OK, I'll try not to exaggerate any more. Let's discuss the justification of the war against iraq (which now is a war) and not the justification for Bush beeing president. That's another story.
OK, I'll try not to exaggerate any more. Let's discuss the justification of the war against iraq (which now is a war) and not the justification for Bush beeing president. That's another story.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I'm gonna live forever....
... or die trying...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
No we could leave saddam insane in power and he will get around to Starving, or Killing them Himself. Give me a break , I am not pro war or Saddam but do you want to just leave him alone? is that wise / think about it... I do not want innocent people killed, but what is a viable alternative? something needed to be done about this tyrannical despot and it is being doneOriginally Posted by [b
Quote[/b] (SeljukSinan @ Mar. 19 2003,12:00)]Yes we should attack them and kill them. How dare they toy with us
Pro war demonstrator from the North Cape.
Taking life one day at a time!
here here
many say that war is not the answer but the US/GB have tried everything else.
they tried to assasinate him the tried to bargain with him they tried to talk with him and also said he could leave the country but did he no he did not.
talking wont work and neither will asassination (its a regime not a single man)
hes commited warcrimes hes attacked countries not even involved with the war (isreal in gulf 1) and now hes scudded kuwaite (sp?) and probably killed civilians.
this man does not care for his people he is only interested in keeping himself in power and hes willing to kill countless thousands of people in doing so.
him and his regime will soon come to an end and when it does the people of iraq will be free and im willing to bet there wouldnt be one of them who didnt thank the allied soldiers who put their lives on the line to free them
British Army: be the best
ok, lets think for a second what justifies a war:
I think only agression justifies a war. If somebody attacks you, you have right to defend yourself against attacker ( - repeat: against attacker).
Is the preventive attack justified? That depends how you define it. But in current Bush's definition: that is to attack country across the world that has no chance whatsoever to fight back - I really don't think so.
If justification is human rights, then there are many many countries that deserve preventive attack, and it would easily start nuclear war.
If justification is removal from power of the guy that your government does not like, then it is also a ticket to WW3.
If justification is possession of chemical or biological weapons, then many many countries (including USA) are guilty.
So what justifies this attack?
Please think for a second and answer.
WW3 is a not an option now ...
Btw, the americans failed in killing Sadam, no?Seems that CIA was not inspired, huh? ...
True KY…
In addition, to those that do not think Saddam and his regime had (has) a secret agenda for acquiring WMD’s,
read these two documents (if you have time) from the UN site and make your own minds up.
UN Chronology 1991 - 1999
UN Chronology 1999 - 2003
The cease-fire treaty from 1991 (res.687) has been breached several times by Iraq,
and in each of those breaches the coalition could have justifiably resumed its warfare against Iraq.
Status Emeritus
The fear he would use the weapons against innocents , as you can see he launched a Scud at Kuwait, should we have waited for this obviously unstable tyrant that starves and murders his own people to build up even more and then unleash on whoever he wanted to , I think it was the wise choice to take Preventive measures to deal with this Madman...
Taking life one day at a time!
The Sword Of Storms,
ok, so your offered justification is fear fear he would use the weapons against innocents. So to prevent him from doing that you would rather use those weapons against innocents yourself, - that is just attack them?
Also, is Hussein the only one that is killing innocents right now? Just read the news more carefully (pay attention to Middle East, Chechnia, Africa, other places).
That does not justify war, for it is did, there would be war all over.
I think you should think about human ethics and state ethics separately. The fact that you don't like what leader of some country is doing to its citizens, does not automaticaly justify war (unless there is some kind od international court or agreement). For on the grounds of helping citizens of another country - any agression can be justified.
You seem a bit confused Human ethics and state ethics? I think saddam has kept his people under thumb long enough , It is not that I have anything against saddam personally, I do not know why you jumped to that conclusion, but hiding behind fancy phrases does not change the fact that saddam is a madman, that persecutes his own people, I dont think anyone could come up with a justifcation for you,I will not belabor the point , what is being done now it is what is necessary, I can not change that ,because the other confilcts you mentioned exist does not take away anything that is being or needs to be done in Iraq, If you are the etics expert what is your solution? leave a man as unstable as saddam alone? I think even the most rational of people would say absolutlely Not... edited for typos only
Taking life one day at a time!
ok, so you want to help his people against their own will?
what is some country will decide that your country's leader opresses you, and then will invade your country to help you?
Something like in medieval times Crusaders would invade another country to help them with soul's salvation?
I think America and Britain have to make a stand against any nation they think has the power now or in the near future to attack with weapons of mass destruction.
I think the time has ended when the civilised world/world leading countries should wait for an attack to happen and civilians to be killed before action is taken against terrorist/rogue states.
Concerning America, i think america has all the justification it needs to attack , since it was america who has suffered the worst terrorist attrrocitiy of the modern age and it imo is perfectly justified in striking first.
Concerning Iraq-- Come on we all know iraq is trying to get weapons of mass destruction and would be a threat with them .Whether this is now or in 5 years it would still have happened. And we know Saddam has inflicted massive inhumanities on his own people (for this alone he should be removed) iraq and saddam have had 12 years to comply with the U.N and the time has come when there time is up , we cant give them all the time they need to secretely develope there weapons arsenal. The weapons inspectors were getting lead on a wild goose chase and had no chance of finding things that iraq did not want them to.
Concerning Britain-- i think we should stand by america in this action , america are our closest allies and have been for a long time and as a civilised country we should make a stand against unstable countries like iraq.
well thats my opinion
Let me try and put it in a way you might understand, Yes if I had an oppressive, self serving megalomaniac as a ruler and some other country wished to help , I do not see the downside, already saddams people are giving up in droves do you think if they were happy with there country and its leader they would be so fast to leave, they tried to give up some two weeks ago and had to be told no it is not time yet Maybe we should have not intervened when Hitler started his reign of terror sometimes someone has to step in and take the iniative and help there fellow man thats all. And you did not answer my question what is your solution?
Taking life one day at a time!
certainly people in this forum should remember their history. it is history that makes attacking iraq now justified, as opposed to say n.korea, iran, others we do not like. you might remember 12 years ago, iraq invaded kuwait, brutalized thier people and destroyed their resources, and lobbed missiles into saudi arabia and israel. the world almost unanimously (even France) agreed they had to be kicked out. we (mostly US) did this and Iraq agreed as part of the cease fire to give up all their weapons of mass destruction. Iraq admitted they had WMDs (in fact they later used them against the Kurds). over the span of 12 years the US and UN continually tried to get them to disarm. Iraq stalled, lied, concealed, harassed inspectors, kicked them out, etc. (all the while torturing their own population). i.e., they never lived up the '91 cease fire and violated numerous subsequent agreements. we finally got fed up, esp. with the terrorist threat hitting at home. Iraq made only some nominal disarming after we put a gun to their head but nowhere near full compliance. This historical situation is quite different than with any other countries. we (the U.S.) are not just unilaterally attacking everyone we dont like. there was no point in waiting for saddam to lie, cheat, conceal, torture, etc. any longer. 12+ years is plenty. we can only hope this ends quickly as that would be best for everyone (except saddam of course).
actually the U.S have a president that is not elected by the majority of the people. As a result he is not democratically elected if you take the term democratic in a rigid sence. I am sure that this would be a sufficient reason for the U.S to attack Iraq. Sorry U.S citizens , we would normally ''liberate ''you but unlike Iraq your dictator has too many WMD's to make him a safe target....Quote[/b] (The Sword Of Storms @ Mar. 20 2003,13:26)]Let me try and put it in a way you might understand, Yes if I had an oppressive, self serving megalomaniac as a ruler and some other country wished to help , I do not see the downside, already saddams people are giving up in droves do you think if they were happy with there country and its leader they would be so fast to leave, they tried to give up some two weeks ago and had to be told no it is not time yet Maybe we should have not intervened when Hitler started his reign of terror sometimes someone has to step in and take the iniative and help there fellow man thats all. And you did not answer my question what is your solution?
Αξιζει φιλε να πεθανεις για ενα ονειρο, κι ας ειναι η φωτια του να σε καψει.
http://grumpygreekguy.tumblr.com/
Sword of Storms,
Might as well give it up, man. You are arguing with logic and facts-- none of which will make the slightest impression on someone like Rasoforos, who clearly has no earthly idea how the U.S. Constitution works.
This discussion is now out of control. About 90% of the posters are at least willing to discuss/disagree using rational arguments. Then there is the odd one or two that are so rabidly anti-U.S. that if we were to lay our own necks on the chopping block so as to avoid offending any third-world psycho, we would STILL be American capitalist imperialist running dogs. (Heavy Sigh)
I am now so traumatized by these factless diatribes that I shall abandon this thread and seek professional counseling to overcome my sense of responsibility for everything bad that has ever happened.
Now, if only there was someone I could SUE for emotional distress (the American Way, after all).
I see,I was trying not make it a long drawn out debate but i guess thats a moot point , I am done enough said..By the way I like your name Swordsman...
Taking life one day at a time!
okay oh wisest of all , i have two questions for you :Quote[/b] (Swordsman @ Mar. 20 2003,14:02)]Sword of Storms,
Might as well give it up, man. You are arguing with logic and facts-- none of which will make the slightest impression on someone like Rasoforos, who clearly has no earthly idea how the U.S. Constitution works.
This discussion is now out of control. About 90% of the posters are at least willing to discuss/disagree using rational arguments. Then there is the odd one or two that are so rabidly anti-U.S. that if we were to lay our own necks on the chopping block so as to avoid offending any third-world psycho, we would STILL be American capitalist imperialist running dogs. (Heavy Sigh)
I am now so traumatized by these factless diatribes that I shall abandon this thread and seek professional counseling to overcome my sense of responsibility for everything bad that has ever happened.
Now, if only there was someone I could SUE for emotional distress (the American Way, after all).
a) what does the U.S constitution have to do with my post?
b) bush was not elected by the majority and thats a fact. Democracy demands by definition a majority vote and thats a fact. where are your facts? Your only concern it seems was to criticise my post.
c) open a dictionary and look under 'allegory' , you ll find out what my post is about.
d)you have a very nice oppinion for the third-world although i believe you 'misunderastimate' them ....
Have a nice dayenjoy watching the bombs and take pride in it
Αξιζει φιλε να πεθανεις για ενα ονειρο, κι ας ειναι η φωτια του να σε καψει.
http://grumpygreekguy.tumblr.com/
my solution would have been to wait. And either achieve international consensus that time for war has come, or achieve disarmanment using inspectors.
The biggest threat right not from Iraq, but from this precedent that one country can attack another preventively.
I am not that afraid that Americans will start attacking everybody, but that many contries will lose the trust in international laws and will start arming themselves even faster in order to feel secure from preventive attack.
And everything will be resolved by force only.
I think, many people had hope after Cold War, that from now on - international law will rule. I think this war will challenge this believe considerably.
The only way to resist will remain either possession of nuclear weapons or terrorism.
That is what I am afraid of.
The rule of law only works if you enforce it. The U.S. is the only one willing to enforce on Iraq, your welcome.
Fact: What you are describing is called a direct democracy. The US is not a direct, or true democracy. We use a form of representative democracy called a Democratic Republic.
The basic problem with democracy in general is that most people are stupid. (Any one who contests this fact needs only stand in line at McDonalds for 10 minutes, and count the number of intellectual equals you find.) We have a tendency to look at the small, selfish picture. We are easily emotionally swayed by media, and rush to decision (both sides of the pond).
Any way, it is clear that while the individual has a right to participate in government, mob rule should be avoided. Mob mentality has no place in a prosperous government. With this understanding, our constitution was created to support a compromising position. The masses would be allowed to participate in government by choosing capable people to represent them and their interests. Ideally these people are better informed on the issues, and have a more clear perspective of the big picture.
OK, whether or not you think that Bush is one of these capable representatives is not the issue. Winning the electoral college is all that it takes to make him our President, duly elected according to our laws.
Oh, and while im ranting, i thought i would dispel another popular european myth: being called a cowboy is not an insult. We all love cowboys. They are heroes who stand up for what is right, even if it is the unpopular choice.
This is my world
And I am
World leader pretend
I voted, because 0% is easy to understand, but the poll is very badly constructed. What is the difference from 10-20% to 20-30% ? It should be even something like:
very strongly for war
strongly for war
pro war
neutral
pro peace
strongly pro peace
very strongly pro peace
but even this one is too much (3 states into any direction from neutral....). Get some statistics courses going
The topic in general is a good one though
Whatever the voter wishes it to be This is scale type poll.
The fact that 50%+ of pollers have voted between the 2 extremities would tend to indicate that most people understand such a scale.
The problem with words is that you can ALWAYS find a problem with the wording of options, in that no single option offered best sum's up ones feelings. You can also ALWAYS find similar problems with the number of options offered.
With a poll based on a scale (0%-100%) then the WHOLE spectrum of potential responses is covered.
It just takes a little thought for each individual to translate their individual viewpoints onto a linear scale of 0-100%
Well, interesting that you bring Hitler into play. There are very very few people here in europe that are not thankful for being freed of that maniac by the allies.
But I want to emphasize that Only France and Britain declared war after the the german invasion into Poland. If Hitler wouldn't have declared war on the US (after the japanese attack I think) maybe WW2 would have last a lot longer.
Therefore it was highly justified to fight NAZI-Germany at all costs.
Now it is a bit different, although Saddam is an evil man, no doubts there.
Fact is, UN should have monopoly on force. Just like a law court has monopoly on force against criminals. As I understand it, america was founded on the spirits of law and order and should not forget this in the way of handling it's foreign affairs. Isn't lynch law forbiddden? Even in god's own country?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I'm gonna live forever....
... or die trying...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Saddam Hussein has killed a million of his own people. If we give him another decade, he will walk circles around the UN, kill another million and build up a proper stockpile of weapons, so we will have to invade anyway, just with thousands more casulties. And of course millions more Iraqis dead.
i would have to agree the numerical scale is better. the problem with many polls is that the answer depends on the way you ask it. Example, the responses (by US citizens) would be very different to following two questions:
1) Should we go to war without UN approval?
2) Should we go to war even if we know certain security council members have said they will veto a war resolution under any circumstances?
asking are you pro-war obviously would skew the poll. nobody but crazies are pro-war, its a question of have we reached a point where we feel we have exhausted the reasonable options and have to act to defend our interests or save others. For those who say no war, ever for any reason, i wish we lived in such a fantasy world but that aint the case. you might as well say, come boot me in the groin and steal my wallet and i'll shake your hand and tell you to follow me to the atm so you can do it again.
You got it
Too sad, but true...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I'm gonna live forever....
... or die trying...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Absolutely.
I just heard on the news that some Democrats in the US are annoyed because a proposal was presented to Congress that asked Senators to endorse it. This proposal really asked Senators to vote endorsing 2 (totally unrelated) statements in the same proposal -
- support for the families of US military personel
- support for the Presidency of Bush
This sort of cynical b******t rely angers me - even though I'm not an American. Senators may only support both statements or reject both statements.
What better example of manipulation is there?
agression NEVER brings peace. Sooner or later every agressor brings violence on itself.
That is because violence always brings on more violence.
That is always true among people.
It is only if victim forgives that violence can be stopped.
This of cource does not negate a right to self-defence.
But because most do not forgive and are not content with defense only - violence goes on and on and on...
You can bet that your children will have to participate in this joyous cycle too...
So before you advocate violence - think carefully. Because your violence will be sure to bring more and more violence, until either your enemy forgives you, or you will become recipient of it too...
Siena, although the principle is beautiful, i would have to say self-defense is not the only justification for war. When you see someone or some country harming its own people or others or imminently going to do so, at some point you should act. you dont watch someone beat someone else to death when you have the power to prevent it, even though it is not in your own self defense.
Let's put some more oil into the fire. It might be that numerical scale is better, but IMHO giving 10 choices is still way too much.
As far as general discussion, US have raped UN. Pretty much what they did was:
-Try to get the resolution, without success, so finally they decided that THEY do not need approval of UN, and will use the previous resolutions. Well, if they were enough, why did they try to get newer ones and backed up only when it was clear that they would not get permission to use force.
-Later on some officials said that US would not need permission from UN to commence military campaigns protecting its interests. Pretty much it says that UN is only good as long as it plays along with US, when it does not, it is not needed or important to comply with. Well, did Hitler say that he was protecting Germans from polish people by attacking Poland?
-There was no evidence presented to support the case of the US. I know: US officials said a lot of things: read my words: PROPAGANDA (any country does that).
-Do you think that the decision of going into war was approved after the SH decided not to leave the country or after the inspectors did not find anything, or before all the forces were assembled or the reserves called upon or the number of tanks, plains and ships moved into the region? I do not think that you can make it happen overnight...
-Supposedly Iraq has forbidden weapons. So does Korea, India, Pakistan, ISRAEL and number of other countries. In the meantime Israel, in the same region, is occupying another country for years now and killing people on the streets. And they have weapons of mass destruction. Will US attack them?
-Who can say what type of weapon a country can or cannot have, US? On what type of authority is that based? Would people from UK, Germany, Spain, Australia, and Canada like Americans to come over and disband their military? These are not rouge countries; but was US in real danger from Iraq?
-US now says that Turkey cannot protect its borders and move some troops into the region. Well isn’t that what US is doing: protecting itself?
There is always time for war. Lives are too precious to take them away for oil. Did you hear that US is already planning to capitalize on Iraqi oil? And of course install new government, pro-US one…. Another puppet government…
America never experienced WAR, real war on its people. Unlike countries of Europe it was not ravaged by bombardments, armies moving through, hunger, despair and hopelessness. Daily I hear in my office people complaining for living with low-quality cable TV, no air conditioning in our “cube”, the fact that fuel went up by 10 cents… This is the highest inconvenience for Americans. What if they were forced to leave their homes in rubble, leave their SUV behind, live in fear of dying under “smart” bombs…These people do not know what WAR is, it is only a BBC show for them…
They, IMO have not right to wage war upon other nations. I agree that Saddam might be a threat to humanity, and should be dealt with, no question here. I agree that if indeed, the people there are treated the way that US says they are, we should do something about it without delay. However not by using tanks and tomahawks. I understand the storm of notes that we are bringing peace and freedom to Iraqi people: the same way Hernan Cortez brought faith and heaven to American Indians, and the same way that early immigrants freed Apache and other natives from their savage way of life: at the edge of the sword of US Cavalry…
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks