing that somehow you "know" what people "really" think. I venture to guess you are not a mind reader, so unless someone tells you otherwise, you can only judge someone mindset by their words and actions.

quote: Also, on a slightly different topic, I have heard reports that the French were not going to cooperate with United States and Britain at all on admistration of Iraq. They said they were not going to release the UN money in French banks that are the Iraqi oil proceeds earmarked for the UN oil for food program. In other words France will not support humanitarian aid for Iraq so long as the US and UK are in charge. Who allowed France to steal the UN money?

How is that stealign the UN's money? The French are saying: UN money to be used for UN run and controlled programs, not for programs solely controlled by individual members. Now, if the administration of Iraq is given over to the UN and not to the governments of the uS and UK, thts a different thing.

	23-03-2003 04:18									#36
	Increase the size of your Attachments

It's not wholly about oil but the arguments that it isn't at all about all are fatuous.

This is not about getting more oil for the US but about being in control of supplies. A US in the dominant position in the Gulf is also in a position to deny oil to its rivals or potential rivals.

I can't believe you are losing arguments to the pro-war morons. I haven't heard one good argument from that side yet.

	24-03-2003 08:20									#37
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Invading a country because they are evil is abuse of power. If we're going to do this, then that gives other countries the right to invade another nation just because they are 'evil'. This would justify the Iraq-Iran war. Iran's leaders were pretty evil, so that means Saddam could go in. Germany could've said, Poland evil, I should be able to invade him. If we should be allowed to go into Iraq even if the rest of the world says no then that means we could go in and take over another country because we say they're 'evil'. How would you feel if another country called us 'evil' and then took us over?

What's wrong with the UN? Nations could abuse power easily without it. With the UN, many nations can be kept in check. It's a place where all the world leaders have say and if it's the world's will for something to be done, that can be clearly shown.

Let's say there was no UN. Country A invades Country B. This is a war of aggression, so Country C sends in forces to defend Country B and invade Country A. Is this fair? It is unfair for A to invade B, but is it fair for C to say what can be done and what can't be done? With the UN, there are certain rules that everyone has a say on.

It's the people of Iraq's problem that they have a bad leader, not ours. We're removing the Iraqi people's leader without even asking them. We may have a hunch they don't like him, but there hasn't been an official vote asking if Saddam should be in power.

Agathon, if the pro-war arguments are so bad, they why didn't you answer Azazel's?

	24-03-2003 08:25									#38
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Does the police lock somebody up just because there's a chance he might commit a crime? Clearly we don't. People are innocent until proven guilty. So are countries.

	24-03-2003 08:32									#39
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Urban Ranger Does the police lock somebody up just because there's a chance he might commit a crime?

Do you not see a difference between domestic law and international law?

	24-03-2003 08:43									#40
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

So Saddam Hussein is a nasty bastard. He has killed people. This didn't stop the US from propping him up during the Iran-Iraq war. This didn't stop Cheney from shaking hands with him. This didn't stop the CDC from selling nice little bugs to him. He has always been that way. Clearly, that is not a reason why GWB wants to invade.

So Iraq has some chemical and biological weapons. First of all, as it has been pointed out repeatedly, these are not terribly effective weapons. The Tokyo subway sarin gas attack (as contrasted to the arson in the Seoul subway) is a clear indication of this. Secondly, there are countries that have nuclear weapons, and the US couldn't care less. So, this is not a reason.

So, Iraq has violated UN resolutions. So has a number of other countries, say Turkey and Israel. It's not like the US care about such violations.

So what other reasons can the pro-war faction proffer?

	24-03-2003 08:43									#41
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

The problem with the UN is that it is controlled by the majority of countries, who really suck. I mean, imagine for a minute we just took away the UN and asked Qatar, Libya, Laos, San Marino, Paraguay, Zambia, Niger, Slovenia, Micronesia, Nauru, Yemen, Turkmenistan and Tunisia [for example] to lead the world. That would really suck, wouldn't it? But in the UN General Assembly, this is for all intents and purposes exactly what's happening.

And what would happen if we didn't attack countries for being evil? We'd get more Rwandas. It's the world's responsibility to prevent genocide and gross human rights abuses.

We need the entire world (or at least that small part of the world which cares about human rights) to stand up and say, "we won't stand for this anymore!" We need the entire world to stop the Saddams and the Kim Jong Ils. The only reason the United States is going alone is because none of the other countries will accept this responsibility.

In my mind, the whole WMD thing is not the strongest case for war, but rather Saddam's gross human rights abuses and genocide attempts.

	24-03-2003 08:44									#42
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by DinoDoc Do you not see a difference between domestic law and international law?

What international law? It's not like the US is following it.

	24-03-2003 08:49									#43
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Urban Ranger What international law?

The one you were naively refering to in the post I quoted. Don't be purposefully dense.

	24-03-2003 09:02									#44
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by DinoDoc The one you were naively refering to in the post I quoted. Don't be purposefully dense.

I am not aware that international law allows a country to attack another one pre-emptively, particularly without as much as an iota of evidence of so called "threats."

	24-03-2003 09:05									#45
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

This war is in no way a pre-emptive atatck. At best, you can call it a preventive attack, a classfication for which there is absolutely no documnetation.

If you ask the lawers at the State Department and white House, they will tell you that in their legal eyes, Iraq has violated the conditions for the cease-fire in 1991 and thus this war is nice and legal.

	24-03-2003 09:09									#46
	Suffering from ads?

JohnMcLeod :

You have to think about the many motives of the war. The war is partly about oil, sure, but it is absolutely not solely about oil. "No blood for oil" is nothing more than a catchy phrase, it is not an argument.

The first thing I say to dispel the myth this war is about liberating the Iraqis is asking :
"Do you really believe Bush would have spent billion dollars, risk American lives and alienated the rest of the world for the altruistic sake of saving Iraqis ?"
People to whom I ask almost always answer "no", and agree with the idea this war has far darker motives than it pretends.

There are many motives for the war, it would be plain wrong to limit it to oil.

- This war can give political gain to Bush. Historically, leaders have always tried to unite their people behind them in the war. A successful war is a huge source of support during elections. It is especially important at a time where domestic problems (bad economy) are occuring.

- One of the reasons Bush raised dramatically the military funding was to help growth occuring again, by motivating demand. By raising the demand for weaponry, the gov indirectly raised the demand for high technolgy, steel and pretty much everything your industry produces. The aim was to significantly raise growth. It happened at the beginning, back in Q1 2002 when growth was estimated to 5,2% a year IIRC.
It is not a reason per se explaining how ill motivated the war is, but it partly explains the Hawkishness in the US recently.

- The US is still waging war against terrorism. The biggest supporter of Islamist fundamentalism and hence terrorism is Saudi Arabia. Saudi gives much money to Islamists, their recruitment machine (Coran schools), and other activities. The US would want to change this. However, it is impossible to do so with a high dependancy of foreign oil, especially when Iraq is hostile and Venezuela is in revolution.
In order to begin tensions with Saudi Arabia, it is necesary to find a reliable source of oil. Iraq has plenty of the reserves, wells and an already developed infrastructure. A puppet government there would be the reliable provider Bush needs so much.
This is the strongest "this is a war for oil" argument that I can think of.

- The US is enforcing the New World Order that emerged from the collapse of the USSR, leaving the US alone at the helm of the world. There is a raising opposition to American superpower (North Korea among the rogue States, France's and Germany's opposition in the UN) that shows this New World Order is encountering difficulties.
The US must show other countries it is willing to enforce this World Order where they are the boss.
In short : the US show everyone who's the top dog.

Iraq has it all to be attacked : despicable dictator, who'd justify how just the war is in the PR-opaganda. Weak army, who'd make such a war short of American casualties. Plenty of oil. No threatening WMD, unlike North Korea.

So much for the war being motivated by the sake of liberating Iraq. You can instill some hostility towards war to your fellows with it, but it won't be nearly enough. More to come next post.

	24-03-2003 09:16									#47
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by GePap This war is in no way a pre-emptive atatck. At best, you can call it a preventive attack, a classfication for which there is absolutely no documnetation. If you ask the lawers at the State Department and white House, they will tell you that in their legal eyes, Iraq has violated the conditions for the cease-fire in 1991 and thus this war is nice and legal.

If France and the UK had acted in the same way in 1935 when evidence of Hitler's reconstituted Luftwaffe came to light (a violation of the 1918 armistice) it may have gone a long way to preventing the Second WW.

	24-03-2003 09:17									#48
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by GePap This war is in no way a pre-emptive atatck. At best, you can call it a preventive attack, a classfication for which there is absolutely no documnetation.

I stand corrected.

	24-03-2003 09:18									#49
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by ravagon If France and the UK had acted in the same way in 1935 when evidence of Hitler's reconstituted Luftwaffe came to light (a violation of the 1918 armistice) it may have gone a long way to preventing the Second WW.

I think getting down the trees was a mistake.

	24-03-2003 09:24									#50
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by ravagon If France and the UK had acted in the same way in 1935 when evidence of Hitler's reconstituted Luftwaffe came to light (a violation of the 1918 armistice) it may have gone a long way to preventing the Second WW.

Given what France and the Uk had gone through 20 years before and what they were going thorugh at the time, I find it disingenous for people of today to constantly attack their choices. As someone said: Iraq is like a fly to the US's elephant. Germany was bigger than France or the UK, and not that much smaller than them combined. historical comparisons and lessons are cheap things, easily spouted, almost impossible to coherently defend. Stick to the here and now.

	24-03-2003 09:30									#51
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

After having explained how ill-motivated the war is, you might hear : "But now that the war has started, the Iraqis will finally be liberated from Saddam. They just want that, and hoped for the Americans all along".

Sure, we should all hope the war will be swift, and that Saddam and his regime will quickly collapse with manimal casualties. However, if things turn uglier than the army would want, the following could very much occur :

- humanitarian crisis : for people stuck in Saddam-controlled cities, the shortages in food and medicine will become absolutely terrible, given how harsh they were in peace time. Plus, the Iraqi military would take all the few food for itself, and will use their guns to pilfer food reserves the Civilians could have made in preparation to the war. When you starve, you use whatever mean necessary not to starve anymore.
Also, there are many refugees, who live in very precarious environment. If the war lasts, and these refugees don't have access to aid, they will be targets of epidemics and starvation.

- harsh battle in Baghdad, resulting in many casualties from all sides : Iraqi civilians, US/UK soldiers, Iraqi soldiers. The Iraqis have shown a bigger resistance than expected already, and it is possible the best troops are guarding Baghdad, which is most probably boobytrapped to the bone.
Urban warfare is the place where technological advantage is the lowest. While the US tries to avoid civilian deaths very much, it also MUST avoid massive losses within the US military. Having heavy casualties in the war would be a major backlash for Bush at home, as many people would have lost a son, a brother or a father in this war. If the Battle of Baghdad gets ugly, the military might go for massive bombings pretty much everywhere in the city, that would kill civilians by the thousands.
Such a massacre of Civilians didn't occur in the past, because there was no ground invasion staged against Iraq. The stakes are different now.

- Diplomatic and military turmoil within the factions of Iraq. The Shias or Kurds might seize the opportunity to punish the Sunnis which have been favored by Saddam's regime. The Turkish military might create some serious trouble in the North. Chaos is not to rule out, if the war lasts longer than expected, and if the situation gets out of hand somewhere.

- Last but not least, a very likely consequence of this war in Iraq will be an even higher hate towards the Americans in the Middle East. Violent demonstrations have already been seen, and the hate towards the US seems to be rising already.
The hate towards the US fuels terrorism (both with money and manpower) big time. It significantly raises the terrorist threat against the US (and the West), which this very war was supposed to lower.

You can tell it is too soon to say if this war will be a failure or a success. But there are many elements that second the idea this war could get much more ugly than the army pompously claims.

	24-03-2003 10:20									#52
	Suffering from ads?

The Iraqi troops have harassed the supply line from cities bypassed by the US forces. This can be a constant source of trouble. Or rather, will be.

	24-03-2003 13:48									#53
	Get a bigger avatar today!

UR, spot on! As usual.

It is quite naive to believe the reason for INVADING Iraq is the fact that Saddam is evil and the US want to "liberate" the Iraqi people. The USofA have supported one too many bloody regime in the world that this could be true.

The "weapons of mass destruction" reason is even more naive. You folks read too much Clancy....

Saddam/Iraq is a threat to the US. First of all, I cannot see any proof. There's been a lot of talk about connections to Al-Qaida but absolutely NO PROOF. Right. Lets invade....

Truth is that Saddam is a bloody dictator and a threat to the NEIGHBOURING countries. But that is their problem. If they decide to give the USofA a share of their oil to help them, thats just fine...

Lets turn this thing around:
I say, the USA is EVIL. There is much proof for this (The native american Indians, Mexico, Vietnam, Salvador, supporting Bin Laden, Saddam.... lots more). They have chemical and biological weapons. Nuclear too. When in war, they are using weapons which are considered illegal (by the geneva convention?) such as cluster bombs. Hell, they are the only nation that used the Atomic bomb on a civilian target. I SAY THIS IS PROOF ENOUGH!

	30-03-2003 05:31									#54
	Got spare money?

Sorry for bumping the thread, but Naz, could you list some more evil things the US did? I sort of try that approach, but I haven't been able to come up with enough. I just don't think some of the things you listed where something to hold the US against.

quote: The native american Indians

And the Europeans didn't do the same thing? Everytime a western nation discovers a nation less advanced then them, they call them savage and destroy them. The British did this to the Native Americans long before America existed along with the Italians and Spanish. The European nations did the same thing to Africans and the British did it to the Indians (from India), Burmese, Aboriginese, etc. What the US did was doing what was acceptable at the time, even if it was wrong.

quote: Mexico

I hate it when people call this a war of aggression. It was a border dispute. We thought the border was at the Rio Grande, they didn't. Whether we were right or not, considering what we thought our border was our border is not to bad. It couldn't have been a war of conquest. Our troops got Mexico City, which was way south. If it was conquest, we would've put the border right there. But we gave the land back to them, and set the border at where we thought it was in the first place.

quote: supporting Bin Laden, Saddam

Everytime I bring that up they say, "Well, it seemed like a good idea at the time. They were fighting for independence of their land just like we did 226 years ago.

quote: Hell, they are the only nation that used the Atomic bomb on a civilian target.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were targeted because of the large military bases there. They were definitely not even close to the biggest cities of Japan. If we were trying to kill as many innocents as possible, we would've gone for Tokyo or another big Japanese city. Think of how many more lives would've been lost with a land invasion. Even with a blockade going, the Japanese wouldn't have surrendered.

Some claim that this is because we wouldn't let off their leaders from war crimes. This is classic anti-American bs. If anyone knows anything about Japanese culture at the time, they'd know it was false. They were warriors, and surrendering was worse then death. That is why many Japanese officers and soldiers would commit suicide if they had to surrender. That is why their were Banzai charges and Kamikazes.

Another main argument they have is, "We must take out Saddam. He is our biggest threat that can be easily taken out. He is an evil dictator with WoMD that hates Americans with a passion. We can't wait for him to become a bigger problem."

Also, how come Saddam din't get in trouble with the UN for his human rights violations?

Those who claim we should take him out for these violations though are wrong. It's the UN's job to be the police not us. If one nation tries to be the world police, it's abuse of power. If there's one nation that's a police force they pretty much dictate the world at their own will. They could then do almost whatever they want and justify it by calling it a 'police action' or 'preemptive strike'. Would it be fair for one wingle country to dictate how another country a half world away operates without the little guy having any say about it?