 |
|
gsmoove23
|
|
The fact that Saddam could have handled things differently doesn't justify the war.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
HershOstropoler
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by DinoDoc
Iraq could have easily provided a verifiable accounting of it and gutted the reason for the invasion itself. |
Not necessarily. Stuff destroyed in Gulf war 2, bad record keeping, etc. I doubt the US can fully account for all its military hardware.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Proteus_MST
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MRT144
why would israel have been created for any other reason than sympathy?
the point is if the end always justified the means then the holocaust was actually a good thing because it led to the creation of israel and i dont believe you think the creation of israel is bad. (unless youre arab or me)
so if the end result is good then it doesnt matter how it got there. which is bullshit |
I donīt think that Israel was supported out of Sympathy after the holocaust, but rather because of the cold war.
Countries like Egypt were supported by the russians, so the US needed a counterweight in the region, Israel.
But of course there is anothert thing within WW2, you could use as an example for Utiliarism:
Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
As an Utiliariarian you could argue that WW 2 was a good thing, because it let the US drop Nuclear weapons on those 2 Cities.
Why would it probably be a good thing from an utiliarian standpoint (despite it led to the death of many people)?
Because it showed the massive Destruction and Suffering which are associated with the use of Nuclear weapons and so probably their use in WW2 prevented a WW3 where those weapons would be used en masse by both sides.
As for the Iraq war, I donīt see it justified even from an utiliaristic standpoint.
It led to the end of an dictatorship and freed nmany people, who were oppressed or tortured by it, but thats the only good point from it.
But there are also many negative sides:
1. Bush showed that under his presidency the US will attack those countries, it has targeted and even the UN canīt prevent it. The only thing which probably could be used as a countermeasure are Nuclear weapons and Long Range Carrier Systems for them (see North Korea). So the conclusion could be for many governments, (especially for example Iran, because it is a member of the axis of evil, according to Bush) to get their own nuclear Programs running (of course under secrecy, til the wepons are fully developed). Another conclusion could be that it is probably dangerous to give away any WMDs you possess, if you are one of the potential targets of the USA.
2. The danger of Iraq turning into a Islamistic State. The majority of the inhabitants are Shiites and, according to the news reports the US arenīt seen as liberators, but rather as as conquerors, while the shiite religious leaders are gaining broad influence within the population. Of course the US dsays, that they will try to prevent the formation of an islamistic state, but how difficult will it be if, for example, a majority of the inhabitants of Iraq elects a religious party to rule the country?
3. The War in Iraq has again shown that it is easy for a country to invade another one. Just point out that the other country has WMDs or supports terrorism (or both), if necessary just fake some Intelligence Informations which confirm your claims. Maybe other countries will follow the example the USA have given.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
HershOstropoler
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by DinoDoc
I'd like to know that even if you couldn't go two steps in Iraq without tripping over a chemical weapon. |
A confluence of pretty diverse reasons, but neither individually or collectively they make much sense. Often, the most primitive explanations are the best for politics. Maybe it's mostly just a feelgood exercise for some loonie chickenhawks.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Pekka
|
 |
em seu burro dos pais!
Feb 2002
time: 07:28
|
|
My poor take on this is, that I think the results in Iraq because of the 'liberating' were good enough to do it. However I argue that these results were not 100% sure, and it's one helluva game to play if you don't hold all the cards because at the end it's about innocent people who can be the pawns of perversed wars.
What ever the reasons were in the beginning, I think it is vital that the leaders clearly lets the people know what's going on, since Iraq could not have posed any more serious threat if letting people know all the reasons. This way, it only makes leaders look weaker, because they got caught, and also might make it tougher to get them elected next time.
I personally was more interested in ousting Saddam and the rogue element in leaders, but still I argue that people needs to know all the reasons and should not be left out. I was also saying after Powells UN visit, that evidence is shaky to say at the least, but still we should go with this. I only wished they used more honesty. I'm not saying they outright lied, but they should have filled the people in more, because it's a matter of trust and it should not be broken. Even more so, if planning to do more war, it's risky business...
So getting rid of Saddam 
And we should also remember, that Blix and especially Europe got bad rap because they didn't find WMDs. And they had to work with the rogue element in power and limited powers anyway. There was lots of bashing going on how they are unprofessional, and that they don't even try or know what they're doing, hence endangering the whole world. This I want to say, because it was totally uncalled for, or so it now seems.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Pekka
|
|
em seu burro dos pais!
Feb 2002
time: 07:28
|
|
JW, This is the exact point I want to argue. If he did get rid of all the WMDs (maybe destroying, or just selling them to terrorists, what ever) it wouldn't make much sense. He'd get rid of the deterrent he needed in the first place, and now he would dump it when the time comes he needs them? Ok, still might happen...
But, if he got rid of WMDs, then we know that intelligence failed to notice it. How the heck that is possible? Sure, it is possible, but doesn't it make you feel a bit uncomfortable, that WMDs can be lost and theyn can be sold to anyone without intelligence being able to track at all? Then, how can be trust this intelligence information and continue doing wars, if the information is so weak? Of course you can never know for 100%, but still... it's a big game to play with such poor information. So, it is safe to say then, that WMDs can be travelled everywhere, sold etc without us noticing it. So what's the point of going to different countries and doing war, if we can't track them? It's a very dangerous game, and with such weak information and intelligence, it's not worth it. Because that will literally endanger all of us.
But I'm not suggesting we shouldn't try. Just make sure our future intelligence operations are working more smoothly, and when we track those WMDs, we don't lose them! And when it's a good time, we blow all traders, buyers and sellers in the air and confiscate them and destroy them. Hardcore operations, together with Europe, Israel, Russia and some other countries, keep 24/7 surveillance on all these guys, gather information and kill them. We don't need to challenge whole countries for war, as it is not so flexible and good. We find them better with doing it ourselves, secretly, and taking out people when we need to. Should be a big joint operation with all the countries we trust in it.
This is the only way IMO we can at least try to fight these things. And if we do war, let's do them for other reasons.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:28.
Apolyton Time is 00:28. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
07-06-2003 19:22
Do you believe THAT ? We are talking about how US officials admit having spinned the WMD threat to push for war, and you think thos war was about the WMD threat which was on this guy's own admittance exaggerated because insufficient ? 
|