How justified is this war?

[Wellington]

As we have all now heard the arguments for and against the USA/UKs planned military action in Iraq, and as it now looks as if it's going to be a certainly, I'm curious as to how justified people think it is.

Perhaps a spread of opinion will give a better idea of how pursuasive the arguments have been.

For the record, my vote lies firmly in the 0-10% range.

[Lord Of Storms]

I am not for anything that has do to with loss of life, But it seems inevitable after all the macho posturing by both sides now it will all come to a head and innocents will suffer, It could be argued that either side could have backed down Saddam insane oops hussein could and might (I doubt it) take Bush offer to leave and avoid a conflict. But I think pride will rear it's ugly head and for that many will suffer. It is a sad time for humanity...

[Exile]

Interesting poll. War is coming. Let's hope it ends quickly, with the least possible amount of devastation.

[edit] 80-90%

[Cedrik]

A simple question. USA will attack IRAK because Irak is not respecting a UN resolution. But will USA respect if the UN does not support the attack??
Answer: NO

[KukriKhan]

Good to see a political opinion topic in the Entrance Hall to give Junior Patrons a chance to voice their opinions - thanks Wellington; really.

Remember the forum rules: no blatant flaming, personal attacks, or opinions that disagree with the mods (

[SirGrotius]

Cedrik,

The UN has not passed a resolution banning an attack on Iraq, it was just extremely unlikely that one authorizing military action would have been passed. Furthermore, in the strictest technical sense (so I've heard), previous UN resolutions on the subject of iraq (older ones, perhaps from '91) still hold, and they authorize the use of force for disarming iraq. This, of course, does not mean using force is the best solution, but saying that the US and Britain (and Spain&#33http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif are directly violating a UN resolution is wrong.

[Herodotus]

Check this out, it explains the real reason for the war.

http://www.heavengames.com/cgi-bin....42,0,10 (http://www.heavengames.com/cgi-bin/forums/display.cgi?action=ct&f=2,36642,0,10)

[Rob The Bastard]

KukriKhan...it is kind of entertaining

Now...where did I store those bellows... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[Aelwyn]

Seriously....I'm on the fence with this one. I am from the U.S. My biggest objection to the war, is the person who is spearheading it. I seriously don't agree with a person who has a worse GPA in college than I....reguardless of the college it is....since he didn't get himself into it. And honestly, I'm not a genious. There are many others more qualified and more down to earth that could make much better decisions. If Bill Clinton said it was necessary to go to war (if he was still President) then I would consider it much more necessary. True, Clinton gets credit for many good things that he had no influence over, but honestly he was much better. The sheer fact that our president is GWB seriously embarrasses me. He acts as if his actions couldn't fail, simply because he is not smart enough to recognize his own faults. Many dominating forces have been eventually overtaken....I doubt the Romans ever thought Rome wouldn't be a dominating world power. And I can seriously see George W. Bush as the reason that the U.S. loses its handle over its own destiny. Not that it will for sure happen, but he's putting it in jeopardy. Why not assassinate Sadhaam? Harder than it sounds yes, and illegal to order from here, yes, but repeal the order Gerald R. Ford signed (and he's coincidentally from the same city as me...he from East Grand Rapids, I from Grand Rapids). And then just go after him. I think assassination would end better than a war.

[Aelwyn]

Opps...sorry for the long post, but forgot to add the other side, like I always do. On the other hand, Sadhaam is seriously evil not only to other countries, but also to his own people, so he DOES need to be removed from power. I just wish that war wasn't necessary to do it.

[Longshanks]

Quote[/b] (Cedrik @ Mar. 17 2003,22:26)]A simple question. USA will attack IRAK because Irak is not respecting a UN resolution. But will USA respect if the UN does not support the attack??
Answer: NO
Only 2 wars have ever been carried out with the approval of the Security Council, the Korean War and Gulf War Part One. Plenty of wars have been carried out without UN approval including the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the French wars in Algeria,Vietnam, the 7 day war, Panama, Grenada, the Falklands War and the interventions in Kosovo and Yugoslavia.

Its really not that big of a deal if the US goes to war without the UN, as most wars are fought without approval of the security council. IMO the intervention in Kosovo and Yugoslavia was a just war, carried out to protect civilians from genocide. They were carried out without UN approval, because some nations would rather sit on the fence and do nothing. UN approval is not a determining factor on whether or not a war is a just.

BTW I answered 90-100%.

[Sundance]

The sad thing about it is that those who want to start the war are trying to justify it with reasons of humanity (or at least self defense).
Not a single war I can think of has been fought for these reasons. Quite a number of them was fought in the name of these reasons. So something doesn't fit here.
If the US wouldn't want to wipe out Iraq just for the oil and dollars, they would have to fight wars against about 70% of all countries in the world. Due to the above reasons. Why don't they march into Africa and end all these cruel dictatorships? Why exactly Iraq? Why Afghanistan? Why Iran? Because they already control the oil in Africa.
My question to all you americans out there: why did you elect ####### president ??? (well I know he's not actually elected...)

[HopAlongBunny]

I can't see any reason for this war. Saddam was an American puppet; they sold him much of the stuff they want to disarm.

American puppet gone bad? Let them deal with it.

[Lord Krazy]

The best place for war is in games.
I don't agree with this war.
The fact the second resolution was droped because it
did not have support of the UN shows
I'm in the Majority of world opinion.
So much for Democracy http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif
The British Government has proved their word
worthless after pledging not to go war without
a second resolution.So if they can not be trusted
to do what they say I can't trust the reasons they give for
their actions neither.The fact that the U.S. government
has been caught out with lie after lie after lie
and tried to strongarm poorer countries with economic
threats and by using the British secrect service
to spy on these countries governments to
blackmail them. This makes me wonder why
a person that considered the rule of law
and Democracy and freedom of choice, as the
backbone of civilisation, could support such tactics?
I mean let's face it you can't invade another country
in selfdefence.They have to attack you first remember.

When you play mtw and the ai takes one of your regions,
do you consider it selfdefence on behalf of the computer
because it knows you are going to attack sometime in the future?

You could apply that logic to anyone sure.

LK http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smokin.gif

[el_slapper]

Olé, LK. War is cool on my PC. Not in truth.

I voted 10/20 because this guy is really a bad guy. But he has done nothing worse than MR Kim - wich is more dangerous IMHO. Last point, each time a major power tried to bring some order to this region, it finished bad. I don't see why USA could make better(even if I hope so).

[Brutal DLX]

I didn't vote. Personally, I think it's too hard to answer a question such as this. Now, if you had asked Do you think this matter of war and peace has been handled in a justifiable, appropriate way? then I would say, Not at all.

[Knight_Yellow]

Dont actualy belive it but i agree with longshanks

[Wellington]

Quote[/b] (Brutal DLX @ Mar. 18 2003,07:03)]I didn't vote. Personally, I think it's too hard to answer a question such as this. Now, if you had asked Do you think this matter of war and peace has been handled in a justifiable, appropriate way? then I would say, Not at all.
Fair point.

However, the purpose was to try and ascertain in as open a manner as possible (ie - without offering pre-conceived choices) how comfortable individuals felt with the situation.

The world is'nt made up of blacks and whites. Everything is a shade of grey - including peoples opinions. By offering just a percentile range based on justification (for want of a better word) I just maybe people would offer a better indication of how people really feel about this without having to examine too closely why.

The question might well have been phrased how comfortable do you feel about this war. I suspect the results would not have been significantly different.

Welly

[econ21]

I really don't know about this war.

We know many people will die. Hopefully not too many but in the worst case may be 100,000 or more, as in the official US estimates of Iraqi dead from the last Gulf War. The fact that the dead may be predominantly Iraqi soldiers in no way reduces the significance to me of such appalling loss.

I don't believe the stated justifications in terms of weapons of mass destruction and terrorism. My impression is that inspections and containment can deal with the former; that it is unlikely Saddam is in league with Al Qaida and that a backlash against invasion may increase, not reduce, the threat of extremist Islamic terrorism.

And yet, Saddam's regime is loathsome and if I were an Iraqi - with my present views, but living in Iraq - I'd be cheering the Allies on. Freedom is worth fighting for. However, this is something for a country's own citizens to take up. Where they don't or can't rebel, it is not clear that foreign powers should intervene. In some cases - eg the Rwandan genocide - the possible humanitarian benefits may so outweigh the cost of intervention, there is an overwhelming case for regime change. Kosovo is another possible example. However, on reflection, the Iraq case is not in the same class and indeed for this reason is not the official reason for the war.

I guess writing this leads me to the conclusion that the war is unjustified. I'll vote 20-30 but I wish the Allies a swift victory.

[Brutal DLX]

Quote[/b] (Wellington @ Mar. 18 2003,13:37)]Fair point.

However, the purpose was to try and ascertain in as open a manner as possible (ie - without offering pre-conceived choices) how comfortable individuals felt with the situation.

The world is'nt made up of blacks and whites. Everything is a shade of grey - including peoples opinions. By offering just a percentile range based on justification (for want of a better word) I just maybe people would offer a better indication of how people really feel about this without having to examine too closely why.

The question might well have been phrased how comfortable do you feel about this war. I suspect the results would not have been significantly different.

Welly
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif I know what you were trying to say, but since you didn't do in a non-misunderstandable way I had not choice but to abstain. For the record, I don't feel comfortable about any war, even if I were on the winning side, or completely unaffected by it.

[Teutonic Knight]

I don't think it really matters what we all think, because it's about to happen anyway http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif

[Swordsman]

I don't think we've been given enough facts to decide yet. Both the U.S and British gov't's (and some Congressmen on on Intel Committee) have said Iraq has WMD. No conclusive evidence has been offered publicly, so it's a good faith issue at this point. So depending on your political viewpoint to begin with, you will tend to believe
1) There IS no evidence.
2) There is evidence, but we're not going to compromise inteligence sources.

If Clinton were still in power, there is no doubt that such evidence would be produced, sources be damned. But Bush is a different animal, and doesn't seem to feel the need to make decisions based on polls. BTW, you Bush-bashers (esp. from other countries) are a scream http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif considering Clinton disgraced the presidency, dodged the draft, dissed the military, etc.

I don't believe we will get any warm fuzzy feelings until AFTER the war. If WMDs are found and paraded about, I think the vast majority of folks will feel we dodged a bullet. On the other hand, if they are NOT found it will raise serious questions as to the premise of why we went to war in the first place.

The UN is useless. It's a good place to talk, but you simply cannot expect any action.

So I voted 70-80%-- 'cause as much as I'd like to, I do not blindly trust the gov't in this matter. But my gut tells me they WILL find WMD there.

[rasoforos]

Is any country with WMDs, proof of them been used , president not elected by the majority , human rights violations , racial discrimination , rejection of hague international court and the U.N considered a justifiable target for war? Because if it is so i know 2 of them...

Is there actually ANY argument the U.S government used to justify this war that does not apply to them as well?

[Knight_Yellow]

rasforos all but 2 wars whent without UN support so imk gonna say that going against the UN is no big deal.

[Heraclius]

by attacking Iraq I am afraid that the US is leading itself down a long and dangerous path. I don't know what the future holds but it could easily contain attacks on US soil by Muslim terrorists, a large economic recession, many long time US allies becoming disillusioned and disgusted with America etc, etc. I can't help but agree with Blair's minister who just resigned, when he said that if the hanging chads had gone the other way in Flordia and AL Gore had been elected President this war would not be happening.

[Wellington]

Quote[/b] (Heraclius @ Mar. 18 2003,11:06)]I can't help but agree with Blair's minister who just resigned, when he said that if the hanging chads had gone the other way in Flordia and AL Gore had been elected President this war would not be happening.
Three British Government ministers have now resigned.

I've been watching the debate in the House of Commons (on TV of course) and was struck by a comment from one of the Labour MPs.

Quote -

If the USA wants to lead the World, then they'd better find a World leader

[rasoforos]

Quote[/b] (Knight_Yellow @ Mar. 18 2003,11:05)]rasforos all but 2 wars whent without UN support so imk gonna say that going against the UN is no big deal.
is that all you kept from my post??? none of those things is a big deal if the U.S does it, however if someone else does it then its a reason for war. Nice doublethink and boublespeak by Mr Bush ....

[Swordsman]

You're probably right-- if Gore had been elected I'm sure we would still be conducting focus groups and polls
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

For the record, you guys DO realize that our presidential elections aren't by a simple majority, right? That (for better or worse) we have this thing called the Electroal College? That big states have a lot more impact than little ones?

Kinda funny that no Democrat complains that all the electoral votes of a huge state like California consistently goes Democrat regardless of how close the vote might be.

For good or bad it's our system. Bush won with support of a ruling by our highest court (Also hilarious that people would discount the Supreme Court in favor of a partisan-packed State Supreme Court). He's our President-- get over it and move on with your lives. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/pat.gif

[Knight_Yellow]

huh?


well if im a puppet of bush ur a puppet of shirac or rather sadham.

[Tora]

[QUOTE]Is any country with WMDs, proof of them been used , president not elected by the majority , human rights violations , racial discrimination , rejection of hague international court and the U.N considered a justifiable target for war? Because if it is so i know 2 of them...

Is there actually ANY argument the U.S government used to justify this war that does not apply to them as well?

Now you come to mention it.....

Do as I say, not as I do (Book of More Cliches Than You Can Shake a Stick At. Chapter 5, verse 21. Courtesy Rev. Dubya Bush of the Latter Day Morons.) http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[Nowake]

I agree with U.S. crushing Sadam ... somebody should do it anyway, at one point ...

BUT the reasons are, obviously, not the ones stated ...

The history stays like this: in 1937, Kuweit is put under the U.S. protectorate, in order to secure the oil reserves it had ... Than Sadam wants to take it back (as it originaly was an Irakian province), so the Gulf War starts; the americans argue that the new global order starts from 1945, not earlier, so they defeat him ... Anyway, Sadam crossed the line, and it is a threat to his neibours if left alone, but not with Europe and U.S. ready to opose ...

THE ACTUAL CRISIS comes, in my opinion, as a result of the U.S. frustration for being politicaly defeated in the Gulf WAR - the actual administration and staff members around Bush are mainly the same as then (Powell, Kissinger etc.).

I think the oposition manifested by France and Germany comes not because they care for Sadam or for peace, but because they must rally Europe around them - the ideea for an european army just started to make it's way - so no one should fear for a major conflict now; Russia, also, demonstrates that an alliance with Europe it's prefered to one with US; I think S.U.A. are mistaking in leting this happen, as they will end up in the future as Great Britain stands now before Europe: a huge island on the western shores of the U.E. + Russia ...

So Europe will let U.S. to crush Sadam, nobody objects, they only use this ocasion in order to give a cry for unity in it's ranks ... I'm on Europes' side, anyway ...

Just my opinion http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[rasoforos]

Quote[/b] (Knight_Yellow @ Mar. 18 2003,11:23)]huh?


well if im a puppet of bush ur a puppet of shirac or rather sadham.
who said u re a puppet of bush?


concerning the situation in the U.K . Well it gets pretty serious as in every other country where the P.M supports this war without the people agreeing on. People resign and people rebel against him. It is my personal oppinion that Mr Blair just buried his political future.


BTW a nice article ,
Paolo Coelho thanks George Bush for attacking Iraq (http://www.opendemocracy.net/debates/article-2-88-1033.jsp)

[Wellington]

Interesting results on this poll so far.

Strong support for 2 extremes of this poll, but thats only to be expected.

Many people will, presumably, always oppose war regardless of the facts/circumstances. Likewise, others will always support the Government/military of their country.

Still, with so small a sample conclusions are prone to error, so if you hav'nt yet 'voted' please do. I think this may be revealing.

What surprises me is the relatively even spread in the middle. What does this suggest in terms of the information/justification presented to us all in respect of this inevitable military action? Nothings is really clear for the majority?

BTW - it IS inevitable now. The White House announced this afternoon that US troops WILL enter Iraq - regardless of whether or not Saddam complies with the 48 hour ultimatum.

I'll make no comment in respect of this statement - most people know my views http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[MongolWarrior]

This war is very nessecary to flush Saddam Hussein from power or there might possibly be World War III.(translation:no earth&#33http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[Tim]

Quote[/b] (HopAlongBunny @ Mar. 18 2003,04:22)]I can't see any reason for this war. Saddam was an American puppet; they sold him much of the stuff they want to disarm.

American puppet gone bad? Let them deal with it.
Actually, no. Iraq was a client state of the Soviet Union throughout the Iraq/Iran war.

[Heraclius]

I don't think that was true. After all the US put Saddam's regime in power, armed him with WMD during the Iran/Iraq war and sent CIA agents to help. Iran was considered the greater of two evils at the time, remeber the Terhan Hostage Crisis, or so Reagan's administration's reasoning went.

[Tim]

Quote[/b] (rasoforos @ Mar. 18 2003,11:42)]
Quote[/b] (Knight_Yellow @ Mar. 18 2003,11:23)]huh?


well if im a puppet of bush ur a puppet of shirac or rather sadham.
who said u re a puppet of bush?


concerning the situation in the U.K . Well it gets pretty serious as in every other country where the P.M supports this war without the people agreeing on. People resign and people rebel against him. It is my personal oppinion that Mr Blair just buried his political future.


BTW a nice article ,
Paolo Coelho thanks George Bush for attacking Iraq (http://www.opendemocracy.net/debates/article-2-88-1033.jsp)
I doubt it. Victory takes care of a lot of political problems. And does anyone here believe that the US/Britain won't find hidden chemical/bio/possibly nuclear weapons? Because when we do, this will shut a lot of people up.

[Tim]

Quote[/b] (Swordsman @ Mar. 18 2003,11:21)]You're probably right-- if Gore had been elected I'm sure we would still be conducting focus groups and polls
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

For the record, you guys DO realize that our presidential elections aren't by a simple majority, right? That (for better or worse) we have this thing called the Electroal College? That big states have a lot more impact than little ones?

Kinda funny that no Democrat complains that all the electoral votes of a huge state like California consistently goes Democrat regardless of how close the vote might be.

For good or bad it's our system. Bush won with support of a ruling by our highest court (Also hilarious that people would discount the Supreme Court in favor of a partisan-packed State Supreme Court). He's our President-- get over it and move on with your lives. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/pat.gif
Exactly Swordsman. It's sad that you, I and others have to remind some people that the election is over and Bush is the President.

What I find most irritating is the fact that the main reason that *many* do not support the war is because Bush is President. If, in some alternate reality, Clinton were President, you simply wouldn't see this. I'll post a reply with a quote from such a person who posted on this very thread.

[Tim]

Quote[/b] (Aelwyn @ Mar. 18 2003,01:55)]Seriously....I'm on the fence with this one. I am from the U.S. My biggest objection to the war, is the person who is spearheading it. I seriously don't agree with a person who has a worse GPA in college than I....reguardless of the college it is....since he didn't get himself into it. And honestly, I'm not a genious. There are many others more qualified and more down to earth that could make much better decisions. If Bill Clinton said it was necessary to go to war (if he was still President) then I would consider it much more necessary. True, Clinton gets credit for many good things that he had no influence over, but honestly he was much better. The sheer fact that our president is GWB seriously embarrasses me. He acts as if his actions couldn't fail, simply because he is not smart enough to recognize his own faults.
This is the proof. To many, this is anti-Bush. If Clinton were President, there wouldn't even be a debate. Sad.

[Tim]

Quote[/b] (Heraclius @ Mar. 19 2003,00:37)]I don't think that was true. After all the US put Saddam's regime in power, armed him with WMD during the Iran/Iraq war and sent CIA agents to help. Iran was considered the greater of two evils at the time, remeber the Terhan Hostage Crisis, or so Reagan's administration's reasoning went.
Wrong and right. The Soviets backed Iraq, not the United States, although you are correct that we did *support* them as a tool to be used against Iran.

NY Times - February 3, 2002


Tempted by Oil, Russia Draws Ever Closer to Iraq

By MICHAEL WINES

...Baghdad still owes Russia at least $8 billion from the days of the cold war when, as a client state, Iraq outfitted its military with armor bought on Soviet credit. Then there are billions of dollars in oil contracts with Russian companies, and billions of dollars more trading that could be done with a pro-Russian government in Baghdad...

[Heraclius]

thanks for the correction Tim. my memory gets worse and worse everyday. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif ask any of the other guys around here. anyway thanks for putting me on the right track. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[Tim]

Quote[/b] (HopAlongBunny @ Mar. 18 2003,04:22)]I can't see any reason for this war. Saddam was an American puppet; they sold him much of the stuff they want to disarm.

American puppet gone bad? Let them deal with it.
Forgot to mention this. Please show a pic or something of Iraqi troops using US military hardware. You cannot. Why? Because Iraq was supplied by the Soviet Union, not the United States.

And we certainly did not give him bio weapons (not implying that you said this.

http://www.nationalreview.com/lowry/lowry.asp

[Tim]

Quote[/b] (Heraclius @ Mar. 19 2003,00:55)]thanks for the correction Tim. my memory gets worse and worse everyday. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif ask any of the other guys around here. anyway thanks for putting me on the right track. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Good lord, that was a scary-quick reply Heraclius

I mean, lets be reasonable. The United States did have to support its share of, shall we say, despotic dictators around the world. I would, however, challenge someone to show that any (perhaps most) of these nations had ever been ruled by any other means.

There was something called the Cold War going on and it was a life and death struggle between Democracy and the West pitted against the Soviet Empire. Because if we didn't support our share of these despots, then the Soviets would have had a monopoly on them and thus, control of most of the world.

[Wellington]

Quote[/b] (Tim @ Mar. 19 2003,01:04)]Because if we didn't support our share of these despots, then the Soviets would have had a monopoly on them and thus, control of most of the world.
I thought McCarthyism died in the 1950's ...

... apparently not.

[Sigurd]

The Iraqi regime has toyed long enough with the UN and its resolutions; now face the serious consequences…

[Shahed]

There is no moral or legal justification for this war .

[MongolWarrior]

Less than 24 hours http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif

[MonkeyMan]

Quote[/b] (Heraclius @ Mar. 18 2003,16:06)]by attacking Iraq I am afraid that the US is leading itself down a long and dangerous path. I don't know what the future holds but it could easily contain attacks on US soil by Muslim terrorists, a large economic recession, many long time US allies becoming disillusioned and disgusted with America etc, etc. I can't help but agree with Blair's minister who just resigned, when he said that if the hanging chads had gone the other way in Flordia and AL Gore had been elected President this war would not be happening.
Interesting outlook on world history there. I can just imagine kids 50 years in the future having an exam question on the glorified hole punch that changed the course of history.

[rasoforos]

Quote[/b] (Sigurd Fafnesbane @ Mar. 19 2003,07:14)]The Iraqi regime has toyed long enough with the UN and its resolutions; now face the serious consequences…
yeah...and on the other hand the U.S fully supports and respects U.N resolutions eh? that was a joke right? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif


As i told earlier both countries : dont respect U.S resolutions , dont accept the international court , have WMDs , used WMDs , have presidents not elected by the majority , have human rights violations , racial discrimination , attacked other countries without provocation and the list goes on. If you also consider that 90% of the planet considers the U.S as the biggest threat of the planet while iraq and N.korea share the rest then i believe it would be wiser to 'free' the u.s citizens first and then go 'free' the iraqi ones. Does any of my american friends want to be 'freed' ?

[Shahed]

Quote[/b] (Sigurd Fafnesbane @ Mar. 19 2003,13:14)]The Iraqi regime has toyed long enough with the UN and its resolutions; now face the serious consequences…
Yes we should attack them and kill them. How dare they toy with us

Pro war demonstrator from the North Cape.

--JOKE-- http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

[Sundance]

Well, I don't think, that George F****** Bush is the problem here as many of you stated. He's not evil, maybe he's arrogant (well, I'm shure about that http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif ), but most of all he's goddamn stupid. His advisors are a problem indeed. (So, with Gore as president things may have run a bit differently, but who knows...)

The other thing I wanted to say is that even if the iraqi troops are not armed with american weapons, they might have bought the russian stuff with american money. Consider that.

[wordsmith]

America supplied Iraq with roughly 2% of its post gulf war arms, russia supplied the vast majority with france coming in second. The kuwaties lent sudham the money he used to buy most of his arms and pay his army with, then when sudham relized he couldnt pay the money back and the kuwaties were not willing to cut him any breaks he decided it would be easier just to take them over. At the time of attacking kuwate sadham had strong ties with some powerfull american oil intrests and sadham basicly told america to stay out of the war and that he would be our man in the middle east. Yet instead of taking him up on the oil deals and supporting his dictatorship we reppelled him from kuwate and laid economic sanctions upon his nation.

people then, like now, said that america was only in it to steal iraqi oil. Yet sadham had offered us access to the oil and we refused, then once we had control of iraq and only needed to take the capital we pulled out and then put trade sanctions on the country that ment NO ONE got the oil. not america, not france, not russia.

When america went into iraq we put our selves in harms way, the only UN troops their were just making token appearances. The american soldiers won the war, and the american people paid for the war. Now we, the americans, are stuck with the job of compleating the resolution of disarming sadham. Yet while we are committed to have our troops there and have inspectors poke around the UN refuses to act while sadham shoots at our pilots and threatens our inspectors. Shooting at american pilots is an act of war, I dont care who is shooting, be it russia, china, or the brits... shooting at american planes is as good as a declaration of war. The UN does nothing to prevent sadham from arming himself with weapons of mass destruction, yet it is america that is enforcing the previous resolution and america/isreal will bare the brunt of any use of these weapons. The UN made us a target, I feel america is 100% justified in doing what ever it takes to protect itself at this point. In my opinion the VERY best option for every side is if america withdraws its unconditional support of isreal and withdraws its troops from every nation where we are not welcome. gorge washington was very wise to warn us to not get involved with forign entanglements, because now that we support isreal, now that we inforce economic sanctions, now we are a target, untill we are no longer a target we have to do what ever it takes to protect ourselves.

(sorry for the long post, its a long issue)

[Knight_Yellow]

Quote[/b] (rasoforos @ Mar. 18 2003,17:42)]
Quote[/b] (Knight_Yellow @ Mar. 18 2003,11:23)]huh?


well if im a puppet of bush ur a puppet of shirac or rather sadham.
who said u re a puppet of bush?


concerning the situation in the U.K . Well it gets pretty serious as in every other country where the P.M supports this war without the people agreeing on. People resign and people rebel against him. It is my personal oppinion that Mr Blair just buried his political future.


BTW a nice article ,
Paolo Coelho thanks George Bush for attacking Iraq (http://www.opendemocracy.net/debates/article-2-88-1033.jsp)
ok the puppet bit was a joke

(ahhh scottish humour is rarely noticed)


but rasoforus u seen the news today 50% of britian is behind war now and its expected that when we fight more people will support the war.

[Sundance]

Is there evidence that a single rocket was fired on american planes?
Don't believe propaganda
If it is a declaration of war (what it shurely is) then why all the talking and searching for arguments?
Why all that rubbish about preemptive defense?

[Siena]

I don't know if there are many people naive enough to trust good intentions of Bush and his government.
It is like that joke about killing a fly with a club and thus killing the person on which the fly landed.

just reposting links to Paulo Coelho's open letter to Bush:
http://www.opendemocracy.net/other_c....=satire (http://www.opendemocracy.net/other_content/article.jsp?id=1033&type=satire)

http://www.opendemocracy.net/other_c....=satire (http://www.opendemocracy.net/other_content/article.jsp?id=905&type=satire)

[Tim]

Quote[/b] (Siena @ Mar. 19 2003,16:27)]I don't know if there are many people naive enough to trust good intentions of Bush and his government.
It is like that joke about killing a fly with a club and thus killing the person on which the fly landed.

just reposting links to Paulo Coelho's open letter to Bush:
http://www.opendemocracy.net/other_c....=satire (http://www.opendemocracy.net/other_content/article.jsp?id=1033&type=satire)

http://www.opendemocracy.net/other_c....=satire (http://www.opendemocracy.net/other_content/article.jsp?id=905&type=satire)
Why waste your time with the link. This sort of anti/Bush/War drivel can be found in many other locations. Let's see you defend this over the next few days when the truth is revealed to all those who wanted to ignore it.

[Tim]

Quote[/b] (Wellington @ Mar. 19 2003,07:03)]
Quote[/b] (Tim @ Mar. 19 2003,01:04)]Because if we didn't support our share of these despots, then the Soviets would have had a monopoly on them and thus, control of most of the world.
I thought McCarthyism died in the 1950's ...

... apparently not.
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif

[Tim]

Quote[/b] (Sundance @ Mar. 19 2003,14:16)]Well, I don't think, that George F****** Bush is the problem here as many of you stated. He's not evil, maybe he's arrogant (well, I'm shure about that http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif ), but most of all he's goddamn stupid. His advisors are a problem indeed. (So, with Gore as president things may have run a bit differently, but who knows...)

The other thing I wanted to say is that even if the iraqi troops are not armed with american weapons, they might have bought the russian stuff with american money. Consider that.
Two things.

First, Gore did not win. Get over it. Bush is the President, has been for two years.

Secondly, Iraq did not purchase Soviet weapons with American money.

[Sundance]

Get over it Gore did win Or at least he would have won if the United States of America were a democracy, which they obviously aren't.

And now go on and fight the other 132 completely justified wars In the name of god

[KukriKhan]

Decent discussion so far, fellas. I will remind all to pause before clicking 'submit', breathe-in, breathe out, re-read your post, checking for civility & relevance, then go for it.

[Sundance]

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.

[Lord Of Storms]

Quote[/b] (SeljukSinan @ Mar. 19 2003,12:00)]
Quote[/b] (Sigurd Fafnesbane @ Mar. 19 2003,13:14)]The Iraqi regime has toyed long enough with the UN and its resolutions; now face the serious consequences…
Yes we should attack them and kill them. How dare they toy with us

Pro war demonstrator from the North Cape.


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 done

[Knight_Yellow]

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

[Siena]

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.

[Nowake]

WW3 is a not an option now ...

Btw, the americans failed in killing Sadam, no? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif Seems that CIA was not inspired, huh? ...

[Sigurd]

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 (http://www.un.org/Depts/unscom/Chronology/chronologyframe.htm)
UN Chronology 1999 - 2003 (http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/chronology/Chron.html)

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.

[Lord Of Storms]

Quote[/b] (Siena @ Mar. 20 2003,10:58)]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.
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...

[Siena]

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.

[Lord Of Storms]

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

[Siena]

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?

[kyodai-britishbeef]

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
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif

[Lord Of Storms]

Quote[/b] (Siena @ Mar. 20 2003,11:53)]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?
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?

[Jazzman]

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).

[rasoforos]

Quote[/b] (The Sword Of Storms @ Mar. 20 2003,13:26)]
Quote[/b] (Siena @ Mar. 20 2003,11:53)]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?
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?
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....

[Swordsman]

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. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif

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.
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mecry.gif

Now, if only there was someone I could SUE for emotional distress (the American Way, after all). http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

[Lord Of Storms]

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...

[rasoforos]

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. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif

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.
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mecry.gif

Now, if only there was someone I could SUE for emotional distress (the American Way, after all). http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif
okay oh wisest of all , i have two questions for you :
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)
Quote[/b] ] third-world psycho you have a very nice oppinion for the third-world although i believe you 'misunderastimate' them ....

Have a nice day http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif enjoy watching the bombs and take pride in it

[Siena]

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.

[Jazzman]

The rule of law only works if you enforce it. The U.S. is the only one willing to enforce on Iraq, your welcome.

[Obex]

Quote[/b] ]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?

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.

[SmokWawelski]

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

[Wellington]

Quote[/b] ]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% ?

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.


Quote[/b] ] 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


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%

[Sundance]

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?

[BDC]

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.

[Jazzman]

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.

[Sundance]

Zitat[/b] ]The basic problem with democracy in general is that most people are stupid.

You got it

Too sad, but true... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mecry.gif

[Wellington]

Quote[/b] (Jazzman @ Mar. 21 2003,11:33)]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.
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?

[Siena]

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...

[Jazzman]

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.

[SmokWawelski]

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…




http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif

[eddie0909]

I voted 100% this war needs to happen so that iraq free and not under the leadership of the A-hole hasadem thay have the right to be free evry one so America and its armed forces will prsut it untell the world is free.I have seen how thes peopol are liveing ITS NEEDS TO CHANGE IT WILL CHANGE OK. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

Ps im not tring to be an a-hole ok i get mad whene i talk about it. its just so sad how thay live http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[rasoforos]

EDDIE0909 after the americans free them will they allow them the great level of democracy they allow to their other allies? You know i am talking about Tyrkey ,pakistan , tajikistan etc... Cant you guys see that bush if filling the world with dictators? What makes you think that the Iraqis will prosper more under a quesling dictator put in position by the U.S?

some interesting reading material :



It is the decent way to know who you are about to kill (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=127&e=16&u=/ucru/the_moron_majority)



There is a world wide coallition , but it is AGAINST this war (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2872873.stm)

Veterans against war (http://www.vaiw.org/vet/index.php)

[Wellington]

Quote[/b] (eddie0909 @ Mar. 21 2003,21:40)]I voted 100% this war needs to happen so that iraq free and not under the leadership of the A-hole hasadem thay have the right to be free evry one so America and its armed forces will prsut it untell the world is free.I have seen how thes peopol are liveing ITS NEEDS TO CHANGE IT WILL CHANGE OK. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

Ps im not tring to be an a-hole ok i get mad whene i talk about it. its just so sad how thay live http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Hi eddie,

I can assure you there are a lot more people in countries a lot closer to home (think South&#33http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif that live a lot sadder http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

As for them being free or not. Well you have 22 million Iraqis who have a choice of 1 person for President http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif

Then again, you have 260 million Americans who have a choice of 2 people for President http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif

[eddie0909]

yes we will do that first we will give them freedom and then after we will let them pick there owe leader and have rights and freedoms like the U.S and its allis it will happen in my sons life time i hope.


Ps. bush is sort of a pin-head but he is my commander in chef so i have to follow hes learship http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[Wellington]

Quote[/b] (eddie0909 @ Mar. 21 2003,21:56)]Ps. bush is sort of a pin-head
I always knew we were on the same side http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[eddie0909]

did i say that ooooooopppppppppssssss http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/dizzy.gif

[LittleGrizzly]

Quote[/b] (Knight_Yellow @ Mar. 20 2003,10:30)]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
knight yellow please dont tell me you think that every single person under saddam hussien doesnt like him of course there are many that do i refer you to this link

http://www.totalwar.org/cgi-bin....;t=8358 (http://www.totalwar.org/cgi-bin/forum/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=6;t=8358)

[Knight_Yellow]

grizzly this is not the first time u have singled out many of my posts in an attempt to bait me.

no1 else on this thread fealt the need to flame that statement and some infact agreed.

i have already complained to the moderators about ur attitiude towards my posts and by continuing to try and flame them u are only painting urself into a fairly guilty corner.

so for both our sakes stop singiling out my posts out and just accept that sum1 does not happen to agree with u on some subjects.

yours respectfuly Knight_Yellow

Edit: spelling

[LittleGrizzly]

Quote[/b] (Knight_Yellow @ Mar. 21 2003,22:36)]grizzly this is not the first time u have singled out many of my posts in an attempt to bait me.

no1 else on this thread fealt the need to flame that statement and some infact agreed.

i have already complained to the moderators about ur attitiude towards my posts and by continuing to try and flame them u are only painting urself into a fairly guilty corner.

so for both our sakes stop singiling out my posts out and just accept that sum1 does not happen to agree with u on some subjects.

yours respectfuly Knight_Yellow

Edit: spelling
knight yellow i am not trying to bait you i pick out the post i most disagree with and seen as were pretty much sitting on almost opposite ends of the spectrum their usually yours now i have not broken any forum rules and i have not said anything inflamotory what so ever

and im sure the mods will agree that this post or any you have complained about are inflamatory

[Gregoshi]

LittleGrizzly, it is not a matter of being inflamatory to Knight_Yellow. It is a matter of harrassment. It appears he cannot post on anything without you chiming in and disagreeing. And this is a fine example of it. You had to go back 33 posts to dig up that quote of Knight's - 33. There was a lot of discussion inbetween, yet you felt it necessary to single out his post. Knight seems to have a point, doesn't he?

You both would do yourselves a favour by ignoring each other's posts. You can just assume that the other will disagree. It would also save the rest of us from listening to your little sniping wars. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif

[eddie0909]

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif you guys bicker so much its so funny cant we all just get along http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

[LittleGrizzly]

Quote[/b] (Gregoshi @ Mar. 21 2003,22:54)]LittleGrizzly, it is not a matter of being inflamatory to Knight_Yellow. It is a matter of harrassment. It appears he cannot post on anything without you chiming in and disagreeing. And this is a fine example of it. You had to go back 33 posts to dig up that quote of Knight's - 33. There was a lot of discussion inbetween, yet you felt it necessary to single out his post. Knight seems to have a point, doesn't he?

You both would do yourselves a favour by ignoring each other's posts. You can just assume that the other will disagree. It would also save the rest of us from listening to your little sniping wars. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif
gregoshi this was infact my first visit to the entrance hall and as soon as i saw this topic i jumped on it (having no idea knight yellow had posted in it) so as im readin thru i generally qoute what i disagree with and say why i disagree with it and there was another one i disagreed with the one about if we dont get rid of saddam world war 3 will start i actually never got round to doing that one

[Wellington]

Quote[/b] (eddie0909 @ Mar. 21 2003,23:02)]cant we all just get along
Mr Bush says no

[LittleGrizzly]

Quote[/b] (Wellington @ Mar. 21 2003,23:37)]
Quote[/b] (eddie0909 @ Mar. 21 2003,23:02)]cant we all just get along
Mr Bush says no
roflmao

[Gregoshi]

Quote[/b] (Wellington @ Mar. 21 2003,23:37)]
Quote[/b] (eddie0909 @ Mar. 21 2003,23:02)]cant we all just get along
Mr Bush says no
You need only to read these forums to realize Mr. Bush isn't the only one to say no. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif

LittleGrizzly, me thinks the issue is best handled off line. We won't bore the rest of the Org patrons with such matters. Expect an email. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/pat.gif

[LittleGrizzly]

Quote[/b] (Gregoshi @ Mar. 22 2003,00:06)]
Quote[/b] (Wellington @ Mar. 21 2003,23:37)]
Quote[/b] (eddie0909 @ Mar. 21 2003,23:02)]cant we all just get along
Mr Bush says no
You need only to read these forums to realize Mr. Bush isn't the only one to say no. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif

LittleGrizzly, me thinks the issue is best handled off line. We won't bore the rest of the Org patrons with such matters. Expect an email. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/pat.gif
ok sorry for this spilling over into entrance hall and tavern wont happen again (i hope)

[Gregoshi]

Maybe there is hope after all... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/pat.gif

[wordsmith]

Quote[/b] (Sundance @ Mar. 19 2003,16:05)]Is there evidence that a single rocket was fired on american planes?
Don't believe propaganda
If it is a declaration of war (what it shurely is) then why all the talking and searching for arguments?
Why all that rubbish about preemptive defense?
yes there is lots of evidence that Iraq has been shooting at our planes the whole time, these are not just isolated incidents. It has happened many times, many have been filmed by forign tv crews and witnessed by other un soldiers. No one denies that sadham shoots at the planes inforceing the no fly zone.

The reason we had to come up with a new excuse for war is b/c many of the real reasons are so old that they would not work on in the public arena. The original gulf war ended when sadham sued the UN for peace, pleading that we stop the massacre of his troops and in return he would cooperate fully with the UN and the UN inspectors. As soon as the US military was pulled out sadham started shooting at our planes, threating the inspectors, buying chemicals and weapons components not allowed by the treating and not telling the inspectors where they were. The treaty was broken but our soft headed president clinton never did any thing about it for his eight long years. Now that is all so old that the world wouldnt accept all this as reason to go to war.

On the other side you have this rubbish about preemptive defense. Sadham openly supports terrorists, he always has and he himself said he always will. He refused to allow the removal of the terrorist training camps located north west of bahgdad, he pays terrorists for successfully caring out attacks against isreal or america and he pays the families of suicide bombers. Now imagine yourself as a starving palestinian man, with no possible way to feed your family who are all certianly going to die of hunger and diesese, yet if you blow up yourself along with a large number of isrealis then your family will get enough money to feed themselves and pay for medicine for a long time. Imagine that, and then tell me that sadham doesnt represent a terrorrist threat.

(dont tell me its all propoganda, most of my information comes from international news sources and has been established by multiple sources. You might as well say sadham doesnt really exist and that its all a conspiracy)

[wordsmith]

Quote[/b] (SmokWawelski @ Mar. 21 2003,17:49)]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:

(1)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.

(2)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?

(3)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).

(4)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...

(5)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?

(6)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?

(7)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?

(8)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…

(9)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.

(10)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…

(11)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…




http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif
1)you mean the US was shamelessly trying to get what it was asking for? how horrible that a nation would try to get somthing it wants done through the UN. I have absolutly *never* heard of any other nation doing somthing so dispicable (sarcasm, thick)

2) No nation needs permission from the UN to do any thing, they can ask for support from the UN for various reasons but if they do not get support it in no way means the nation cannot choose to act alone. On the other side, if the UN decides that a nation is aggressivly waging a war, which is illegal by international law, then the UN has to pass a resolution saying that the war is aggressive and illegal, then the offending nation has a grace period in which to back down before action is taken against them. Basicly, the us wanted help, didnt get any help, so now they stand alone. No US official EVER said that they would back down if there was no support from the UN, the opposit actualy, they always said they wanted help but would fight with out ANY allies if they had to.

3)Your right, its all propoganda, there is pro war propoganda and there is anti war propoganda. Dont think that your opinion is based on more reliable sources then any one elses. The hidden agendas go bothways, there are many powers at be that would like to see bush burned for there own motives and they hype up the anti war movement similarly to how the bush administration is hypeing up the pro war movement. Although no weapons were ever found, that is not what the inspectors were supposed to be doing. The UN knew that it couldnt win a hide and go seek game with sadham, the inspectors were supposed to find out if sadham would cooperate. See if sadham would willingly show the inspectors what had been done with the chemicals and other illegal stockpiles, sadham never did and never will cooperate. The inspectors did there job, they found out that sadham was full of shit and had no intention of disarming, no weapons were found but they were never supposed to be found.

4)There is a big differance between preparing for war and going to war. I dont see how you can acuratly assume that war was inevitable the moment the build up started. Primarly because, like you said, it cannot happen over night. It was neccissary to be prepared for war even though there was a chance there wouldnt be one.

5)I cant seriously believe that you are suggesting we have a cookie cutter, one size fits all type of forign policy that says the US ether always attacks nations with these weapons or never attacks nations with these weapons. Ether policy would assuredly end in gloable destruction, the US cannot attack all those nations, yet i am shure it will have to attack some. I deplore the US's support of isreal, I consider isreal to be a regime based on terror and a bloody occupation. Yet im not going to argue that sadham should be allowed to continue his reign of terror just because other nations are allowed to. It would be nice if we could eliminate all the evil in the world, but if you demand all or nothing, you will get nothing.

6) were not talking about handguns and switchblades here, the weapons we are dealing with are capable of eliminating all human life from the earth. There must be some sort of regulation on these weapons, allowing any nation to have them is not an option and it is infinantly more dangerous to try and take away a nuke from a country that has it then to try and prevent a nation from getting one. Like most authority (police, teachers, governments) the US's authority is not based on always being right, The US's authority is based on being the only one capable (or apparently willing) to enforce such an authority *AND* the need of such an authority. EX: police would not exist if there was no need for them, police are often wrong, often jerks, yet you absolutly have to have them in a modern society.

7)lmao, now this i find funny. In the one place where it is *almost* impossible to argue the US is wrong you still manage to try. That boarder the turks want to protect is a boarder with the kurds, the turkish and the kurds HATE each other and turky is in screaming fits over the fact that the US wont allow turky to go in and occupy kurdistan. The kurds pose no threat to the turks mainly because any possible way for kurds to fight any one was ruthlessly eliminated by sadham hussain and the kurds. If you read some history on the subject you will see that the kurds have been royal screwed by every one they have ever come into contact with, two times by america, so if you have a problem with the US telling the turks to leave the kurds alone then I'd like to hear your moral reasoning on that.

8)Werent we just on the subject of propoganda? this is such a good example. Lets also think about the alternatives, the us could NOT install a government, leave the iraqis to suffer under consistant uprising of warlords and bandits. Maybe we should install a new government then, but how about an ANTI US one... that would be great huh? I wonder if sadham would take the job...

9)lmao, revolutionary war? civil war? didnt happen? to long ago? well any how, they did happen. The civil war claimed more american lives then all other wars we have fought combined. Largely b/c both fighting sides were americans. Any how, I do see your point but your refrence to american never experienceing a homeland war is just not true. I think it is wrong to assume that america is quick to go to war b/c of that, I think just the opposit myself. I think it might of been this thread where some one stated (correctly) Polls during ww2 showed that 1% of the US population supported american involvement, the number soared to an amazing 2% when asked if they would support involvment should france and brittan be taken by germany. sufficed to say, america is not particully keen to rushing to war, the government often times has sticky fingers but the people are mostly isolationists.

10)I might be mistaken, but I have a feeling that you dont know what war is ether. Or that you know what it is like to live under a terror regime like sadhams, I fail to see how our common ignorance would make your opinions superior to those who are equally as ignorant as yourself and I.

11) In your whole post i see countless refrances to how wrong every thing the US is doing is, war is wrong, Us diplomacy is wrong, wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong. Now, I hate to generalize, but like most anti war people i have had the pleasure of disscussing the issue with, I find you know exactly what is wrong with every thing the US is doing but have failed to ever include suggestions about a better way of doing things. Not war isnt enough, we have been Not waring with iraq since the peace treaty of the first gulf war and things have only become worse with each passing year. Diplomacy only works with leaders/nations that will keep there word when given to a diplomatic agreement. Sadham will agree to any thing, any demand, he just never follows through. Now, I ask you, you said what is wrong with the US and all it has done, so what is the right way?

Now im not trying to flame or put down any person(s) or opinions in this post. I understand that I have a natural moral disadvantage when trying to argue pro war because with no midigating curcimstances it is certian that war is a bad thing. So I researched my position and feel i have a resonable supply of facts and thought out concepts to support my positon. I dont feel im smarter then any one here so I'd like to keep any responses to my post of a debating nature. I do however feel i have reaserched the issue more thouroghly then most, and i thouroughly recommend that any one who wants to spend some serious library time reaserching the same thing. The UN meating minutes are *mostly* open to the public and that is a very good place to start.

[Wellington]

Quote[/b] (wordsmith @ Mar. 22 2003,15:15)]
Hi Wordsmith,

Whilst I would have liked to contemplate your considerable posts ...

... sometimes brevity is far more consistent with clarity http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif

[wordsmith]

Quote[/b] (Wellington @ Mar. 22 2003,18:56)]

Hi Wordsmith,

Whilst I would have liked to contemplate your considerable posts ...

... sometimes brevity is far more consistent with clarity http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif
im sorry i cant reduce my arguements to catchy slogans or a funny picture. As long as my post is I can garuntee you it doesnt even begin to scratch the surface of the complexity of the issues involving the US war against Iraq.

If it helps, this is the jist of my argument-
BOMB SADHAM, ATTACK IRAQ, BOMB SADHAM, ATTACK IRAQ

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif @ yourself there buddy, no offense but you might want to find a simpler topic if you prefer shorter conversations.

[Exile]

Wordsmith - perhaps he didn't read you name? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

Seriously, yours was an excellent post. Your well thought out opinions might threaten some in the propaganda crowd - leaving them only spam as a counter. Take that as a compliment.

Wellington - I think you should apologize.

[Wellington]

Quote[/b] (Exile @ Mar. 22 2003,22:44)]

Quote[/b] ]Wordsmith - perhaps he didn't read you name? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif


That was the WHOLE point

Long posts from a wordsmith - jeez do I have to signpost dry humour. DOnt yo know what this - http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif - means



Quote[/b] ]Wellington - I think you should apologize.

If wordsmith, or anyone else, was offended - I sincerely apologize.


No more dry humour http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif

I'll keep it simple, and obvious, from now on

[redrooster]

Quote[/b] (Wellington @ Mar. 23 2003,17:25)]


Quote[/b] ]Wordsmith - perhaps he didn't read you name? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif


That was the WHOLE point

Long posts from a wordsmith - jeez do I have to signpost dry humour. DOnt yo know what this - http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif - means



Quote[/b] ]Wellington - I think you should apologize.

If wordsmith, or anyone else, was offended - I sincerely apologize.


No more dry humour http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif

I'll keep it simple, and obvious, from now on
haha.....i was wondering whether you were playing around with his name. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

[Exile]

Fair enough. To me http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif usually indicates sarcasm or exasperation. However, I apologize if I truly misunderstood the intent.

Do not misunderestimate the power of emoticons. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[ichi]

'justified' is a highly subjective, personal opinion.

'upon us' is the reality.

I just hope that this war does not spread, and is over quickly.

Maybe history will decide if it was justified.

ichi

[rasoforos]

Reading material of the day , by Rasoforos

It used to be humour , now i am not so sure it still is (http://www.startpoint.gr/fullarticle.asp?article=assholes)



This is humour though (http://www.markfiore.com/animation/bluster.html)


(Picture of graphic nature , dont watch if you are under 18 or do not want to see blood , thanks to Jayrock for reminding me of this , i apologise for forgeting)
Iraqi civilian 'liberated' (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/030323/168/3lifw.html&e=6)

[Heraclius]

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif where do you find that stuff? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

The third picture was a shame though. In the New York Times there was a picture of a little girl drenched in her own blood with here family lying wounded or dead around her.

[wordsmith]

lmao i loved the busterizer

lool, good shit. Any way, if im only being faulted for posting a LONG message then I will take that as a complament. Although Id be more intrested in hearing comments about what i said, instead of how much i said.

[rasoforos]

yep i really liked the blusteriser the first time i saw it. Especially the World-America one http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[jayrock]

Quote[/b] (rasoforos @ Mar. 23 2003,10:50)]Reading material of the day , by Rasoforos

It used to be humour , now i am not so sure it still is (http://www.startpoint.gr/fullarticle.asp?article=assholes)



This is humour though (http://www.markfiore.com/animation/bluster.html)



Iraqi civilian 'liberated' (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/030323/168/3lifw.html&e=6)
hey raso, you should put a warning on that last thread, their are yougsters who peruse these forums m8.

[Wellington]

Quote[/b] (wordsmith @ Mar. 23 2003,14:12)]Any way, if im only being faulted for posting a LONG message then I will take that as a complament. Although Id be more intrested in hearing comments about what i said, instead of how much i said.
Ok, let's have a stab at it



1)you mean the US was shamelessly trying to get what it was asking for? how horrible that a nation would try to get somthing it wants done through the UN. I have absolutly *never* heard of any other nation doing somthing so dispicable (sarcasm, thick)

The point is that the USA was trying to get a clear mandate/authority for military actions that the US knew it was going to embark on. Many UN nations saw through this. When the US realised it could never persuade such nations, along with the majority of world public opinion, to clearly authorise a US war the US then refused to play with the UN.

BTW - you should'nt need to signpost humour (sarcasm, thick) ... unless your aiming it at the lowest common denominator.

2) No nation needs permission from the UN to do any thing, they can ask for support from the UN for various reasons but if they do not get support it in no way means the nation cannot choose to act alone. On the other side, if the UN decides that a nation is aggressivly waging a war, which is illegal by international law, then the UN has to pass a resolution saying that the war is aggressive and illegal, then the offending nation has a grace period in which to back down before action is taken against them.

Wrong - the UN cannot pass a resolution saying that the war is aggressive and illegal, if the warmaker IS a member of the Security Council. Why? Because that member will veto it This is exactly the same reason why the US/UK withdraw the last proposed resolution - because they knew that France/Russia would veto it

This also EXACTLY the same reason why resolutions criticising/disapproving of Israeli actions also never get passed. The USA always vetos such resolutions.

Basicly, the us wanted help, didnt get any help, so now they stand alone. No US official EVER said that they would back down if there was no support from the UN, the opposit actualy, they always said they wanted help but would fight with out ANY allies if they had to.

Wrong - the US did not want help. They wanted the UN to justify/authorise a pretext for the USA to commit war on Iraq.

3)Your right, its all propoganda, there is pro war propoganda and there is anti war propoganda. Dont think that your opinion is based on more reliable sources then any one elses. The hidden agendas go bothways, there are many powers at be that would like to see bush burned for there own motives and they hype up the anti war movement similarly to how the bush administration is hypeing up the pro war movement. Although no weapons were ever found, that is not what the inspectors were supposed to be doing. The UN knew that it couldnt win a hide and go seek game with sadham, the inspectors were supposed to find out if sadham would cooperate. See if sadham would willingly show the inspectors what had been done with the chemicals and other illegal stockpiles, sadham never did and never will cooperate. The inspectors did there job, they found out that sadham was full of shit and had no intention of disarming, no weapons were found but they were never supposed to be found.

I agree with most of this. My only observation is that no WMD have ever been found and, of course, we all know it's impossible to find something that does'nt exist.

(Not that I'm saying Saddam has no WMD - we just dont know. Dont forget, the phrase WMD has onbly been bounded around in the wake of 9/11 by Bush - not Saddam)

4)There is a big differance between preparing for war and going to war. I dont see how you can acuratly assume that war was inevitable the moment the build up started. Primarly because, like you said, it cannot happen over night. It was neccissary to be prepared for war even though there was a chance there wouldnt be one.

The difference is far less than you would suggest. Consider this -

General Tommy Franks stated yesterday in his 1st press briefing that the USA has been planning the operation for 12 months (personally, I think this was a slip-up). Franks has been CiC for US Central command for 2 years. We all know that the staff of all US commands constantly plan for various scenarious in their respective theatres, and many plans exist (and are constantly tested via wargames) for the most improbable of scenarios. This the very role of such staffs in peacetime.

After the Gulf War of 1991 a variety of plans must have existed and been constantly enhanced by US Central Command for various hypothetical scenarios in the Middle-East.

What Franks told us yesterday was that SPECIFIC PLANNING FOR THE CURRENT INVASION OF IRAQ STARTED 12 MONTHS AGO

Now considering many different plans already existed - why start a new one 12 months ago - 6 months after 9/11?

This is NOT conspiracy theory bullshit. These are the facts as Franks confirmed yesterday (and I'm quite sure Rumsfeld had a few words in his ear after such a slip of the tongue).

If you wish to know exactly when specific US units started moving to the middle-east area, I'll provide you a list together with the sources.

The USA started preparing for war 12 months ago - and were ALWAYS determined that they would go to war when the necessary assets had been positioned and the plan developed.


5)I cant seriously believe that you are suggesting we have a cookie cutter, one size fits all type of forign policy that says the US ether always attacks nations with these weapons or never attacks nations with these weapons. Ether policy would assuredly end in gloable destruction, the US cannot attack all those nations, yet i am shure it will have to attack some. I deplore the US's support of isreal, I consider isreal to be a regime based on terror and a bloody occupation. Yet im not going to argue that sadham should be allowed to continue his reign of terror just because other nations are allowed to. It would be nice if we could eliminate all the evil in the world, but if you demand all or nothing, you will get nothing.

Good and fair points - with which I totally agree. Nice to hear an American dissaproves of the current Israeli policies - sad to hear the American Government has just endorsed 11 Billion in economic and military aid to Israel.

6) were not talking about handguns and switchblades here, the weapons we are dealing with are capable of eliminating all human life from the earth. There must be some sort of regulation on these weapons, allowing any nation to have them is not an option and it is infinantly more dangerous to try and take away a nuke from a country that has it then to try and prevent a nation from getting one. Like most authority (police, teachers, governments) the US's authority is not based on always being right, The US's authority is based on being the only one capable (or apparently willing) to enforce such an authority *AND* the need of such an authority. EX: police would not exist if there was no need for them, police are often wrong, often jerks, yet you absolutly have to have them in a modern society.

This argument is based entirely on an assumption that Iraq does indeed possess WMD. The US administration has failed totally to provide any evidence in support of this assumption. Considering the intelligence apparatus the US has at it's disposal I, and many others, find this suspicious. Considering Bush specifially suggested to the American people, in his pre-war speech, that such hypothetical WMDs would be used by Iraq in order to create another 9/11, convinces me further the US is playing to the fears/anxieties/worries of the American people in justifying this war - rather than basing the justification on factual issues.

I think the original posters comments are quite valid in this respect. What DOES give the US the authority to determine which countries may possess which weapons, and start a war if any country MAY possess weapons that the US disapproves of. The UN certainly does'nt. Pax Americana?

7)lmao, now this i find funny. In the one place where it is *almost* impossible to argue the US is wrong you still manage to try. That boarder the turks want to protect is a boarder with the kurds, the turkish and the kurds HATE each other and turky is in screaming fits over the fact that the US wont allow turky to go in and occupy kurdistan. The kurds pose no threat to the turks mainly because any possible way for kurds to fight any one was ruthlessly eliminated by sadham hussain and the kurds. If you read some history on the subject you will see that the kurds have been royal screwed by every one they have ever come into contact with, two times by america, so if you have a problem with the US telling the turks to leave the kurds alone then I'd like to hear your moral reasoning on that.

I agree with this completely. I also find the Kurds have been royally screwed throughout history - but would far rather have them as allies than the Turks.

8)Werent we just on the subject of propoganda? this is such a good example. Lets also think about the alternatives, the us could NOT install a government, leave the iraqis to suffer under consistant uprising of warlords and bandits. Maybe we should install a new government then, but how about an ANTI US one... that would be great huh? I wonder if sadham would take the job...

I've never been convinced by the Oil theory. However, Bush's speech whereby he specifically stated one of the US's principal war aims was the seizure of Iraqi Oil fields did ... er ... cause me to rethink http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif

It was also, IMHO, one of the more stupid and ill-considered sentences that have eminated from his ill-conceived statements.

9)lmao, revolutionary war? civil war? didnt happen? to long ago? well any how, they did happen. The civil war claimed more american lives then all other wars we have fought combined. Largely b/c both fighting sides were americans. Any how, I do see your point but your refrence to american never experienceing a homeland war is just not true. I think it is wrong to assume that america is quick to go to war b/c of that, I think just the opposit myself. I think it might of been this thread where some one stated (correctly) Polls during ww2 showed that 1% of the US population supported american involvement, the number soared to an amazing 2% when asked if they would support involvment should france and brittan be taken by germany. sufficed to say, america is not particully keen to rushing to war, the government often times has sticky fingers but the people are mostly isolationists.

Good point. However, I think the original poster was more refering to the concept of Total War as propogated in the 20C - rather than any 18C/19C wars. No one can deny the wars of the last century have been far more destructive in nature.

10)I might be mistaken, but I have a feeling that you dont know what war is ether. Or that you know what it is like to live under a terror regime like sadhams, I fail to see how our common ignorance would make your opinions superior to those who are equally as ignorant as yourself and I.

Both yourself and the original poster have raised valid points.

11) In your whole post i see countless refrances to how wrong every thing the US is doing is, war is wrong, Us diplomacy is wrong, wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong. Now, I hate to generalize, but like most anti war people i have had the pleasure of disscussing the issue with, I find you know exactly what is wrong with every thing the US is doing but have failed to ever include suggestions about a better way of doing things. Not war isnt enough, we have been Not waring with iraq since the peace treaty of the first gulf war and things have only become worse with each passing year. Diplomacy only works with leaders/nations that will keep there word when given to a diplomatic agreement. Sadham will agree to any thing, any demand, he just never follows through. Now, I ask you, you said what is wrong with the US and all it has done, so what is the right way?

Your argument does'nt address the points raised by the 1st poster. He's talking about the right of the US to change another countries/nations government (irrespective of how obnoxious it may appear to be to any US Administration) and culture by the application of Military Force - you're talking about the failure of US diplomacy in respect of Iraq.

Now im not trying to flame or put down any person(s) or opinions in this post. I understand that I have a natural moral disadvantage when trying to argue pro war because with no midigating curcimstances it is certian that war is a bad thing. So I researched my position and feel i have a resonable supply of facts and thought out concepts to support my positon. I dont feel im smarter then any one here so I'd like to keep any responses to my post of a debating nature. I do however feel i have reaserched the issue more thouroghly then most, and i thouroughly recommend that any one who wants to spend some serious library time reaserching the same thing. The UN meating minutes are *mostly* open to the public and that is a very good place to start.


Some of your points are quite valid. Others, IMHO, are not http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[Fate Amenable to Change]

Sad to see America denouncing Iraq treatment of Amercian POW (ie showing them on Iraq National TV is 'humiliating them&#39http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif as violating the Geneva Convention.

Tell that to the unfortunates taken from Afghanistan now languishing in US concentration camps (the lucky ones) or likely being tortured in 3rd party countries (most of the them). I suppose SOME of them were terrorists

Once America dispenses with the international 'rule of law' (UN) and 'Geneva Convention' (by never declaring war) how can we demand any more from a tinpot dictator?

Imagine if Iraq swiped American advisors out of Saudi, kept them without trial or representation or any human rights, handed them over to 'unspecified' third parties for 'interrogation'? America does humanity a disservice by dismantling conventions that took decades to negotiate.

I'm ashamed my country supported breaking these conventions, and outraged by the propaganda we get fed.

[LittleGrizzly]

Quote[/b] (Wellington @ Mar. 23 2003,18:38)] 6) were not talking about handguns and switchblades here, the weapons we are dealing with are capable of eliminating all human life from the earth. There must be some sort of regulation on these weapons, allowing any nation to have them is not an option and it is infinantly more dangerous to try and take away a nuke from a country that has it then to try and prevent a nation from getting one. Like most authority (police, teachers, governments) the US's authority is not based on always being right, The US's authority is based on being the only one capable (or apparently willing) to enforce such an authority *AND* the need of such an authority. EX: police would not exist if there was no need for them, police are often wrong, often jerks, yet you absolutly have to have them in a modern society.


7)lmao, now this i find funny. In the one place where it is *almost* impossible to argue the US is wrong you still manage to try. That boarder the turks want to protect is a boarder with the kurds, the turkish and the kurds HATE each other and turky is in screaming fits over the fact that the US wont allow turky to go in and occupy kurdistan. The kurds pose no threat to the turks mainly because any possible way for kurds to fight any one was ruthlessly eliminated by sadham hussain and the kurds. If you read some history on the subject you will see that the kurds have been royal screwed by every one they have ever come into contact with, two times by america, so if you have a problem with the US telling the turks to leave the kurds alone then I'd like to hear your moral reasoning on that.

I agree with this completely. I also find the Kurds have been royally screwed throughout history - but would far rather have them as allies than the Turks.

8)Werent we just on the subject of propoganda? this is such a good example. Lets also think about the alternatives, the us could NOT install a government, leave the iraqis to suffer under consistant uprising of warlords and bandits. Maybe we should install a new government then, but how about an ANTI US one... that would be great huh? I wonder if sadham would take the job...

I've never been convinced by the Oil theory. However, Bush's speech whereby he specifically stated one of the US's principal war aims was the seizure of Iraqi Oil fields did ... er ... cause me to rethink http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif

It was also, IMHO, one of the more stupid and ill-considered sentences that have eminated from his ill-conceived statements.

9)lmao, revolutionary war? civil war? didnt happen? to long ago? well any how, they did happen. The civil war claimed more american lives then all other wars we have fought combined. Largely b/c both fighting sides were americans. Any how, I do see your point but your refrence to american never experienceing a homeland war is just not true. I think it is wrong to assume that america is quick to go to war b/c of that, I think just the opposit myself. I think it might of been this thread where some one stated (correctly) Polls during ww2 showed that 1% of the US population supported american involvement, the number soared to an amazing 2% when asked if they would support involvment should france and brittan be taken by germany. sufficed to say, america is not particully keen to rushing to war, the government often times has sticky fingers but the people are mostly isolationists.

Good point. However, I think the original poster was more refering to the concept of Total War as propogated in the 20C - rather than any 18C/19C wars. No one can deny the wars of the last century have been far more destructive in nature.

10)I might be mistaken, but I have a feeling that you dont know what war is ether. Or that you know what it is like to live under a terror regime like sadhams, I fail to see how our common ignorance would make your opinions superior to those who are equally as ignorant as yourself and I.

Both yourself and the original poster have raised valid points.

11) In your whole post i see countless refrances to how wrong every thing the US is doing is, war is wrong, Us diplomacy is wrong, wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong. Now, I hate to generalize, but like most anti war people i have had the pleasure of disscussing the issue with, I find you know exactly what is wrong with every thing the US is doing but have failed to ever include suggestions about a better way of doing things. Not war isnt enough, we have been Not waring with iraq since the peace treaty of the first gulf war and things have only become worse with each passing year. Diplomacy only works with leaders/nations that will keep there word when given to a diplomatic agreement. Sadham will agree to any thing, any demand, he just never follows through. Now, I ask you, you said what is wrong with the US and all it has done, so what is the right way?

Your argument does'nt address the points raised by the 1st poster. He's talking about the right of the US to change another countries/nations government (irrespective of how obnoxious it may appear to be to any US Administration) and culture by the application of Military Force - you're talking about the failure of US diplomacy in respect of Iraq.

Now im not trying to flame or put down any person(s) or opinions in this post. I understand that I have a natural moral disadvantage when trying to argue pro war because with no midigating curcimstances it is certian that war is a bad thing. So I researched my position and feel i have a resonable supply of facts and thought out concepts to support my positon. I dont feel im smarter then any one here so I'd like to keep any responses to my post of a debating nature. I do however feel i have reaserched the issue more thouroghly then most, and i thouroughly recommend that any one who wants to spend some serious library time reaserching the same thing. The UN meating minutes are *mostly* open to the public and that is a very good place to start.


Some of your points are quite valid. Others, IMHO, are not http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
6) were not talking about handguns and switchblades here, the weapons we are dealing with are capable of eliminating all human life from the earth. There must be some sort of regulation on these weapons, allowing any nation to have them is not an option and it is infinantly more dangerous to try and take away a nuke from a country that has it then to try and prevent a nation from getting one. Like most authority (police, teachers, governments) the US's authority is not based on always being right, The US's authority is based on being the only one capable (or apparently willing) to enforce such an authority *AND* the need of such an authority. EX: police would not exist if there was no need for them, police are often wrong, often jerks, yet you absolutly have to have them in a modern society.

ok i have to add to what wellington said and also state there are few countries that can wipe out all life on earth id say america ... maybe russia and longshot china france and uk. even if saddam stayed in power with the pressure and watchful eye kept on him he nor his succsessors would be able to build up that much of an arsenal (missle or chemcial) never




7)lmao, now this i find funny. In the one place where it is *almost* impossible to argue the US is wrong you still manage to try. That boarder the turks want to protect is a boarder with the kurds, the turkish and the kurds HATE each other and turky is in screaming fits over the fact that the US wont allow turky to go in and occupy kurdistan. The kurds pose no threat to the turks mainly because any possible way for kurds to fight any one was ruthlessly eliminated by sadham hussain and the kurds. If you read some history on the subject you will see that the kurds have been royal screwed by every one they have ever come into contact with, two times by america, so if you have a problem with the US telling the turks to leave the kurds alone then I'd like to hear your moral reasoning on that.

i have to agree with your view turkey going into kurish territory can only be bad

[LittleGrizzly]

Quote[/b] (Fate Amenable to Change @ Mar. 23 2003,20:11)]Sad to see America denouncing Iraq treatment of Amercian POW (ie showing them on Iraq National TV is 'humiliating them&#39http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif as violating the Geneva Convention.

Tell that to the unfortunates taken from Afghanistan now languishing in US concentration camps (the lucky ones) or likely being tortured in 3rd party countries (most of the them). I suppose SOME of them were terrorists

Once America dispenses with the international 'rule of law' (UN) and 'Geneva Convention' (by never declaring war) how can we demand any more from a tinpot dictator?

Imagine if Iraq swiped American advisors out of Saudi, kept them without trial or representation or any human rights, handed them over to 'unspecified' third parties for 'interrogation'? America does humanity a disservice by dismantling conventions that took decades to negotiate.

I'm ashamed my country supported breaking these conventions, and outraged by the propaganda we get fed.
id also like to add how dare america use the un to its advantage but not follow it

how can the americans complain bout human rights violations (according to geneva convention) and not follow them themselves complete hypocrits

[rasoforos]

For our main subject: Well the doublespeak is obvious , noone disputes that. The U.N and Geneva are good only when they a)protect us b)do as we say. When they are against us they are bad and we do not believe in them :/

For those who still do not think that war is madness :


NOT FOR UNDER 18 , DEAD PEOPLE AND BLOOD :


Dead Iraqi soldiers , notice the white flag (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/030323/241/3lf94.html&e=12)

( Was it a case of iraqis pretending to surrender to ambush the U.S soldiers or it is a case of surrendering troops being shot and killed? you choose)



Young girl liberated by 'precise' 'surgical' strikes (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/030323/168/3lley.html&e=12) ...For me this picture is enough proof that war is NEVER the solution. If this does not make you a pacifist then nothing will http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif ...

[LittleGrizzly]

Quote[/b] (rasoforos @ Mar. 23 2003,21:07)]For our main subject: Well the doublespeak is obvious , noone disputes that. The U.N and Geneva are good only when they a)protect us b)do as we say. When they are against us they are bad and we do not believe in them :/

For those who still do not think that war is madness :


NOT FOR UNDER 18 , DEAD PEOPLE AND BLOOD :


Dead Iraqi soldiers , notice the white flag (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/030323/241/3lf94.html&e=12)

( Was it a case of iraqis pretending to surrender to ambush the U.S soldiers or it is a case of surrendering troops being shot and killed? you choose)



Young girl liberated by 'precise' 'surgical' strikes (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/030323/168/3lley.html&e=12) ...For me this picture is enough proof that war is NEVER the solution. If this does not make you a pacifist then nothing will http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif ...
if bush can truely do this for his popularity and his economic intrests than i am really starting to doubt wether he is or is not evil

[Baron von Beer]

I'm not taking a side here... merely offering what was shown on every major news network I turned on tonight. A Chemical Weapons factory was taken near the town of Nafja (believe that was the name) in Iraq. Maybee it was planted there by the US, maybee it is run by the Bedouins, I'm in no place to say,and anything is possible. In the event it was infact Iraqi, (There was allegedly an Iraqi General in command of the installation, so I imagine either Iraq has a lot of Generals to give commands to, or it is of some importance) than it is one more example of Iraqi leadership's deception. (Maybee they just forgot to include it in the dozen or so declerations of such facilities since the end of hostilities in 1991... I know I sometimes forget where my wallet is, so why not a top secret chemical weapons lab?) And yes, these being the declerations given to the UN, so that their inspectors could take inventory of such things, and dispose of them... this going into effect after 1991, and lasting a dozen years. Now, whether or not this sort of thing justifies the war, is another matter...

[Gaius Julius]

How justified is Saddam ,and his gang of thugs, carrying out the brutal oppression of the Iraqi people?
Gassing the Kurds, gassing the Iranians, torture, murder, etc.
All these examples are well documented.
Now, ask yourself if the war against Saddam is justified.

[LittleGrizzly]

Quote[/b] (Gaius Julius @ Mar. 23 2003,22:47)]How justified is Saddam ,and his gang of thugs, carrying out the brutal oppression of the Iraqi people?
Gassing the Kurds, gassing the Iranians, torture, murder, etc.
All these examples are well documented.
Now, ask yourself if the war against Saddam is justified.
how justified is america in disobeying the un and the geneva convention and attacking a country for the very same reason

how justified is america to decide who rules what country

how justified is america to attack a country just incase that country attacks it

now ask youself do you want innocent blood spilled in your name ?

[Knight_Yellow]

well with the discovery of two yes TWO chemical sites that wherent anounced and are camoflaged and guarded and mined and barbed wired im thinking the US is as justified as it can get

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[Baron von Beer]

You are mistaken Yellow Knight... As per the more than a dozen Complete and Final Declerations of Weapons and Production Facilities (these having additions each time, and only then, after said items discovery) and the statements by all levels of Iraqi leadership both durring the most recent inspections, and even now, Iraq does not posses chemical weapons, nor the means of production.

As a side note... Russia was found to have been in direct breach of the UN conditions passed in and after '91 with their Sales/supply of high tech military hardware to Iraq.

[Sundance]

In my opinion the problem is that US and Britain resort to lynch law.

The question is not if iraq has WMD's or at least facillities to build them, nor if they treat their own people bad (That was never a reason, maybe when vietnam invaded kambodscha).

The point is that's exactly what the UN has to decide. And if there is no decision for war there should be no war.
What about doing away with that 'veto-right' for all the oh so great nations?

Civilised men do not act like US and Britain do at the moment. This is very very important.

[Puzz3D]

Now Bush is demanding that all countries worldwide sieze Iraq government financial assets and wire them to the US Federal Reserve bank. Any country that doesn't comply will suffer financial consequences. He said that the reason for this demand is that it's in the best interest of the United States.

[LittleGrizzly]

Quote[/b] (Puzz3D @ Mar. 24 2003,09:20)]Now Bush is demanding that all countries worldwide sieze Iraq government financial assets and wire them to the US Federal Reserve bank. Any country that doesn't comply will suffer financial consequences. He said that the reason for this demand is that it's in the best interest of the United States.
rofl i guess the money is in danger and needs to be put under americas protection .... lol

[KukriKhan]

LoL...we don't want any innocent Dinars getting gassed http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

I think the 'official' explanation is something like: convert Dinars to your own currency & send the funds here for safekeeping (yeah, right; Iran's funds are still sitting here from '79), since the Dinar will be worthless if Iraq loses the war.

Note to all: This is an emotional time for everyone. Remember to resist the urge to get too wound up, and that there are fellow humans on the other end of our postings, who have feelings too, and deserve our respect. Thanks.

[Gaius Julius]

Quote[/b] (LittleGrizzly @ Mar. 23 2003,23:42)]
Quote[/b] (Gaius Julius @ Mar. 23 2003,22:47)]How justified is Saddam ,and his gang of thugs, carrying out the brutal oppression of the Iraqi people?
Gassing the Kurds, gassing the Iranians, torture, murder, etc.
All these examples are well documented.
Now, ask yourself if the war against Saddam is justified.
how justified is america in disobeying the un and the geneva convention and attacking a country for the very same reason

how justified is america to decide who rules what country

how justified is america to attack a country just incase that country attacks it

now ask youself do you want innocent blood spilled in your name ?
I believe you're missing the point.
The war isn't against Iraq, or the Iraqi people.
The war is against Saddam, and his murderous thugs.
Removing him, and his regime will benefit Iraq, and the rest of the world.

Btw, if you're referring to this so-called innocent blood as Saddam, and his thugs; then I'll assure you, I'll sleep very well at night.

[Wellington]

Quote[/b] (KukriKhan @ Mar. 24 2003,09:58)]... and that there are fellow humans on the other end of our postings, who have feelings too ...
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif

surely that should read -

... and that there may be fellow humans on the other end of our postings, who may have feelings too ...

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[KukriKhan]

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif Quite right...I cannot conclusively prove the I exist, much less you (or you, or you, or you).

This could be all simply a pigment of my imagination. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[Wellington]

Quote[/b] (KukriKhan @ Mar. 24 2003,11:36)]http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif Quite right...I cannot conclusively prove the I exist, much less you (or you, or you, or you).

This could be all simply a pigment of my imagination. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
Personally speaking, I don't exist. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif

I know this because my ex-wife always used to tell me so http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif

[Siena]

Quote[/b] (Jazzman @ Mar. 21 2003,13:14)]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.
almost every country harms some of its own people at some point.
I would not advocate watch someone beat someone else to death when you have the power to prevent it.
If the violence is going on - and you feel that it is unjust - go ahead and interfare.
(the general principal I would think the wisest: do unto others as you would want them to do unto you - paraphrasing it)
In my case it would be to stop violence if I have the power, but refrain from starting beating the attacker to death.

Also, in this case (Iraq war) - who is beating who to death?

[Wellington]

Quote[/b] (Siena @ Mar. 24 2003,12:51)]Also, in this case (Iraq war) - who is beating who to death?
Debatable at present. It all depends on whether your refering to casualties or public opinion.

[rasoforos]

Quote[/b] (Wellington @ Mar. 24 2003,12:32)]
Quote[/b] (KukriKhan @ Mar. 24 2003,11:36)]http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif Quite right...I cannot conclusively prove the I exist, much less you (or you, or you, or you).

This could be all simply a pigment of my imagination. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
Personally speaking, I don't exist. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif

I know this because my ex-wife always used to tell me so http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif
Ahhh women http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
I needed the laugh though , thanks for adding some humour to this topic http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif


Some reading material :

Remember the iraqi children (http://members.aol.com/hamzaha/iraqichildren/)



We support the coallition , lets hope our people never know though.... (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=574&e=5&u=/nm/20030324/wl_nm/iraq_poland_dc_2)

Amnesty international expresses fears for the Civilians in Iraq (http://web.amnesty.org/ai.nsf/Index/MDE140392003?OpenDocument&of=COUNTRIES\IRAQ)

Plea to Iraq to respect the POWs by Amnesty International (http://web.amnesty.org/ai.nsf/Index/MDE140372003?OpenDocument&of=COUNTRIES\IRAQ)

[LordMonarch]

Quote[/b] ]
Its really not that big of a deal if the US goes to war without the UN, as most wars are fought without approval of the security council. IMO the intervention in Kosovo and Yugoslavia was a just war, carried out to protect civilians from genocide. They were carried out without UN approval, because some nations would rather sit on the fence and do nothing. UN approval is not a determining factor on whether or not a war is a just.

Russia threatened to veto any proposal at that time. A country going to war is always a big deal and the protestation at the US/UK not getting a resolution is that the UN Secruity Council no longer has competing superpowers who veto each others motions. The world was looking forward to a new kind of multi-lateralism. Now the US is behaving like any power that bestrides the world like a collosus. It will have its aims implemented, regardless of any others oponions.

[rasoforos]

Those eyes would break the heart of any soldier.... (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/030324/168/3ly12.html&e=18) ....but missiles have no heart.

...Another child 'liberated' by a surgical strike...the total dead are about 150-200 , the injured may approach 1000 but noone knows... war is madness... was is NEVER the solution...there is still time to give peace a chance. I prefer to dream than to participate in the terrible reality the strong decided i should live.

[LittleGrizzly]

Quote[/b] (rasoforos @ Mar. 24 2003,17:15)]Those eyes would break the heart of any soldier.... (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/030324/168/3ly12.html&e=18) ....but missiles have no heart.

...Another child 'liberated' by a surgical strike...the total dead are about 150-200 , the injured may approach 1000 but noone knows... war is madness... was is NEVER the solution...there is still time to give peace a chance. I prefer to dream than to participate in the terrible reality the strong decided i should live.
you just got to wonder how long will bush continue this madness ?

[Obex]

Quote[/b] ]In my opinion the problem is that US and Britain resort to lynch law.

This is a problem. I dont like that these countries have been forced to resort to vigilantism.


Quote[/b] ]The question is not if iraq has WMD's or at least facillities to build them, nor if they treat their own people bad

(bad meaning rape, murder, torture, attempted genocide, chemical/biological weapon use)


Quote[/b] ]And if there is no decision for war there should be no war.... Civilised men do not act like US and Britain do at the moment. This is very very important.

In my opinion, US and Britain are at fault for vigilantism, but the greater crime is to allow this regime to persist. Civilised men do not sit still while Saddam is allowed to thrive.

Will innocents be killed in the conflict? Yes, and this is horrible and regretable. Of this there is no question. We just believe that the world will be a better place without Saddam. Iraq will be a better place.

What we obtain to cheap, we esteem to lightly...it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated. --Thomas Paine

[Goatus Maximus]

Just a couple of thoughts:

The UN has a long way to go to be considered a viable multi-national organization with regards to security of the world. Iraq has violated the spirit of multiple resolutions passed by the UN to disarm in the wake of the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq. The international community viewed Iraq as a security threat and ordered it to disarm. Iraq refused. The UN passed sanctions on Iraq that served only to make Iraqi innocents suffer, but did nothing to facilitate changes in Iraq's regime that would support integration back into the international community. Until a better mechanism is in place for the UN to enforce its own resolutions, it will be nothing but a nice meeting place for foreign leaders.

So why does the UN not work? Nation's self-interests. France and Russia have lucrative oil contracts with Saddam, oil contracts that seem to be in violation of the UN sanctions, and that would certainly be null and void with a regime change. There are also some reports/rumours that French companies have had a role in assisting Saddam's development of WMD. France and Russia have a vested interest in keeping Saddam in place, and rightfully did their part in their nation's interests to object to this war.

US interests? In the wake of 9/11, the US is scared stiff about terrorism and rightly views that certain states (N. Korea, Iraq) that have developed WMD pose a grave security risk, as these states are known to sell arms to the highest bidder. Its well known that resolving Iraqi intransigence did not even enter into the Bush administrations vision until after 9/11, so any other argument for the US going to war now (ie oil interests) just doesn't hold water. I totally agree that the US should disarm Iraq and remove Saddam, and that this should be done immediately, as it is long since overdue.

So you have a loggerhead, and you have nations acting outside the UN, which as many posters have said before is pretty common. Yes, it would be great if the UN backed up its resolution. Absent that, the US has an obligation to itself and to the world to remove the danger.

Moving forward though, the US needs to step up and set a better example to the world so that the world does not view such actions with a cynical eye and poison international relations.

Suggestions:
*Hold yourself to the same standards you set for others. As the big kid on the block, you can't expect others to enforce rules you openly flaunt. The Kyoto treaty and the International Court of Justice are prime examples of the US needing to work within the framework of the international community. Much of the world's animosity right now is geared to this double-standard.

*Rethink diplomatic ostracism. The idea that you'll punish countries/dictators by not recognizing them is laughable in the information age. If you want to facilitate change, keep the lines of communication open...as the famous saying goes, keep your friends close and your enemies closer. Ostracizing Iraq, Iran, Libya, N. Korea has done nothing to effect change in those countries...in fact it has only made things worse.

*Get rid of your own WMD. Set the example. As long as other countries view that WMD equates to power, they will want them, and some will go through any means necessary to acquire them. Redefine the power equation so countries no longer view these weapons as desirable.

[Goatus Maximus]

Good forum, great posts by people, good humor...I like it

Just responding to something from Wellington yesterday, there were several items listed by the UN after the first Gulf War that would be categorized as WMD (VX Nerve Gas, Anthrax, Ricin, etc). It is a fact that Saddam used WMD to suppress the Kurds back in 88/89. It is a fact that Saddam possessed these weapons in 1991. The inspectors that were in Iraq from 1991 to 1998 were there to ensure that Saddam's weapons programs were shutdown and that the existing WMD were destroyed. Saddam kicked out the inspectors in 1998 when there was still a laundry list of unaccounted for weapons. The list was carried over to the latest resolution asking Saddam to account for them.

Now we could take it at face value that Saddam destroyed all of these listed weapons after he kicked out the inspectors (interesting move, why would he do that?), but I think that would be a little simple. There appears to be enough soft evidence (evasion, missing documents, inaccessibility to scientists) to support that Saddam continues to possess them.

[Gregoshi]

Welcome to the Org Goatus. You certainly dove in up to your goatus maximus on your first post. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif I'm glad you like the place. I hope this means you'll hang around.

[Wellington]

Quote[/b] (Goatus Maximus @ Mar. 24 2003,19:49)]
Hi GM,

Welcome to The Org. Nice to hear you like it (so far http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif )

Having said that, please allow me to rip the welcome mat from under your fett and rip into your arguments http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif


Quote[/b] ]The UN has a long way to go to be considered a viable multi-national organization with regards to security of the world.

True, but it certainly does'nt help if the worlds premier superpower feels the UN is there merely to ratify the foriegn policy of the said superpower.

To adopt an attitude that boils down to Endorse our foriegn policies, whilst we will continually veto World opinion in respect of any criticism of Israel is extremely sickening to many people.


Quote[/b] ]Iraq has violated the spirit of multiple resolutions passed by the UN to disarm in the wake of the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq.

I dont disagree in respect of Iraq, but whilst your on the subject of violating the spirit of multiple resolutions passed by the UN please consider the US attitude to the UN - especially in respect to my prior point (Israel)


Quote[/b] ] So why does the UN not work? Nation's self-interests.

Precisely. Dubya + co will only play the UN game when they know they can win.


Quote[/b] ] France and Russia have lucrative oil contracts with Saddam ...

And? It's no less different than other national interests that the US pursues.


Quote[/b] ] US interests? In the wake of 9/11, the US is scared stiff about terrorism and rightly views that certain states (N. Korea, Iraq) that have developed WMD pose a grave security risk ...

Whilst the US population may well be scared stiff you fail to realise that, regardless of 9/11, ALL of the current WMD/terrorist/Iraq paranoi has been fueled by your own Administration.

I don't doubt such countries may pose a risk ... but a little perspective please. In the wake of 9/11 Dubya + co have successfully played to the fears/anxieties of the American public, and have now started a military escapade that (I suspect) will be the US equivalent of the 1956 Suez fiasco.


Quote[/b] ] ... the US has an obligation to itself and to the world to remove the danger.

Wrong - as the worlds sole superpower the US has an obligation to act responsibly and in accordance with both it's allies, the UN, and world opinion.


Quote[/b] ] Moving forward though, the US needs to step up and set a better example to the world so that the world does not view such actions with a cynical eye and poison international relations.

Spot on http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Unfortunately the current events will only serve poison international relations further.

I suspect many International bridges can only begin to be rebuilt, by the US ,once the American people have rid themselves of the likes of Bush and Rumsfeld.


Anyway, 'nuff said, and once again ...

... welcome to The Org http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[rasoforos]

Since the war has started there are many news sites with pictures from Iraq. Has anyone of you gone there and made a search using 'woonded child/boy/girl' in them? If you havent and you are not convinced of the madness that a war is then i suggest you do it. I found too many to post individualy http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif Personally i think that even one is too many

i will post some reading material (http://www.ithaca.edu/politics/gagnon/talks/us-iraq.htm) though , its the history of U.S/Iraq relations. Pay special attention to 'The US also voted against a UN Security Council statement condemning Iraq's use of chemical weapons. ' . The world is such an ironic place dont you think?

[SmokWawelski]

I was quite busy lately, too busy to reply, but I was following this discussion. I think that it is great that we can voice our opinions here, and I thank the moderators for allowing for this discussion to happen. I would also like to applaud Goatus Maximus for his post, and reply here to my initial “opponent” (to save space I will not repeat the previous points):

1. Misunderstanding. My point was that US thought that it needed the resolution from the UN in the beginning and wanted to drag other nations into the conflict. Only after it was clear that any such resolutions would not happen the US changed its stance and said that no resolution is needed. All nations try to pursue its business through UN, I know that, but usually they stay true to their initial statements.

2. Pretty much same as 1, besides another posters replied to that.

3. I think that the inspectors were there to find WMD, not to check the ground out. At least that was in the news, but I give you credit here that they were treated poorly. I base my anti-war opinion on the fact that out of around 200 World countries only about 30 supports war. Out of that thirty there is hardly any country bigger or more influential than Texas, and most of them are under the US umbrella (With all the respect to these beautiful countries: Iceland and Afghanistan? I am still surprised by Australia, and I despise my own country for sending our elite special ops). I also value the opinion of Pope very much. And I still did not see any evidence, and I think that no evidence was produced for the UN.

4. With all the respect, I think that your are completely wrong here. Preparing for war REQUIRES the decision of going into war or AT LEAST being almost positive of that. The talk of Saddam surfaced not that long after 9/11, and in my opinion, when it was known that OBL would not be captured in Afghanistan, Saddam became the next target.

5. To some extend, YES, I think that we should treat all the WMD the same, no matter who has them. I do not see difference in killing power from Israeli or Iraqi nuke. I want all of them gone.

6. Again I have to say that I do not agree with you. We do not need global police; we only need wise people to run the show. If I read correctly you are saying here (as well as in point 5) that it is OK for US and its buddies to have all sorts of WMD to kick the hell out of some “bad” countries, but it is not good for these other countries to have the weapons to protect them, because we (US) will “protect” them and give them new “better” governments and such things. You are from the beginning dividing globe into our, or good part, and bad part. Welcome to the cold war era…

7. Here you are right: I based that point of the fact that the Turks did not move into the Iraq, but moved more of its troops close to the border with Iraq. I rest my case.

8. My country was “liberated” by Soviets. For over 40 years we have been protected by the Soviets. They were our “friends” and controlled our governments, parties, economy and international affairs. I think that I know very well what I am talking here about when I hear that US plans to build new country on top of the old Iraq. It is not called liberating. The next step could be adding another star to the US flag.

9. Civil war was more of the war of old vs. new order. It was an internal affair of US and not a result of enemy invasion. When talking about revolutionary war, I hope that you will recognize that quote: Give me freedom or give me death, and think about it in terms of western powers invading Arab country and what might come of it. In summary, I meant a war like grand wars of the last century, which spared the homeland of the GIs, so that they have homes to come back to, but I understand that there indeed is blood in the American soil.

10. Yes, I DO NOT KNOW WHAT WAR IS. I am sure that you do not know either, unless you are over 60 years old and lived in Europe, or maybe Vietnam, or maybe Korea and the like. I think we both should thank God for that.

11. Yes, I criticize most of the latest steps taken by US and am not afraid to admit that. I think that president Lincoln said something to the sense that it is our duty to criticize bad government. I do not have answer but what I stated in my initial post, that there is always time for war. If I had answers maybe I would run for the top job, but I think that you have to match your skills with job requirements, and I was hoping that politicians do that.

[Goatus Maximus]

Very interesting article, Rasoforos There are a couple of items that I would have questions about (that all the WMD were destroyed in 1998...if this is the case, why did UNSCOM object to the inspectors being kicked out?), but it certainly shows that the US, like just about any other government, can be duplicitous and sometimes does stupid things in its own self-interest. I would be curious to see if the US is still exporting NBC materials to other regimes currently...

[CeltiberoMordred]

Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people don't want war neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.

Hermann Goering

[rasoforos]

Quote[/b] (Goatus Maximus @ Mar. 25 2003,14:38)]Very interesting article, Rasoforos There are a couple of items that I would have questions about (that all the WMD were destroyed in 1998...if this is the case, why did UNSCOM object to the inspectors being kicked out?), but it certainly shows that the US, like just about any other government, can be duplicitous and sometimes does stupid things in its own self-interest. I would be curious to see if the US is still exporting NBC materials to other regimes currently...
Of course questions arise and sould arrise. Thats why i linked to the article and did not just write the point i agree on as mine of course http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[TheViking]

Bush is the biggest coward i heard of, first he disarm Saddam then he attack him. If this war isnt against the Iraqi people Bush should have sent assassins to get rid of Saddam instead of leting the civilian get hurt that Bush says he will free.

Does the Iraqi people realy want to be free?? I heard on the news that even some of the kurds is on Saddams side, that they dont want US there.

And why dont US like it when Turkey enterd the field??

[whiskeyjack]

hey, newcomer to the guild so take it easy on me.

firstly i'd like to say i'm against this war totally and war in general unless its on a computer screen. i'm particulry against this war because i firmly believe the motives behind it are not clear. when the US and coalition forces invaded afghanistan no one was against it as there was enough substansive evidence to justify it. in the case of this war this is not the case. US evidence against iraq is hazy at the best and is guilty of misinformation. the US sees itself as the protector of the downtrodden,the last bastion of true freedom and the saviour of the oppressed and perhaps as the last superpower standing this is true but it is for these reasons that the US cannot go on its own and declare war. the US has an obligation to the rest of the world to be a shining example of democracy and forebearence. Bush should have waited for the UN green light before attacking and then he would have saved himself and the US a lot of grief. but then again i don't think the war will accomplish anything exact hurting a lot of good men and women and countless civilians and for what...sand and some oil, is that worth more then human life i hope not.
well thats my two cents hope i didn't annoy too many people

[Wellington]

Quote[/b] (whiskeyjack @ Mar. 25 2003,17:57)]hey, newcomer to the guild so take it easy on me. ...
Hi whiskeyjack,

Welcome to The Org

Nice to see new faces with new opinions.

Nice post. I particularly appreciate your observation that
the motives behind it are not clear.

An excellent point http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

As for your final comment -

well thats my two cents hope i didn't annoy too many people

you don't annoy anyone

Welcome to The Org.

[rasoforos]

whiskeyjack welcome to the forum. Nice post. I would like to stand to something you say that is very correct and the pro-war people seemto forget. During the Afghanistan war the U.S government enjoyed an all time high on support from most of the people in the world. A year later they find themselves in an all-time-low. If all of us opposed to war were anti-americanists then we would not have supported the war in Afghanistan. However some people choose to forget that intentionally only to accuse us of antiamericanism.


More Shock and Awe by the U.S/U.K governments :(DO NOT WATCH IF UNDER 18 , DO NOT WATCH IF YOU DONT WANT TO SEE BLOOD)
How much oil does any of these pictures cost? (http://iraqpeaceteam.org/pages/al_kindi_hospital.html)

[LittleGrizzly]

Quote[/b] (rasoforos @ Mar. 25 2003,21:01)]whiskeyjack welcome to the forum. Nice post. I would like to stand to something you say that is very correct and the pro-war people seemto forget. During the Afghanistan war the U.S government enjoyed an all time high on support from most of the people in the world. A year later they find themselves in an all-time-low. If all of us opposed to war were anti-americanists then we would not have supported the war in Afghanistan. However some people choose to forget that intentionally only to accuse us of antiamericanism.


More Shock and Awe by the U.S/U.K governments :(DO NOT WATCH IF UNDER 18 , DO NOT WATCH IF YOU DONT WANT TO SEE BLOOD)
How much oil does any of these pictures cost? (http://iraqpeaceteam.org/pages/al_kindi_hospital.html)
that 13yr old girls picture shocked me the most first from bottom

[Knight_Yellow]

Quote[/b] (rasoforos @ Mar. 26 2003,03:01)]whiskeyjack welcome to the forum. Nice post. I would like to stand to something you say that is very correct and the pro-war people seemto forget. During the Afghanistan war the U.S government enjoyed an all time high on support from most of the people in the world. A year later they find themselves in an all-time-low. If all of us opposed to war were anti-americanists then we would not have supported the war in Afghanistan. However some people choose to forget that intentionally only to accuse us of antiamericanism.


More Shock and Awe by the U.S/U.K governments :(DO NOT WATCH IF UNDER 18 , DO NOT WATCH IF YOU DONT WANT TO SEE BLOOD)
How much oil does any of these pictures cost? (http://iraqpeaceteam.org/pages/al_kindi_hospital.html)
unfortunatley casualties are a part of war.

the US/UK believe this war is necesary in order to free the people of iraq and to remove a brutal regime that causes more casualties than the war.


in anycase civilians shouldnt die but they do in times like these http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif


lets just hope that in sight of rebelions in basra that the iraqi troops realise there on the wrong side and lay down their arms.

[TheViking]

Quote[/b] (rasoforos @ Mar. 26 2003,03:01)]whiskeyjack welcome to the forum. Nice post. I would like to stand to something you say that is very correct and the pro-war people seemto forget. During the Afghanistan war the U.S government enjoyed an all time high on support from most of the people in the world. A year later they find themselves in an all-time-low. If all of us opposed to war were anti-americanists then we would not have supported the war in Afghanistan. However some people choose to forget that intentionally only to accuse us of antiamericanism.


More Shock and Awe by the U.S/U.K governments :(DO NOT WATCH IF UNDER 18 , DO NOT WATCH IF YOU DONT WANT TO SEE BLOOD)
How much oil does any of these pictures cost? (http://iraqpeaceteam.org/pages/al_kindi_hospital.html)
I just looked at the pics, all i have to say is: Free the world from people like bush

Bush could used assassins to get rid of Saddam, if it would been succes or fail i dont think more then 1-10 people would have get killed.

[Gregoshi]

I don't know about that TheViking, the resulting civil war could be rather bloody. The US did try a form of assassination to start off the war last week. It didn't work apparently.

[rasoforos]

TheViking if they had just assasinated Saddam how would the oil companies enter Iraq? And if they hadnt destroyed part of the iraqi infrastructure how would the U.S constructio companies take contracts afterwards? ( By the way Bush does not want the Iraqi reconstruction to go through the U.N he wants american companies to do it ) Lets not forget that this war cost 75 billion dollars up to now, its a huge investment and it has to make profit or mr cheyney's ex-employers and Mr Bush's sponsors wont be happy at all...



Some more Reading material for the day :


Does thins remind you of something that happens today? (http://homepages.pathfinder.gr/rasoforos/pic26962.jpg)

And to apply this in todays world :

They cheer.... (http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1085244,00.html)



...15 more people 'liberated' , i guess a market is a 'political military' target.... (http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-12275964,00.html)

Ever wondered of there are chemical weapons used in Iraq? Ever wondered why the U.S/U.K soldiers have to wear masks? Have you wondered who is using Chemical weapons in Iraq?



See here .... now you know why so many children in Kossovo and Iraq have cancer... (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/431817.stm)

D.U is used because its hard and heavy and makes a perfect weapon agaisnt armored targets. Moreover it creates a fine dust that once inhaled makes sure any surviving soldiers will not fight another war since they will have serious long term problems . Many U.S soldiers were contaminated (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/362543.stm), their children had a high rate of birth defects, by D.U but of course the Country , ,for which they fought for denies the facts. After the war is over , when you see children playing near destroyed tanks , know the danger that lurks near them. Now you know who is using chemical weapons in this War.
Enough with the words , now lets just hope no more civilians are 'liberated' by 'surgical strikes' ....

[Gregoshi]

Quote[/b] (rasoforos @ Mar. 25 2003,07:12)]i will post some reading material (http://www.ithaca.edu/politics/gagnon/talks/us-iraq.htm) though , its the history of U.S/Iraq relations. Pay special attention to 'The US also voted against a UN Security Council statement condemning Iraq's use of chemical weapons. ' . The world is such an ironic place dont you think?

Quote[/b] ]Ever wondered of there are chemical weapons used in Iraq? Ever wondered why the U.S/U.K soldiers have to wear masks? Have you wondered who is using Chemical weapons in Iraq?


According to your reading material, the US supplied Iraq with chemical and biological weapons. Is it any wonder the US knows the Iraqi's have WMD? And therefore is it really a surprise that the US/UK soldiers have masks and chemical suits?

Nice reading material though rasoforos. I'm being serious. I was a little skeptical of the paper when the first 3-4 bibliography links were dead.

Side note: The MSNBC article The Making of Saddam (?) is referenced by tons of (anti-war?) web sites, yet I could not find it on the MSNBC.com. That really put my skepticism in high gear - an article with bogus references figuring most people will never check them.

Anyway, several other links did payoff. It would be typical American foreign policy to create a monster (Iraq) to beat a monster (Iran). Maybe the guilt of what they (Chaney, Rumsfeld) did is what is driving many of these US policy makers to push for the war...nah, that's probably me just trying to be optimistic. It's most likely $$$$. Sigh. When will we ever learn?

As for civilian casualties, the US could save itself a lot of money by using dumb bombs. Then you'd see a real tragedy in the making. I do wonder though if the civilian casualties caused by the US/UK will ever equal the deaths caused personally by Saddam and his sons? Too bad we don't have those pictures to post for all to see.

[Wellington]

Quote[/b] (Gregoshi @ Mar. 26 2003,20:01)]
As for civilian casualties, the US could save itself a lot of money by using dumb bombs. Then you'd see a real tragedy in the making.

Not really. Every hi-tech military in the world thrives an opportunity to test it's most sophisticated systems under combat conditions.

The successes and failures of such systems in Iraq will, after analysis, probably save the Def Dept a lot of money in the long term.

I do wonder though if the civilian casualties caused by the US/UK will ever equal the deaths caused personally by Saddam and his sons?

Whilst being a valid point, the real problem with such an argument is that it could be used to provide some justification for similar military action against other Sovereign States.

A worrying thought. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif

[Gregoshi]

1) Your point is taken Wellington, but we're doing an awful lot of testing. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif

2) I don't think the civilian casualty thing is a justification for the war, but a justification for the price (in civilian lives) of the war. That is a hideous thought, isn't it? A nasty dilemma it is: do nothing and people die; do something and people die. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif

[Wellington]

A shameless bump.

Just to ensure the question of justification for the Iraq War remains a 'current issue' - for both existing Org patrons and new people alike.

Have your say

[rory_20_uk]

And on a lighter note:

To the tune of 'If You're Happy And You Know It'

All together now.......
If you cannot find Osama, bomb Iraq.
If the markets are a drama, bomb Iraq.
If the terrorists are frisky,
Pakistan is looking shifty,
North Korea is too risky,
Bomb Iraq.

If we have no allies with us, bomb Iraq.
If we think that someone's dissed us, bomb Iraq.
So to hell with the inspections,
Let's look tough for the elections,
Close your mind and take directions,
Bomb Iraq.

It's pre-emptive non-aggression, bomb Iraq.
To prevent this mass destruction, bomb Iraq.
They've got weapons we can't see,
And that's all the proof we need,
If they're not there, they must be,
Bomb Iraq.

If you never were elected, bomb Iraq.
If your mood is quite dejected, bomb Iraq.
If you think Saddam's gone mad,
With the weapons that he had,
And he tried to kill your dad,
Bomb Iraq.

If corporate fraud is growin', bomb Iraq.
If your ties to it are showin', bomb Iraq.
If your politics are sleazy,
And hiding that ain't easy,
And your manhood's getting queasy,
Bomb Iraq.

Fall in line and follow orders, bomb Iraq.
For our might knows not our borders, bomb Iraq.
Disagree? We'll call it treason,
Let's make war not love this season,
Even if we have no reason,
Bomb Iraq.

I think that this poem also shares my views on the war http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[Wellington]

Quote[/b] (rory_20_uk @ Mar. 27 2003,11:11)]I think that this poem also shares my views on the war http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif

I'm not sure whether this places you in in the pro or anti camp

I suspect the latter ...

... and had a bit of fun singing along to it whilst imaging Dubya and Rumsfeld providing the backing vocals.
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif

[whiskeyjack]

hi
just recieved an e-mail from a college friend of mine who's doing a work placement in the new york state building at the moment. a group of 6 or 7 of them have been wearing peace badges to work and have been subjected to terrible verbal abuse and even the threat of physical abuse.the US is supposed to be the home of free speech but apparently this is the case no longer. i was reading an article today where the columinist said that the war had become such an emotive subject that one should utter the immortal words of basil fawlty and don't mention the war http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[SmokWawelski]

Just three bits of thoughts:

- I saw a very interesting comment in Chicago SunTimes yesterday stating that if the cause of war would be oil, it is very stupid to send thousands of troops over, risk their lifes, make the World hate America, spend billions of dollars for some oil that could be purchased somewhere for a fraction of the war cost. Very waid point, don't you think?

- I saw a TV commercial asking for donations for Jews in Jerusalem, THE TRUE VICTIMS OF WAR ON IRAQ . I could not turn the TV off any faster...

- Is anyone following the developments in North Corea or knows some good info sights from Asia in english?

Thanks, let's keep hoping for peace http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif

[rasoforos]

Quote[/b] (SmokWawelski @ Mar. 27 2003,15:53)]- I saw a very interesting comment in Chicago SunTimes yesterday stating that if the cause of war would be oil, it is very stupid to send thousands of troops over, risk their lifes, make the World hate America, spend billions of dollars for some oil that could be purchased somewhere for a fraction of the war cost. Very waid point, don't you think?
This is correct if you see it from the people's point of view. Right now the U.S people take huge social and economical losses due to this war and the war is definatelly not going to give them any long term benefits in return. However if you see it from the large corporations that support the republican party point of view the benefits are huge. Iraq has huge and unused oil deposits at a time where oil stocks and production worldwide fall rapidly. It is obvious that whoever gets this oil will have a large and low cost production for the decades to come. Moreover not only oil companies are involved. As it happened in Serbia many corporations will rush in to reconstruct Iraq and will take multibillion contracts ( Bush allready said that he will not allow the U.N to make the reconstruction and that it will be done by U.S companies). Another huge benefit is that if Iraq becomes another U.S protectorate then they will buy weapons from the U.S (see turkey , israel) , this means a lot of hard cash for the weapons industry. In a few words the U.S citizens 'gained' less freedom , friends and family dead , a destroyed economy , less money of welfare and more on weapons , high infation and unemployment and the list goes on. But the corporations will make billions.

rory_20_uk your version of the song is great and in the Orwellian world of today it is sadly true as well.

Ok some 'reading material' for today. I would like to address the issue of 'political freedom' in the U.S. Once more the police arrests an unjustifiably large (http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-12276667,00.html) number of people who oppose the war. After the 2000 people arrested in San Francisco another 140 were arrested in New York. They did not break or burn anything , they just lay on the road. Before anyone says anything about public dissobedience let me remind you that other countries had domostrations much larger than this and sometimes violent episodes occured but the number of people arrested was 1% of the one in the U.S. Arresting so many people does not happen in any free country in the planet , it only happens in dictatorships and authoriative holoclerotic regimes. Why does the U.S government do it then? I believe that the U.S citizens , both pro and anti war should complain and protest against mass arrests by the hundreds or thousants. I know that if 2000 people were arrested in any E.U country the government who would do it would guarantee that it never would be elected again.

[LittleGrizzly]

Quote[/b] (rasoforos @ Mar. 27 2003,16:58)]
Quote[/b] (SmokWawelski @ Mar. 27 2003,15:53)]- I saw a very interesting comment in Chicago SunTimes yesterday stating that if the cause of war would be oil, it is very stupid to send thousands of troops over, risk their lifes, make the World hate America, spend billions of dollars for some oil that could be purchased somewhere for a fraction of the war cost. Very waid point, don't you think?
This is correct if you see it from the people's point of view. Right now the U.S people take huge social and economical losses due to this war and the war is definatelly not going to give them any long term benefits in return. However if you see it from the large corporations that support the republican party point of view the benefits are huge. Iraq has huge and unused oil deposits at a time where oil stocks and production worldwide fall rapidly. It is obvious that whoever gets this oil will have a large and low cost production for the decades to come. Moreover not only oil companies are involved. As it happened in Serbia many corporations will rush in to reconstruct Iraq and will take multibillion contracts ( Bush allready said that he will not allow the U.N to make the reconstruction and that it will be done by U.S companies). Another huge benefit is that if Iraq becomes another U.S protectorate then they will buy weapons from the U.S (see turkey , israel) , this means a lot of hard cash for the weapons industry. In a few words the U.S citizens 'gained' less freedom , friends and family dead , a destroyed economy , less money of welfare and more on weapons , high infation and unemployment and the list goes on. But the corporations will make billions.

rory_20_uk your version of the song is great and in the Orwellian world of today it is sadly true as well.

Ok some 'reading material' for today. I would like to address the issue of 'political freedom' in the U.S. Once more the police arrests an unjustifiably large (http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-12276667,00.html) number of people who oppose the war. After the 2000 people arrested in San Francisco another 140 were arrested in New York. They did not break or burn anything , they just lay on the road. Before anyone says anything about public dissobedience let me remind you that other countries had domostrations much larger than this and sometimes violent episodes occured but the number of people arrested was 1% of the one in the U.S. Arresting so many people does not happen in any free country in the planet , it only happens in dictatorships and authoriative holoclerotic regimes. Why does the U.S government do it then? I believe that the U.S citizens , both pro and anti war should complain and protest against mass arrests by the hundreds or thousants. I know that if 2000 people were arrested in any E.U country the government who would do it would guarantee that it never would be elected again.
rosa i wish you were wrong but i guess thats the world we live in...

[Div Hunter]

Hmmm interesting but ultimatly exactly the same views as every other Iraq thread on every other forum. Here's what I think.

War is a conflict in which 1000 or more people die each year so technically Saddam Hussain has been waging war on his own people since he came to power. However he has mostly tageted the Shi'ite and Kurdish peoples of Iraq, being a Sunni himself and has attempted genocide on the Kurdish (something the Turkish may consider if things turn ugly as Kurdistan covers a huge portion of Turkey - their mobilisations aren't a good sign). He has used various Biological and Chemical weapons for many many years (greatly pre-dating '91) and still has the many 'pestocide' facilities bought from and built by the Germans (with documentation and all but without exact locations of most).

Many of the anti-war (who are really mostly anti-America or anti-Bush they just got a new excuse) claim that the Iraqi people don't want a war and that they are speaking for them. Well guess what, they are wrong by a LONG shot. There have been a number of pro-war rallies ect by Iraqi expatriots that simply have got no media attention, also most Iraqis want to get rid of Saddam but don't want an American puppet govt. (don't blame them there). The Kurdish population are very much for a war that will remove Saddam one Kurdish man said thet even if half the Iraqi people die it (removing Saddam) will be worth it

But then there is the Shi'ites especially those exiled to Iran. Many want Saddam gone but hate the USA. They go as far as saying they will attack Americans if they stay in Iraq after Saddam is gone. What madness this is, noone will help them except America and the coalition but they won't change their attitude. But that is another issue.

The war is totally justified even if not exactly for the reasons that have been given recently. All the 'peace protesters' (read anarchist, anti-govt. ant-American, anti-west whatever) need to grow up and realise what kind of people we are dealing with, and what measures are required to make a solution last. Don't splurt out any 'inspectors' or 'diplomacy' bollocks unless you have a solution that could actually work.

Hopefully there will be few casualties from now on.

Div Hunter (AKA Wires)

PS sorry for the MASSIVE post I had a lot to catch up on http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[rasoforos]

Quote[/b] (Div Hunter @ Mar. 27 2003,22:14)]Many of the anti-war (who are really mostly anti-America or anti-Bush they just got a new excuse) claim that the Iraqi people don't want a war and that they are speaking for them.
And how do you explain that 90% of the non-U.S public oppinion in Europe supported the attack on afghanistan but 90% of the public oppinion are against the war in iraq? If we were anti-americans we would not support it. And how about the anti-war U.S citizens who do not want this war? Are they anti-americans too?
The 'they dont want the war because they are antiamericans' is the classical coalition of U.S U.K mongolia marshal islands erithrea tajikistan microneasia rwanda and last but not least Solomon islands 'coallition'. You can hear it 1000 times per day but you dont have to believe it.
I am anti-war , anti-bush but i am not anti-any nation inclyding the States. Blaming a nation because it has a bad minority-elected leader is stupid.

Something else now for the main forum. ATTENTION ALL PRO-WAR FORUM MEMBERS. ARE YOU TIRED OF EATING LEFT-WING ICE-CREAM? ARE YOU WATCHING THE WAR ON TV AND NEED A SNACK? YOUR PRAYERS ARE ANSWERED NEW 100% CONSERVATIVE ICE CREAM 100% PURE REPUBLICAN GOODNESS ORDER NOW IN 4 PATRIOTIC FLAVORS , I HATE THE FRENCH VANILLA , IRAQI ROAD , SMALLER GOVERNMINT AND OF COURSE NUTTY ENVIRONMENTALIST PLACE YOUR ORDERS NOW

you think i m joking? well click here (http://www.starspangledicecream.com/) to find out http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif .

[Knight_Yellow]

ehh raso m8 its not 90 percent against anymore its 90 percent for war.

PS. europe is in an even split down the middle in the war stance so that 90 percent is bull there too.

and on our own org poll its like 60-40 against war so im not seeing a 90 percent anywhere.

[Div Hunter]

A lot are anti-american (especialy the Arab world) but the actual americans are either anti-Bush or anti-govt. in most cases. Blaming a nation because of it's leaders is stupid, we can agree on that. Also more people backed the 'War on Terror' because that's what it was a war on terrorist factions not an actual state (that's debatable though). You forgot a few important nations there in the coalition (ones that are actually fighting beside the USA and GB)the Australians, Polish, Danish and a few others. Australia has SASR, Air Force and Navy in Iraq completing all kinds of tasks from mine clearance to deep recon. The Polish special forces are in Iraq as well not sure of the Danish involvment. Are you saying the countries you listed are insignificant?

[rasoforos]

Quote[/b] (Knight_Yellow @ Mar. 27 2003,23:11)]ehh raso m8 its not 90 percent against anymore its 90 percent for war.

PS. europe is in an even split down the middle in the war stance so that 90 percent is bull there too.

and on our own org poll its like 60-40 against war so im not seeing a 90 percent anywhere.
Knight Yellow when was the last time you travelled outside the U.K mate? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Europe split in half? Even in Spain that supports the war people are against it. Doesnt the fact that there are 30 incognito countries that support the coallition hint you that this happens because the people are against the war and the governments try to conceal they got some benefits to support it?
Although admitedly i was mistaken. In the E.U e-vote side the people who think the war is not justified are not 90% they are 93.1% . this is the link (http://evote.eu2003.gr/) you can go and vote to better the odds http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Something that FOXnews wont tell you is that this war had a very positive effect on many countries. It made the left wing and right wing people agree onsomething after a long time. They agreed that this war is not justified and now they oppose it.

[Knight_Yellow]

ahemm 35 countries.

besides if there not fighting in the war why does there opinion matter?

its not them dying in iraq.

[rasoforos]

Quote[/b] (Div Hunter @ Mar. 27 2003,23:20)]A lot are anti-american (especialy the Arab world) but the actual americans are either anti-Bush or anti-govt. in most cases. Blaming a nation because of it's leaders is stupid, we can agree on that. Also more people backed the 'War on Terror' because that's what it was a war on terrorist factions not an actual state (that's debatable though). You forgot a few important nations there in the coalition (ones that are actually fighting beside the USA and GB)the Australians, Polish, Danish and a few others. Australia has SASR, Air Force and Navy in Iraq completing all kinds of tasks from mine clearance to deep recon. The Polish special forces are in Iraq as well not sure of the Danish involvment. Are you saying the countries you listed are insignificant?
what i am trying to say with my coallition remark is that it shouldnt even be named a 'coallition'. 2 countries participate fully with 1 other in a supporting role and then there is a fleet of countries that participate in 'words' and offer 'moral support'.Did you also know that the Polish government didnt tell its people it sent troops? They find out after photographs were accidentally released. Additionally to that there are the incognito countries that sent a letter of support but do not tell their people they did so because all hell will break loose ( greece is a good case) since everyone in the country is against the war. This thing is hardly a coallition of 45 countries.

[rasoforos]

i agree KY, its not them dying ( why to i always spell this word wrong?) but i believe people should express their global concerns and oppinions. We should not turn our back to important issues just because they are happening away from us. It is not them dying but you cannot accuse them because they would prefer to see noone dying in a war they believe to be wrong. I am sure we agree on that because either war pro or agaisnt war noone likes good people from both sides getting killed.

[Knight_Yellow]

yes but now that its happening they should be worrying about their own countries not ours.

[Div Hunter]

Must admit I didn't know about the Polish govt. not telling the people they sent troops. I had pictures of Polish SF about a week ago http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif They were handing over some Iraqi prisoners I think (mind you the Iraqi's faces weren't shown and they weren't interogated on camera).

heh 'supporting role' more like the USA is supporting the SASR http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/shock.gif Let's just say they are having a lot of success.

[rasoforos]

Quote[/b] (Knight_Yellow @ Mar. 27 2003,23:49)]yes but now that its happening they should be worrying about their own countries not ours.
As the iraqi people would say for the U.S and U.K government.... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

If intervensionism is bad then attacking a country is by far worse than just making your oppinion heard.

[Goatus Maximus]

Just a couple comments about the anti-war demonstrators in the US w/regard to an article Rasoforos linked to a little bit ago:

*While everyone in America is granted the right to free speech, that right only extends as far as it does not cause injury to other citizens, including themselves. By blockading traffic, these demonstrators are affecting the lives of every single person caught in the traffic jam resulting from it. No big deal? Try telling that to a person that will lose their job because they are late to work, or have a court case go against them because they missed their appointed court time, or have to explain to their crying 6-year old kid why they were an hour late picking them up from school. They affected the lives of ordinary people, and in many cases may have done a great deal of harm to their lives.

*Civil disobedience is defined as a law breaking act of personal injustice to resist government injustice. Within that definition, these people know that they are going to be arrested as they are breaking the law. It is against the law to loiter in the middle of the street. In order to stage a demonstration in the middle of the street (or any public forum, I think), you need a permit. That is what changed this act from a lawful demonstration to an act of civil disobedience. If their first amendment rights were violated, you would see lawsuits up the wazoo and the ACLU making a firestorm about these arrests. Trust me, the ACLU and lawyers spare no one here, especially government officials

You can argue that the protestors are right to protest the war, which I applaud their right to protest. You can't argue that their civil rights were violated.

[rasoforos]

Quote[/b] (Goatus Maximus @ Mar. 28 2003,02:59)]Just a couple comments about the anti-war demonstrators in the US w/regard to an article Rasoforos linked to a little bit ago:

*While everyone in America is granted the right to free speech, that right only extends as far as it does not cause injury to other citizens, including themselves. By blockading traffic, these demonstrators are affecting the lives of every single person caught in the traffic jam resulting from it. No big deal? Try telling that to a person that will lose their job because they are late to work, or have a court case go against them because they missed their appointed court time, or have to explain to their crying 6-year old kid why they were an hour late picking them up from school. They affected the lives of ordinary people, and in many cases may have done a great deal of harm to their lives.

*Civil disobedience is defined as a law breaking act of personal injustice to resist government injustice. Within that definition, these people know that they are going to be arrested as they are breaking the law. It is against the law to loiter in the middle of the street. In order to stage a demonstration in the middle of the street (or any public forum, I think), you need a permit. That is what changed this act from a lawful demonstration to an act of civil disobedience. If their first amendment rights were violated, you would see lawsuits up the wazoo and the ACLU making a firestorm about these arrests. Trust me, the ACLU and lawyers spare no one here, especially government officials

You can argue that the protestors are right to protest the war, which I applaud their right to protest. You can't argue that their civil rights were violated.

Quote[/b] ]While everyone in America is granted the right to free speech, that right only extends as far as it does not cause injury to other citizens, including themselves

...same as the E.U...why dont they arrest 2000 people here as well?

I do not believe that closing a road will cause such a huge problem as you say. It will just slow things down. I do not find it proper but it is by no means a reason to arrest people en masse. And it doesnt asnwer a simple question that i mentioned before : Other countries had demostrations much larger than the ones in the U.S , they were also more violent (they didnt just sit on the middle of the road...) , why did those countries have 0 arrests or at a percentage of less than 1% of the ones in the U.S ?

Something i dont know : Do so large numbers of people get arrested often in the U.S?

[Baron von Beer]

They didn't have a permit. Bottom line. Not doing so, made the act illegal, and blocking of said streets, a crime. If they had obtained a permit, roads would have been blocked off, alternate routes created to accomodate the rally, and only people who then got out of hand (drunk, violent, tearing tags of matresses, etc) would be arrested. Furthermore, if you read the *follow ups* on the arrests, nearly everyone gets a citation, and sent home the same, or next day. It is not as if they were shipped off to San Quentin on a restrainer dolly... Furthermore, the idea of lying in the street is a rather desperate antic. Do you think you are going to change someones opinion with such theatrics? If someone was blocking me in that manner, all they would change in my mind was the intense desire for a steamroller to come rolloing along. If someone wants to display signs, fine. I can read them, and come to my own conclusion. But to try and force it upon me? (Block their way, that will make them take up my belief... akin to a 5 yearold sitting down at the toystore because his mom wouldn't buy him what he wanted.. guess some people really don't learn how to express themselves effectively) As for the lower arrests in Europe, I don't know. If 90% of the people are protesting, no one is left to arrest them. (the police called in to go to the protest, and the other 10% are against the rally or neutral. They, however, hope that it goes on, as they get off work since no-one else showed up.

[Goatus Maximus]

Had to laugh at the Patriotic Ice Cream though...what a joke Just like those two Senators who changed the name of French Fries to Freedom Fries, just like German restaurants that stopped serving Budweiser and Coca-Cola...ridiculous stuff going on

One last ramble on this:

*9/11 truly opened many eyes in America with regard to the eminent threat of terrorism. That it can hit our homeland at any place, and at any time, and that there is little that anyone can do about it. The United States has historically enjoyed insulation from attack, and that has allowed it to enjoy relatively uninterrupted growth while war scourged other parts of the world. I would argue that this has benefitted not only the US (obviously), but also the world at large. Sure, most of the actions that benefitted the world also benefitted the US. Does that necessarily make them wrong?

As one of two Superpowers that emerged out of WWII, the US believed that it needed to rebuild former enemies and allies to serve as a buffer against communism (the great threat of the day). Unprecedented to do that for former enemies This fight against communism led to some questionable (or even poor) decisions, but I think history would show that this was the right thing to do (or does anyone here believe that Western Europe would have thrived under the Soviet system? Anyone?)

Now the US is in an historically unique position as a lone superpower. A superpower faced with an eminant threat to its own security, a security it has taken for granted. Certain regimes, organizations, and individuals have expressed a hatred for America for a couple of decades, but most of this hatred was just rhetoric, something to unite a disenfranchised people. And sure, there might be the occassional terrorist act OVERSEAS that causes concern. But what 9/11 did was take the blindfold off, and show that the US was vulnerable, that all of its military might and economic strength could not prevent an attack of horrific proportions. And that's when the rhetoric became much more than just Yankee go home and Down with America. That's when it became an immediate and visible threat.

Please believe that there were schemes to conduct more terrorist acts against America and the world prior to Bush's rhetoric about the Axis of Evil. OBL said so himself, and that is but one of many terrorists out there. Once you understand this, you must understand that any reasonable nation will put whatever resources it can to protect its citizens. And will undertake any measure to remove/eliminate the threat.

The Bush Doctrine introduces an incredibly frightening new policy to the world: that the US will track down any terrorist organization, and any country known to support terrorist organizations, in an effort to protect itself and its allies from future attacks. It proscribes a pro-active approach to confronting terrorism, and that necessarily means enabling the use of force to remove that threat when necessary (there are of course other ways to deter these organizations).

This is one of the boldest, most radical foreign policy directives ever issued. I don't know if it will work. And I understand perfectly why this doctrine scares the bejeezus out of nearly everyone (including me). I hope and pray that the US exercises its unique power with great caution and responsibility, while trying to work within the international community every step of the way. With those cautions laid out, I believe it is the right course of action to take AS LONG AS it is coupled with constructive programs that collectively deter people from becoming terrorists.

[rasoforos]

Quote[/b] (Baron von Beer @ Mar. 28 2003,04:40)]They didn't have a permit. Bottom line. Not doing so, made the act illegal, and blocking of said streets, a crime. If they had obtained a permit, roads would have been blocked off, alternate routes created to accomodate the rally, and only people who then got out of hand (drunk, violent, tearing tags of matresses, etc) would be arrested. Furthermore, if you read the *follow ups* on the arrests, nearly everyone gets a citation, and sent home the same, or next day. It is not as if they were shipped off to San Quentin on a restrainer dolly... Furthermore, the idea of lying in the street is a rather desperate antic. Do you think you are going to change someones opinion with such theatrics? If someone was blocking me in that manner, all they would change in my mind was the intense desire for a steamroller to come rolloing along. If someone wants to display signs, fine. I can read them, and come to my own conclusion. But to try and force it upon me? (Block their way, that will make them take up my belief... akin to a 5 yearold sitting down at the toystore because his mom wouldn't buy him what he wanted.. guess some people really don't learn how to express themselves effectively) As for the lower arrests in Europe, I don't know. If 90% of the people are protesting, no one is left to arrest them. (the police called in to go to the protest, and the other 10% are against the rally or neutral. They, however, hope that it goes on, as they get off work since no-one else showed up.
Not only protests that are agaisnt the war but no protest end up with 2000 people arrested here, the 'since 90% are against so are the policemen and thats why they do not get arrested' is not valid.

I do not beleive in violence. Laying in the middle of the road is a non violent form of protest. The police knew the were gonna do the demonstration , its time and place were known ,it was not a secret. Alternate routes could be aranged and i am sure they did. All in all the U.S protests seemed to me as the most peacefull of all and i congratulate the U.S citizens for that.
Additionaly the fact that they release them the next day does not mean its ok or its nothing. Spending a day behind bars is not a pleasant experience. I beleive that the large number of arrests was made to stop people from protesting and that is illegal. BTW i am still waiting for someone to tell me if those large numbers of arrests are something that happens often in the states.

P.S what could those people do? Not vote for him? They didnt...most of the U.S didnt... he still got elected http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

P.S

[Goatus Maximus]

Rasoforos, just a couple of comments:

*That number of arrests in the United States is extremely rare...in fact, I can't recall in my lifetime there ever being so many. Perhaps with some of the Race Riots in the '60s?

*Please refer to my original post about civil disobedience. The protesters thought that they were making a more powerful statement by not getting the permit to demonstrate on the street, and in so doing they knew they were performing an illegal act and they knew they would be arrested (that's what would make it a more powerful statement&#33http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif. Please look at newspaper articles about the event...none of the protesters objected to being locked up...some even wore it as a badge

As regards to the UK, I am sure they would have similar laws. If they don't, then you and some of your friends could try lying down in the middle of one of the busiest streets in London, and when the cops ask you to move, refuse

[Div Hunter]

Also there were many arrests because it was more of a riot in some areas rather than a protest. Same in Sydney a few days ago rediculous that 'peace protests' should turn into riots shows what a bunch of ignorant fools most of them are (especially the students in Australia OMG almost makes me ashamed the lack of any idea of what is actually happening).

[Siena]

I think that in time this war will be regarded as even more shameful as Vietnam one.
I think that many pro-war people will be ashamed to remember their views once war is over and real intentions will surface.

Even now news surface about squables between US and UK over contracts in post-war Iraq.
Even now there are remarks about how US will determine goverment of post-war Iraq, and UN will be only able to advise...
The ugliest of all are US goverment's remarks blaming France, Germany and Russia for the war, because of resistance in UN...

ugly is written all over this war.

I think it is obvious that this will only inspire terrorists.
If this war seems ugly to most of people from the far, how much uglier it is when you are target of it?

[The Blind King of Bohemia]

I pray this war is resolved swiftly and without any more unnecessary deaths,but this war is a necessary evil. Jesus,how many chances has old saddam had? Did he give this many chances to the Kurdish people? No,he did not. We really have to open our eyes because i cannot simply believe the naivity of some people. Its such a cliche now to blame the war because we want the Iraq oil fields because its nonsense. No, its complete bulls**t. Anyone who protests truely make me sick and are not only a disgrace to themselves,but to there country. I know i'm not the only one who feels like this because the majority of Britain are pro war and i hope after this war the tyrant Mugahbe(sorry if its spelt wrong) is next because he is murderer and his vicious regime will hopefully very soon have had its day.
Evil is allowed to flourish because good men stand around and watch. Remember that.

[whiskeyjack]

Whoa there bud The war that is being fought in Iraq is against a dictator who has been suppressing the civil liberties of his people for countless years. one of those liberties is the freedom of speech with the right to peaceful protest an extension to this. What makes countries such as the US, UK and my native Ireland different from Iraq is the freedom to enact these civil liberties. No one condones violent protests but what is wrong with peaceful protests.

This weekend throughout the world hundreds of thousands of people will take to the streets to voice their opposition to this war, that is their right as citizens of democratic countries. to say they are a disgrace to their countries is fairly ridiculous.

[Siena]

of course Saddam is a murderer and deserves being removed from power.

But - I think - and I hope I am wrong - that because of how Bush is going about it - consequences of this war will be so far reaching that nobody will remember Saddam after a few years, same like not many remember Osama.
Everybody will be watching much greater powers roaming the world and everybody will be arming themselves speadily.
Gone will be believe in UN or international law.

I hope I am wrong, I really do.

[rasoforos]

Quote[/b] (The Blind King of Bohemia @ Mar. 28 2003,11:51)]IJesus,how many chances has old saddam had? Did he give this many chances to the Kurdish people? No,he did not.

We really have to open our eyes because i cannot simply believe the naivity of some people.

Its such a cliche now to blame the war because we want the Iraq oil fields because its nonsense. No, its complete bulls**t.

Anyone who protests truely make me sick and are not only a disgrace to themselves,but to there country.

and i hope after this war the tyrant Mugahbe
[paste]IJesus,how many chances has old saddam had? Did he give this many chances to the Kurdish people? No,he did not. [/quote]

No he didnot give them a chance. He used his Made In U.S.A augusta bell's 'spraying for agricultural purposes' helicopters to gas them. The helicopters sold to him in the middle of international outrage because iraq was using chemical weapons against Iran ( but iran was the bad guys then remember?). By the way did he pay for them or it was part of the aid he was receiving by the states during the 80's?
Since you care so much about the Kurdish people i have some questions for you. For 25 years Tyrkey has killed over 30.000 kurdish people and its kurdish population is many times the one Iraq has ( 12.000.000 ). Why was that fact hidden from the media for 25 years? Why were the states selling weapons AND GIVING MILITARY AID ALSO FOR FREE to a country that kills kurds ? U.S made airplanes tanks and soldiers with u.s made rifles killed kurds for 3 decades amd it was O.K to the states government, why does the U.S care so much about the Kurdish people suddenly?




Quote[/b] ] We really have to open our eyes because i cannot simply believe the naivity of some people.

I lost you here. Are you talking about the people that want a war against iraw but have no idea where Iraq is? ....Oh no wait you were talking about us anti-war? well you MISUNDERASTIMATE us i am afraid.



Quote[/b] ]Its such a cliche now to blame the war because we want the Iraq oil fields because its nonsense. No, its complete bulls**t.

Oil prices is an all time high since the start of the war today as fears that the war will last more than expected rise. Oil companies shares fall in unison. Need i say more?
But you are correct , its not only about the oil. Its also about the billions the U.S ( since Bush said he will only allow U.S companies) companies will make for the Iraq reconstruction. Its also about weapons because of the billions U.S weapons manufacturers will make for selling U.S made weapons to the new Iraqi quesling that will rule after the war.

Quote[/b] ]
Anyone who protests truely make me sick and are not only a disgrace to themselves,but to there country.


and i hope after this war the tyrant Mugahbe


....This phrase sounds like something Mugabe would say. Isnt this world ironic?


-----------------------------------------------------------
Some reading material for the day ...




50-55 more iraqi people liberated. The pentagon quotes Bart Simpson ' I didnt do it' ' wasnt me' (http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1085524,00.html)

Anyone still believes that war is not madness?

[cugel]

Now the US is in an historically unique position as a lone superpower. A superpower faced with an eminant threat to its own security, a security it has taken for granted. Certain regimes, organizations, and individuals have expressed a hatred for America for a couple of decades, but most of this hatred was just rhetoric, something to unite a disenfranchised people. And sure, there might be the occassional terrorist act OVERSEAS that causes concern. But what 9/11 did was take the blindfold off, and show that the US was vulnerable, that all of its military might and economic strength could not prevent an attack of horrific proportions. And that's when the rhetoric became much more than just Yankee go home and Down with America. That's when it became an immediate and visible threat.

This is one of the most clear expressions of the sentiments of many of the American people I have read recently. For this reason it's worth examining in detail.
The American people do feel vulnerable and frightened after 9/11. I used to work in the North Tower of the Trade Center and felt exactly the same way when I saw them come down. Unfortunately, getting rid of Saddam has nothing whatever to do with the war against terrorism, except rhetorically. As examined in detail on Frontline broadcasts recently, the administration made a fundamental decision to attack Iraq shortly after 9/11, even before the identity of culprits was known They decided, at the insistence of Secretary Powell, that dealing with Iraq would be stage 2 of the war, after Afghanistan, because people around the world wouldn't support us if we launched an immediate attack on Iraq. We are now seeing this play out.

Due to massive propaganda efforts of the government, some 40% of the American people actually believe that Saddam had something to do with 9/11. Bush has simply transferred people's anger and fear about terrorism from Bin Laden towards Saddam. As reported repeatedly in international news:

1. Saddam and Bin Laden truly despise each other. Their goals are mutually incompatible. Saddam wants a greater Iraqi secular dictatorship leading the Muslim world, with - surprise - Saddam in control. Bin Laden wants a Taliban-like regime to take control of all Muslim countries in order to take the world back to the reign of the righteous Caliphs of the 7th century, with - surprise - Bin Laden as Caliph, as a first step towards his insane vision of a global Jihad. His latest audio-tape called Saddam's government infidel. Asking them to work together is like expecting Stalin to support Trotsky. Shortly after Secretary Powell got up in front of the U.N. to declare a link between Al-Qaeda & Saddam, CIA Director Tenet testified before Congress and essentially denied it. There's not one shred of credible evidence that Saddam has given weapons of mass destruction to terrorists or has had anything to do with the terrorist attacks on the U.S. This point has also been tacitly conceded by Bush when the administration abandoned this line of argument in recent weeks. It was only seriously advanced for propaganda purposes in the U.S.

2. Too many high ranking generals and statesmen from governments past and present (Gen's Scrowcroft, Zinni, etc) have commented on the obvious for it to be controversial any longer -that the war will INCREASE NOT DECREASE terrorism. All the major newspapers this past week have had articles highlighting that terrorists are using the war as a successful recruiting tool. Even a majority of the American people don't really think this war will help us defeat Bin Laden but support the president because they hope he knows what he's doing, and he's our leader during wartime. Unfortunately their faith is badly misplaced.

Please believe that there were schemes to conduct more terrorist acts against America and the world prior to Bush's rhetoric about the Axis of Evil. OBL said so himself, and that is but one of many terrorists out there. Once you understand this, you must understand that any reasonable nation will put whatever resources it can to protect its citizens. And will undertake any measure to remove/eliminate the threat.

Once again, a clear example of the thinking of a majority of people in the U.S. We WOULD support any reasonable action to remove the terrorist threat. Only in the U.S. are people really afraid that somehow Saddam is going to attack us, so we'd better get rid of him now. This explains the split in world opinion between the overwhelming majority of people world-wide opposed to the war, and the majority in the U.S. in support of it. Again, as noted above, the war will do nothing to reduce, but rather a great deal to INCREASE terrorism. Terrorists don't need Saddam's weapons of mass destruction. They only need a few dedicated martyrs - how much chaos and mayhem could a few snipers create (like the Washington D.C. sniper did earlier this year)? Imagine if you took a 20 such terrorists (like the 9/11 bombers) and put them in 20 different cities throughout the U.S. and had them start simultaneously sniping at people at random? Why would they need sophisticated weapons? The 9/11 terrorists had nothing more sophisticated than box-cutters to bring the U.S. to a virtual standstill. Warfare, no matter how successful won't do a thing to reduce the real threat. Only peace and a reconciliation with the Muslim world will do that. What if we spent a fraction of the $100+ billion the war will cost to build schools and hospitals throughout the Muslim world - to educate children in something other than jihad? Does this sound like utopian dreaming? What is the cost/benefit ratio in comparison to smart bombs and cruise missiles?

How long will it take us to learn the real lesson from 9/11? It's a small, totally interconnected world. It matters what people think of us in remote corners of the globe. It matters a lot. We thought we could ignore problems in other parts of the world. We were wrong. How can war and the dislocations of war make us more safe? If Saddam disappeared tommorow would it really matter to terrorism world-wide?

The Bush Doctrine introduces an incredibly frightening new policy to the world: that the US will track down any terrorist organization, and any country known to support terrorist organizations, in an effort to protect itself and its allies from future attacks. It proscribes a pro-active approach to confronting terrorism, and that necessarily means enabling the use of force to remove that threat when necessary (there are of course other ways to deter these organizations).

This is one of the boldest, most radical foreign policy directives ever issued. I don't know if it will work. And I understand perfectly why this doctrine scares the bejeezus out of nearly everyone (including me). I hope and pray that the US exercises its unique power with great caution and responsibility, while trying to work within the international community every step of the way. With those cautions laid out, I believe it is the right course of action to take AS LONG AS it is coupled with constructive programs that collectively deter people from becoming terrorists.

Again, a clear statement worth assessing. As repeatedly noted throughout the world, the concept of a preventive war is completely in violation of international law. It is worth noting the late President Eisenhower's statements in this regard. The former president called preventive war a concept created by Hitler and stated that he wouldn't listen seriously to anyone who advocated it.

The implications from discarding international law have also been commented on too often to need further elaboration here. The arguments in favor of preventive war have been that our survival necessitates it, regardless of legal niceties. This argument cuts both ways, however. If as noted above, our survival DOESN'T depend upon it, if in fact we are in far MORE danger because of a preventive war, then all argument in favor of it fall to the ground.

Again, unfortunately, there is no sign that Bush even understands the real need to rebuild Iraq. Cheney and Rumsfeld are said to oppose long-term commitments in Iraq. If we look at the U.S. track record in Afghanistan, there's not much hope. President Karzai is currently isolated in Kabul, without much real control over the country. The Taliban is making a comeback and warlords rule a balkanized Afghanistan. The only thing booming in the country is the opium trade. In the midst of this chaos the Bush administration requested ZERO dollars for aid to Afghanistan in this year's aid package. Congress on it's own initiative inserted $300 million. It's widely understood that it would take billions of dollars to even begin to rebuild the country and that the money won't be forthcoming. Meanwhile the situation deteriorates.

The reality is that we're not going to re-build Iraq, nor are we going to democratize it. We'll make a few p.r. efforts, but it would take longer than Bush will be in office to complete the job. Does anyone really believe that when Iraq slips off the radar screen as Afghanistan did before it we will have the patience for that?

[Goatus Maximus]

Cugel, awesome reply Just a couple of additional thoughts/comments:

*Your comments on preventive war ring true, in that no one really knows whether this will work. I would argue that with the rise in destruction that non-sovereign actors can inflict today (as opposed to even 30 years ago), that a new paradigm does indeed exist, and that any nation that harbors, arms, and funds terrorists is indeed a threat to national if not world security and would be subject to preemptive action. I do not see anyone in the UN arguing against pre-emptive action, only the criteria for judging when it should be applied. Iraq is a convenient first target because: failure to live up to UN resolutions to disarm, violent regime, known anti-American sentiment, known to support, arm, and fund terrorist organizations (not Al Qaeda, however, as you correctly note&#33http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

As you say, the argument cuts both ways...you imply that if our survival depends on it, its justified. If our survival doesn't depend on it, then its not justified. Unfortunately, there is no litmus test yet developed to say when a threat should be preemptively removed. We won't know if our survival depends on it until being attacked Heck, Saddam could have been loaded for bear with WMD, but people still would have said well, he hasn't used them against you yet or well, we don't know if he's sold them to terrorist organizations. I'm sorry, but when dealing with WMD, that can inflict casualties in the hundreds of thousands in the blink of an eye, that is not good enough

As a sidenote, I firmly believe that it is within humanity's grasp to eliminate WMD, which is the only way for them to be removed from the power equation and which is the only way for them to lose their significance to smaller regimes. The existing WMD powers (US, Russia, GB, France, etc) need to immediately take leadership to make this happen.

*If you believe documents and surveillance gleaned from some terrorist organizations such as Al Qaeda, attempts have been made to acquire WMD. Maybe this is just propaganda...I would argue that if an organization is willing to destroy two buildings that might hold up to 40,000+ people without blinking an eye, they would certainly welcome an opportunity to acquire WMD.

*Sadly, I would argue that the US will take a very active role in building Iraq owing to its geostratigical importance in the world. I do not deny that the US will most likely look to setup lucrative oil contracts with the new Iraqi government...I would argue to the death that this is not the primary goal of the war, but it certainly is something that will occur.

I am disappointed that the US has not followed through with developing the Afghani infrastructure (Iran has done much, much more&#33http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif, and I am afraid that this will be a monumental failure in the war against terrorism.

For the Bush doctrine to work, far more importance needs to be attached to the establishment of a stable infrastructure that discourages individuals from wanting to be terrorists, and thus the focus of any operation must remain on rebuilding the country

[The Blind King of Bohemia]

Look,i apologise for the disgrace to there country comment and i know the Kurdish people have suffered from Turks just as well as Saddam. I live in Birmingham and about 2 weeks ago there were anti-war marches and reality i have no problem with them as long as they have a point or an arguement. But simply many didn't. I watched many Muslims in the crowd just there for trouble. They had no idea why people were protesting and simply wanted to bring race into the war saying this is a war against Islam and were content in not opening there eyes or there ears to any other arguements. I know we are all worrying about this war which has good and points,and before any one says it,i know the U.S have brought it on themselves with suppling arms and aid to the middle east, but the one plus point is that Saddam will be removed one way or another. I know that removing him will not solve all the problems but at least its start. I know war is not nice and the innocent always suffer,this has happened for centuries and will continue to do so but sometimes its the only way.
Many people see this as a war on Islam and racially for Britain and for other countries its not good at all. I can see race riots happening,especially here and thanks to other factors such as Asylum seeking and poverty it has laid the foundations of future dis content and you just look to see wants happening within the North of England to see what i'm talking about.
I,at the moment are watching Euro News and in Colombia many protesters are walking aroung stark Bo**ock naked. Can't they express there anti-war feeling fully clothed? Call me old fashioned but i don't really see a point in it.
Alright i know we are all going to disagree on this topic which makes it so interesting but seeing soldiers coming home in body bags with some being executed by a regime which has to go and that is the bottom line. Sorry for causing any offence,don't pay any heed. Now if you will excuse me i'm fighting for Burgundian survival against the Italians and French, Bye

[t1mmie]

this is a tricky one, as there is more at stake than just 'disarming' saddam or liberating the iraqi people. it has far reaching implications for the entire ME political spectrum, as well as unintended effects on nato and the role of the united nations. i wish bush and blair would have sat and thought it out a little harder, instead of the mad rush to war.

can the war be justified, sure, but at what cost? when we apply a utilitarian mode of thought or reason to the war in iraq, i don't think either argument for or against comes out ahead, as both arguments offer considerable, and unacceptable, loss imo.

it is truley being caught between a rock and a hard place, made even harder by 'hard' headed thought, or lack there of... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[rasoforos]

Some people claimed that Europe is divided between pro-war and anti war. I gave proof that Europe is 92% anti-war. Now some proof that even the 'coalition' countries are 90% anti war. Anyone believes Mr Aznar will be elected again? (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2895489.stm)

[Goatus Maximus]

I don't think that for any of the leaders in Europe the Iraq war is a make-or-break with regards to getting elected again, mostly because the issue is pretty far removed from their citizen's daily lives. The results of the poll are interesting, and I suspect it has more to do with how the question was asked rather than true sentiment. For instance, 58% of the Spanish believed that Iraq had WMD. If you connect the dots in the questions, I almost guarantee you that if the questions Would you support preemptive military action if Iraq is found to have WMD?, that the numbers favoring military action would be more than 9%. Heck, even France said they'd support military action if WMD were found in the couple days after military action started

I would be curious how many Europeans believe the latest rumor out there, that the US is clearing the path for a greater Israel Sheesh...

[rasoforos]

Quote[/b] (Goatus Maximus @ Mar. 31 2003,22:31)]I don't think that for any of the leaders in Europe the Iraq war is a make-or-break with regards to getting elected again, mostly because the issue is pretty far removed from their citizen's daily lives. The results of the poll are interesting, and I suspect it has more to do with how the question was asked rather than true sentiment. For instance, 58% of the Spanish believed that Iraq had WMD. If you connect the dots in the questions, I almost guarantee you that if the questions Would you support preemptive military action if Iraq is found to have WMD?, that the numbers favoring military action would be more than 9%. Heck, even France said they'd support military action if WMD were found in the couple days after military action started

I would be curious how many Europeans believe the latest rumor out there, that the US is clearing the path for a greater Israel Sheesh...
So...let me get it straight.... you say the issue is removed from the citizens's daily lives in Europe. But what i see is hundreds of thuossants of people dmonstrating all over Europe in most cities. It does not look like people who dont care to me.
Perhaps those demonstrations do not reach the states....? Isnt FOXnews doing a good job?

And...And...you actually take the fact that 91% of those people are against the war...and you add that 58% believe Iraq had WMD ( of course it had , why would the states sell it all those spraying helicopters and vote AGAINST a resolution that would condemn Iraq's use of WMDs during the Iran iraq wae?) ...and you...end up saying that they would accept a preemptive strike against Iraq? ....Wow...from 91% against to 'lets nuke em just to be certain' in 10 words. It does not make sence my friend.


Quote[/b] ] I would be curious how many Europeans believe the latest rumor out there, that the US is clearing the path for a greater Israel Sheesh...

How many of your tax money went to Israel this year my friend? By the way who sold WMD's (nuclear included) to Israel? The good old uncle sam of course. I ve never heard about this 'great israel ' theory of yours though.

[Goatus Maximus]

I'm not saying that the people don't care...obviously they care enough to be part of the demonstration. But I think it would be foolish to say that because 91% of the people oppose the war that Aznar won't be elected...those same 91% of the people might abhore his foreign policy record, but they might think he is doing a smashing job with the Spanish economy, something that is more immediate to their own lives. Likewise here in the States, the polls show that Americans are about 70% in favor of the way Bush is handling the war...but everyone is concerned about the economy. I guarantee you that even if Bush got up to 90% in favor of his foreign policy, he would lose the next election if the economy is still in the shitter...nature of the beast.

I read an interesting article about polls recently, main point being that people are poor predictors of future attitudes. A couple months prior to the war, the majority (I think about 60%) of polled Americans only favored a war with a second UN resolution...many newspapers at the time viewed this as American's opposed to war without UN resolution Of course, public opinion changed to the point that most American's (about 70%) now support the war. A lot can happen within the space of a couple of months that either change or reinforce people's opinions.

My whole point is that polls are highly subjective and highly random, and the way in which questions are asked and the sequence in which questions are asked have a huge bearing on the outcome. I never said that if the question was asked differently that the majority of people would now all of a sudden support the war...but you can bet the % opposed would be lower (my guess would be 80% opposed instead of 91%).

You have an interesting way of interpreting what I said, I'll give you that much

I wish I could take credit for the Greater Israel theory...its something that I heard was said on an Egyptian news report. The idea being that the US takes out the strongest Arab power, moves on to Syria, and effectively sets up friendly regimes to Israel that would allow settlements in their territories. Of course that is why the US invaded Iraq...to help out Israel http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif

[lonewolf371]

Quite honestly, I don't think we should be in the war. When we launched an attack on Afghanistan, it set us (I am a US citizen so I can say 'us&#39http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif off on a conquering rampage. We're meddling too much in foreign affairs, especially since the break-up of the Soviet Union. Now it's almost impossible for the US to get into hot water (Unless perhaps if all the European nations united against us... which won't happen) and this can lead to hot heads. We try and do nation-building, protect our future and all that, but when it gets to launching war, yes, WAR against nations on mainly assumptions and rumors it gets to be too much. Our army is supposed to just sit in our country unless the nukes and airplanes of Saddam come knocking on our doors. If the people truly hate Saddam, and they truly want to get rid of him, they will. Otherwise we are doing that task for them, and in the process have the ability to gain the spoils: Iraq. We could all too easily set up a puppet and not give any more of a **** for the people of Iraq than Saddam did. Parading across the world like this will not only lead to US imperialism, but could also lead to its downfall. Mind you, I've no doubt that US will fall eventually, but as with all superpowers it is a matter of time.

[Crackslapper]

First I would just like to say that yes, I think the war is needed to bring stability to the Gulf as a whole. But the war is not really the issue, the peace will be the yardstick by which its justification will be measured. The two main protagonists are both to blame in some way for the actions now being taken. I hope the Americans will see that no lasting peace will come about until the Palestine people are given a homeland, free of Israeli expandtionism. Extremism is never a good thing, and all groups must pull together to bring something positive out of this sorry mess.

[Lord Godfrey]

It is a mistaken belief to think that the people of Iraq could overthrow Saddam’s regime if they wanted to. They have learned that the best way to survive is to go about their daily lives as much as possible and not get noticed. It is the same in any country or group run by bullies and thugs, the only way not to get picked on is to keep your head down and mind your own business.

The difficult part for the US in not going to be getting rid of the current regime, it is going to be enabling the Iraqi people to govern themselves. Since the end of the Cold War, the US has had the opportunity to meddle in foreign affairs not as a counterweight to communism but in a way that hopefully increases the freedoms people have access to. Far too often, we make the assumption that once we get rid of the bad guys, the good guys not only know what to do but will also we able to do it on their own. My concern at the present time is that we have through our actions taken responsibility to enable the people of Afghanistan and Iraq to develop stable governments that allow our basic freedoms of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Unfortunately this will take time, financial support, and troops on the ground to ensure stability.

Some will see this as imperialism, but that is not our recent history. American financial support and military presence allowed Western Europe to rebuild after WW2. Our work to counter-communism during the Cold War was instrumental in its eventual collapse and allowed the people of Eastern Europe to gain the everyday freedoms we take for granted. South Korea is a better place than North Korea in part because of a US presence. Yes it had some fairly right-wing dictatorships that we supported and might not have been necessary, but today it is a very stable democracy with a strong economy. The Philippines is another example – and when their government asked our military to leave we did. We had troops in the Middle East before the present conflict to ensure the same stability. Yes – stability in the region ensure that the world’s primary source for oil is available for the global market. But if the King of Saudi Arabia had gone to the UN and requested that US troop leave the kingdom – we would have.

The current conflict is not about the US wanting to take over or dominate the world. It is not anti-Arab or anti Islamic. Have we made mistakes in the past? Of course we have and I am sure that we will continue to do so – we are not perfect nor can we predict future events. But for the most part our intent is noble. We want to ensure stability and promote the freedoms that we have the fortune to be guaranteed under our Constitution.

[SmokWawelski]

Very good post Lonewolf, it points out the nature of latest moves by the US...

[Gregoshi]

Welcome Crackslapper. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif

Nice contributions by the new patrons. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/pat.gif Very well presented too.

[eddie0909]

wow http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/shock.gif 211 posts at this post amazing congrags wellington http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[lonewolf371]

I suppose that helping stabalize the world is good and all, but doing it through military action; is it really necessary? Many would have said that many wars could have been avoided, is this one of them? Once again if, no when the people of Iraq would have finally felt that it was time to get rid of Saddam they would. Great geniuses and speakers come and go supporting all sides in many conflicts, one of them would< have showed up in Iraq. Even as is, the army has no loyalty to Saddam, but they do have loyalty to Iraq. Sure, Saddam is Iraq but a powerful speaker could easily change the public&#39;s views on that, and if he could do it fast enough it would make it much more difficult to asassinate him. Iraq, North Korea, Afghanistan, they&#39;re all responsible for their decline into third world countries, but because of that I believe they will only truly recover if they do it themselves. The war in Iraq is almost entirely Iraq&#39;s fault, not ours. But that doesn&#39;t mean that we should allow prejudice and general hatred towards a people due to things they&#39;ve said and done in the past to give us reasons good enough to go to war. War, at least for the US, is not nearly as feared as it used to be. With us having the biggest bombs and the baddest soldiers, we lose few lives (Relative to past times) and to us the names and numbers of the dead in the papers is abstract to us. It isn&#39;t to the Iraqis. You must also remember the fairness of this war, it isn&#39;t moral to pick on Iraq, of places. It still hasn&#39;t recovered from the Gulf War. Heck Saudi Arabia might be able to whip its ass by now. We shouldn&#39;t be there, it&#39;s Iraq&#39;s job to become economically stable.

[Lord Godfrey]

How can you say a powerful speaker could rally the people to overthrow the government when there is no such thing as freedom of speech in Iraq, at least not until today? The Baath party controlled all forms of media, and there isn’t the equivalent of London’s Speakers Corner in Hyde Park where anyone on Sunday afternoon can say anything he/she wants as long as they are standing on a box. The end result of anyone speaking out against Saddam was a bullet to the head for you and your family.

One of the issues the US will have to address is providing Iraq the stability over the next 2-3 years as a new government is formed and hopefully gains the confidence of the people. It is our responsibility to help Iraq become politically and economically stable. Their oil reserves should help the latter, but troops on the ground – be they US, British, or another form of peacekeepers – are going to be needed for the foreseeable future to ensure the political stability that we in the West take for granted. I only hope that the Arab Street can see this for what it is – providing stability - and doesn’t see it as Western Imperialsim. I fear that Arab leaders will continue to use this as an excuse to shift the attention from their own internal problems into Anti- American / Western rhetoric.

[Dimeola]

I read an interview with a Iraqi scientist who helped hide nuclear material....he stated flatly that it has not been sccounted for. For the horrible repression and torture these people have been under. Example the children`s prison that got liberated today. Children who didnt committ to the military were imprisoned, some had been in there for 5 years. Threatening military personnel with execution of their families if they didnt fight. Firing into and hiding in while firing, crowds of innocent civilians. Murdering POWs. The morgue in the south found by the British. Contained bags of bones.....many with execution style bullet holes in the head. The terrorist camp in the north near the Iranian border shows traces of nerve gas. Was reported to be used, among other things, to train in chemical warfare. The barrels that tested positive for nerve agent that has been flown to the lab. The arty warheads that tested positive for agent that have been sent to the lab.
When they took one of Saddam`s palaces one Marine remarked how opulent it was yet that so many lived in poverty.
For using chemical agent on his own people. And we could go on.....
I realize that we have a terrible image over there. I think many Muslims are glad Saddam is out. But they still hate us. And the best thing we can do is get these people rolling and secure and get out.
Yeah I wish diplomacy had worked. But it hadnt done anything for years. How long do you wait? Until they send an invitation? The U.S. has been living by the `good guy` routine where we let them get the first punch. But 9-11 changed all that. I hope we never have to do this again.
Dimeolas

[Efrem Da King]

I should have known a poll in this site would be anti war. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif

[KukriKhan]

Welcome back Efrem Da King http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif The statistics at the top of the page seem to show that OrgWorld is quite divided on the issue of justification.

[Demon of Light]

Efram: Funny thing is that Wellington (who has the same avatar you do) would say the precise oppisite. In fact, he did say the opposite of that and was demoted to senior patron for that among other things.


P.S: place the statement or phrase to be italisized in between the two. If it makes you feel better, I couldn&#39;t get anything in bold for the longest time

[Efrem Da King]

Quote[/b] (Demon of Light @ April 10 2003,11:11)]Efram: Funny thing is that Wellington (who has the same avatar you do) would say the precise oppisite. In fact, he did say the opposite of that and was demoted to senior patron for that among other things.


P.S: place the statement or phrase to be italisized in between the two. If it makes you feel better, I couldn&#39;t get anything in bold for the longest time
What???????

Someone stole my avatar

[Gregoshi]

It was the among other things that got Wellington his demotion, not his antiwar stance.

[Efrem Da King]

Quote[/b] (Gregoshi @ April 11 2003,09:24)]It was the among other things that got Wellington his demotion, not his antiwar stance.
Damn http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/angry.gif .

Here I was thinking maybe you guys had taken a turn to right http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif .

[Demon of Light]

Quote[/b] (Gregoshi @ April 11 2003,07:24)]It was the among other things that got Wellington his demotion, not his antiwar stance.
My understanding was that the antiwar stuff served as a catalyst for some of the stuff you guys found objectionable. Certainly no one believes the spark itself can cause an explosion without the barrel of gunpowder but certainly the explosion must of necessity have at its root the spark.

[Efrem Da King]

Quote[/b] (Demon of Light @ April 12 2003,06:10)]
Quote[/b] (Gregoshi @ April 11 2003,07:24)]It was the among other things that got Wellington his demotion, not his antiwar stance.
My understanding was that the antiwar stuff served as a catalyst for some of the stuff you guys found objectionable. Certainly no one believes the spark itself can cause an explosion without the barrel of gunpowder but certainly the explosion must of necessity have at its root the spark.
Interesting. So he got demoted for being anti-war like I got banned for being pro-israel? (Peace)

[Papewaio]

Quote[/b] (Demon of Light @ April 12 2003,06:10)]My understanding was that the antiwar stuff served as a catalyst for some of the stuff you guys found objectionable. Certainly no one believes the spark itself can cause an explosion without the barrel of gunpowder but certainly the explosion must of necessity have at its root the spark.
I think you will find it was not the antiwar stuff. It was the attitude with which he presented the arguement.

Play the ball not the man... in other words he went for the guys and not the arguement.

Wellington is very passionate about this topic, which is fair.

Happens to all of us from time to time, we all have to learn when we have to walk away from a topic that we really believe in if all we do is get http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/argue.gif angry. Ultimately we cannot communicate our point of view if we do not establish some sort of cordial communication.

&#39;Don&#39;t Drive Angry&#39;Bill Murray in Groundhog Day http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif just before driving over a cliff.

[Wellington]

Quote[/b] (Gregoshi @ April 11 2003,09:24)]It was the among other things that got Wellington his demotion, not his antiwar stance.
Quite true

There is no doubt that, after 7 months participation in The Org and having posted nothing in the The Tavern previously, Dubyas war offended me intensely.

Therefore, having spent 7 months in constructive participation in The Orgs forums and especially in respect to modding, it it&#39;s impossible to stand back whilst such ill-thought out military action is activated by the Pentagon.

There is no doubt I was rude and offensive to some people; but whilst I regret that, it is totally and unbelievably naieve to believe my views were not actively opposed by some individuals who should have been more concerned with The Orgs criteria than indulging in their own personal politics.

To wit, the among other things included -

a) questioning why a moderator issued a warning and then issued a restriction one hour later - impossible for the recipient to respond to such a warning. unless you check you E-mails every hour.

b) questioning why a moderator refused to explain why my flood controls had been increased from 105 to 305 seconds.

c) having been blocked (by 6+ hours flood controls that prevented my posting in the Tavern) and then posting in the Entrance Hall - questioning why my flood controls then increased to 415.

d) questioning for what specific sin I was demoted.

I have still to -

- receive an explanation for such flood controls
- recieve an explanation for why one/some moderators chased my postings from The Tavern to the Entrance hall
- receive an explanation as to why I was demoted

and ... er ...

- receive an explanation as to why my poem, as requesetd by Gregoshi in a thread, was then stopped by TosaInu who merely chose to say Enough of this. Closed.

Hhhmm - perhaps my poem was a little to close to the truth?


Anyway, failing such explanations - I&#39;ll stand by my own opinions.

Welly

[Gregoshi]

One more post about anything other than justification for/against the Iraq war and this topic will be closed.

Thank you.

Wellington, would you be so kind as to take discussion of your issues to email? Talk to me please. Thank you.

[Efrem Da King]

Quote[/b] ]
b) questioning why a moderator refused to explain why my flood controls had been increased from 105 to 305 seconds.

Ha thats nothing I was only allowed to post once a day and even now have 1500 seconds flood resctritans.

But back on topic or this&#39;ll be closed. Th war in iraq is perfectly justafied and needed, if not only to free the iraqis from saddam.

[lonewolf371]

Simply because there is no Freedom of Speech does not mean that people cannot speak out against the government, even privately if needed. Also, Iraq might have found prosperity through its own leaders struggling against each other. Greed can be found common-place in such governments, and if Iraq did erupt into a civil war it would make it much more difficult to destroy people speaking out against government policies and such. A civil war may sound like a sick way that the problem could be solved, but it would make it so that Iraq established its new government, not us. In addition, if we managed to find the new ruler friendly to both his people and the US not only could we establish a fine alliance but also complement each other, with us getting oil from Iraq and Iraq getting money from us in a peaceful manner. Bush&#39;s method with a puppet leader would accomplish this same end, but the Iraqi people would most likely resent a president appointed by the US.

[Surprise]

this war is somewhat justified i voted...

there are some very clever motives in which the US has...

very intelligent motives they are too, and not everyone recognizes them i believe, there&#39;s probably a dozen strong motives why the US invaded Iraq.

[Efrem Da King]

Quote[/b] (DEATHby_Surprise @ April 13 2003,01:20)]this war is somewhat justified i voted...

there are some very clever motives in which the US has...

very intelligent motives they are too, and not everyone recognizes them i believe, there&#39;s probably a dozen strong motives why the US invaded Iraq.
HERE HERE.

[Demon of Light]

Justification in history inevitably depends on what whirlwind was reaped after someone sowed the wind. What I would point out is that justification for this conflict won&#39;t be sorted out until the effects it has are known (to a greater degree than they are now)

(sidenotes: Pape: I said what you said but it would appear your version was more clear. Cool http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Wellington: I have a question for you but I don&#39;t want to wait a week for the response so my e-mail is albertmaldonado@yahoo.com)

[SmokWawelski]

I think that we could push topic into a new (?) direction and wonder who is going to benefit most from this conflict...When I see pictures of Baghdad being looted I can understand why US cannot see the happines among the Iraqis that we were expecting.

-I wonder how many lost trasures from their museums and palaces will show up over the next years on private art auctions throughout the world. Would it be hard to arrange for a team of agents to go into the city and pull whatever was needed for the sponsor? Was it so hard to predict that treasures or world 0 class NEED protection as soon as the regime falls? We are talking here about one of the oldest civilizations.
-Hospitals with no staff, no electricity, no water (same for the rest of the city)? This is beyond my comprehension. However we are preparing to get the things going once again, starting Monday?
-Can we expect to rebuild the city/country to its previous state? How can we rebuild the old Baghdad?
-Why it have to be US firms that do this, why not jump start Iraqi economy and let them do it with our help?

I think that we could look into Afghanistan for some examples of how it looks after the war is over. I just hope that we were right to do it.

[Red Harvest]

There are many reasons this war was justified. The simplest is this: if it keeps the whack job jihadi types engaged in their own backyard, it keeps them out of ours--and we have several thousand reasons to believe this is a good plan based on what we saw in New York. In this case the best defence is a good offense. From what I&#39;ve gathered the only serious resistance we have faced in Irag has been the jihadi types with terrorist attacks. This is the same thing that happened in Afghanistan. The conflict became a gathering point for the nutcases to congregate and get dispatched. If we have to invade some muslim dictatorship every year to keep the nutcases occupied and provide them with a focal point, I&#39;m fine with that. Eventually, the whack jobs will run out of santuaries and in the end, the people of those countries will be better off for it as well, since it will dismantle the combination of medieval law and authoritarian regimes that have prevailed.

Interestingly, those that have protested the war most loudly (France and Russia) are the most responsible for the conflict. Both have tried to jockey at US expense and showed no real interest in preventing a conflict. (China is doing the same with North Korea--for those who keep track of what is going on.) They did everything possible to signal to Saddam that he would not be invaded should he fail to comply. France supplied Iraq with a nuclear reacto--that the Israeli&#39;s took out back in &#39;81 or so. French Exocets were used to attack ships in the Gulf during the Iran-Iraq war, including the USS stark if memory serves. With allies like France, who needs enemies? Russia supplied the bulk of the Iraqi military gear and provided GPS jammers. What&#39;s new? Want to identify the bad guys? Just look for the ones driving Russian tanks whilst wearing black berets.

Russia is still wearing a black hat. They lecture the US after their own assinine invasions of Afghanistan and Chechnya (speaking of the first invasion of Chechnya, the second invasion was necessary but it would not have been if they had allowed them to leave the USSR originally.) Russia backed the Serbs in their fascist nationalistic attacks vs. Croatia, Bosnia, and Kosovo. Russia&#39;s so called independent press makes the National Enquirer look like the Wall St. Journal. I&#39;ve spoken with enough Russians to know one thing: when it comes to world events/history they presently cannot distinguish truth from fiction and cling to Stalinist portrayals of ethnic groups and events while at the same time saying they don&#39;t believe what the former communist regime taught them. Given some time, I think they will develop and learn to interpret world press, but at present they are laughably ill informed and believe ludicrous conspiracy theories (much as the muslim world does.)

Speaking of the press, All Jizz Terrorist Network (or whatever they are called) have lost a great deal of credibility in the muslim world with their lopsided reporting. When Baghdad imploded the farce of All Jizz&#39; reporting was plain to see, and a number of Arabs commented on how their reporting turned out to be a pack of lies. It was particularly interesting when Basra residents chased two All Jizz reporters to the Kuwaiti border for misrepresenting what was happening in Basra.

It will be a great day when the muslim nations learn to co-exist with other nations, rather than running about screaming jihad every time someone so much as passes wind in their general direction. When will it happen? It is likely to take several steps: The authoritarian regimes must fall. Spasms of religious extremism must play out. Basic living conditions must be seen as improving. Note that both authoritarianism and religious extremism typically result from deteriorating outlook.

[Efrem Da King]

Quote[/b] (Red Harvest @ April 13 2003,17:22)]There are many reasons this war was justified. The simplest is this: if it keeps the whack job jihadi types engaged in their own backyard, it keeps them out of ours--and we have several thousand reasons to believe this is a good plan based on what we saw in New York. In this case the best defence is a good offense. From what I&#39;ve gathered the only serious resistance we have faced in Irag has been the jihadi types with terrorist attacks. This is the same thing that happened in Afghanistan. The conflict became a gathering point for the nutcases to congregate and get dispatched. If we have to invade some muslim dictatorship every year to keep the nutcases occupied and provide them with a focal point, I&#39;m fine with that. Eventually, the whack jobs will run out of santuaries and in the end, the people of those countries will be better off for it as well, since it will dismantle the combination of medieval law and authoritarian regimes that have prevailed.

Interestingly, those that have protested the war most loudly (France and Russia) are the most responsible for the conflict. Both have tried to jockey at US expense and showed no real interest in preventing a conflict. (China is doing the same with North Korea--for those who keep track of what is going on.) They did everything possible to signal to Saddam that he would not be invaded should he fail to comply. France supplied Iraq with a nuclear reacto--that the Israeli&#39;s took out back in &#39;81 or so. French Exocets were used to attack ships in the Gulf during the Iran-Iraq war, including the USS stark if memory serves. With allies like France, who needs enemies? Russia supplied the bulk of the Iraqi military gear and provided GPS jammers. What&#39;s new? Want to identify the bad guys? Just look for the ones driving Russian tanks whilst wearing black berets.

Russia is still wearing a black hat. They lecture the US after their own assinine invasions of Afghanistan and Chechnya (speaking of the first invasion of Chechnya, the second invasion was necessary but it would not have been if they had allowed them to leave the USSR originally.) Russia backed the Serbs in their fascist nationalistic attacks vs. Croatia, Bosnia, and Kosovo. Russia&#39;s so called independent press makes the National Enquirer look like the Wall St. Journal. I&#39;ve spoken with enough Russians to know one thing: when it comes to world events/history they presently cannot distinguish truth from fiction and cling to Stalinist portrayals of ethnic groups and events while at the same time saying they don&#39;t believe what the former communist regime taught them. Given some time, I think they will develop and learn to interpret world press, but at present they are laughably ill informed and believe ludicrous conspiracy theories (much as the muslim world does.)

Speaking of the press, All Jizz Terrorist Network (or whatever they are called) have lost a great deal of credibility in the muslim world with their lopsided reporting. When Baghdad imploded the farce of All Jizz&#39; reporting was plain to see, and a number of Arabs commented on how their reporting turned out to be a pack of lies. It was particularly interesting when Basra residents chased two All Jizz reporters to the Kuwaiti border for misrepresenting what was happening in Basra.

It will be a great day when the muslim nations learn to co-exist with other nations, rather than running about screaming jihad every time someone so much as passes wind in their general direction. When will it happen? It is likely to take several steps: The authoritarian regimes must fall. Spasms of religious extremism must play out. Basic living conditions must be seen as improving. Note that both authoritarianism and religious extremism typically result from deteriorating outlook.
That is very true. But I don&#39;t think al jezzirah has lost any credialty in the muslim world because they have no better source so they believe what is being said.

[SmokWawelski]

RH: American was also selling weapons to Iraq. Not now, but before the first Gulf War. It is called capitalism.

[Efrem Da King]

But not like germany or france level.

[Red Harvest]

Actually, I made the comment about All Jizz losing credibility in the arab world after reading several comments from anti-American muslims in various nations. They were angry because they felt All Jizz had duped them.

I try to get perspective from all sides because every source of information has their own bias (intentional or not--such as when they lack access to better/more accurate info.) Some of the late night (in the US) live coverage has been excellent because you can watch live Abu Dhabi and All Jizz images side by side with Fox (very jingo-istic reporting but very broad coverage.) Unfortunately, much of this depth is lost in the short snippets the next day. I watched the attack on Baghdad&#39;s Abu Dhabi TV crew live and was expecting it. Why? Because they were live filming tanks and aircraft rolling in. There was some sniping and firefights and it just wasn&#39;t a good idea to be pointing anything out of windows, balconies or roof tops at the time. There were several seconds of warning shots in front of the camera before it went down. And then there was some sort of bomb strike at something in front of the building. Just a few seconds before this began I was watching the close ups of the tanks and muttering, these camera men better hunker down because there is a good chance that *someone* will be shooting at them soon on the off chance that they are a threat. Afterall there was plenty of terrorist style warfare being practiced by the jihadi and fedayeen, and that lends itself to a shoot first defensive posture.

[starkhorn]

Quote[/b] (Red Harvest @ April 13 2003,17:22)]Interestingly, those that have protested the war most loudly (France and Russia) are the most responsible for the conflict.
Hmmm. I find that a strange statement to make. You based the reasons for Russia and France for being responsible for the conflict because they armed Iraq ? I personally don&#39;t believe things are ever that black and white.

Are you aware of the well known fact that during the Iran-Iraq War in the 80s that Germany, Britain, France and....(wait for it) United States all supplied Iraq with as much arms as Iraq could afford in an effort to create a bulwark against the spread of Islamic threat from Iran. Where do you think Iraq got the chemical weapons to gas the Kurds and Iranians ? Yes...it was from USA. (Although Saddamm isn&#39;t the first person to use chemical weapons against the Kurds....Winston Churchill has that honour from the 1920&#39;s...but that&#39;s another story).

So by your argument if France and Russia are responsible for the present conflict because they armed Iraq, then US, Britain and Germany must also share the blame.

Is the person most responsible for the conflict Saddamm Hussein himself ? Agree...yeah ? Well then have you asked the question of how Saddam got power ?

In 61 General Kassem was in power and threatening to invade Kuiwait. War seemed likely with britain backing Kuiwait. However before he could do anything, he was over-thrown by a coup organised by the CIA. A major player in that coup was Saddamm and eventually he increased his own position strong enough so that he could seize power himself in 79.

So the USA and CIA are responsible for Saddamm coming to power in the first place but unfortunately (like Bin Laden) they seemed to have lost control of their creation.

To show that I&#39;m not just making this up, you can see the below link from the bbc website. hope you find it interesting.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/war/iraq/britain_iraq_01.shtml

[Red Harvest]

Starkhorn,

Nice try at re-writing the article, but that is NOT what it says. You made some leaps that are just not there. I&#39;m well aware of what happened in the &#39;80&#39;s where many powers sought to reduce the spread of Iran&#39;s revolution. Oh, and contrary to the article, Iraq was the one that was suing for peace at the end of the Iran-Iraq war. They were stuck on the defensive and had been for a long time. Iran refused a peace deal for a long time. [Edit: Rereading some I realize that this is not quite correct. Iraq was on the defensive from about late 82 to 87, but they did launch a series of successful chemical attacks, etc. and routed the Iranians in 88. This did force Iran to accept peace--which they had refused for years. To call the war an Iraqi victory is a stretch. Iraq failed in its goal to seize significant portions of Iran and essentially settled for a stalemate, but with a peace agreement that favored Iraq.}

You are stretching it using the statements in that article to say we put Saddam in power. The article talks about supporting a coup to prevent yet another from taking over Kuwait, but Saddam was a member, not the leader. He took control many years later. Nice try.

I do not believe that the chemical weapons technology for gassing Iran came from the US. If you have proof otherwise, then post it. That is NOT what the article says It makes some claims about giving up weapons supplied by the west but does not state what. France was the one that was helping him with nuclear technology. Chemical weapons technology is not that difficult in this day and age. It is WWI technology and with a few chemical engineers, chemists, and some munitions experts it should be a rather simple task.

Also, the author did not state that gas was used in the &#39;20&#39;s by the Brits. In fact, his later responses indicate that he no longer believes they did. However, he does state that they were requested. Again, another stretch in your post.

I stand by my point that France and Russia are most responsible for this because they literally backed Saddam this time around rather than sending him unequivocal signals to disarm.

[starkhorn]

Quote[/b] (Red Harvest @ April 14 2003,14:45)]Starkhorn,

Nice try at re-writing the article, but that is NOT what it says. You made some leaps that are just not there. I&#39;m well aware of what happened in the &#39;80&#39;s where many powers sought to reduce the spread of Iran&#39;s revolution. Oh, and contrary to the article, Iraq was the one that was suing for peace at the end of the Iran-Iraq war. They were stuck on the defensive and had been for a long time. Iran refused a peace deal for a long time. [Edit: Rereading some I realize that this is not quite correct. Iraq was on the defensive from about late 82 to 87, but they did launch a series of successful chemical attacks, etc. and routed the Iranians in 88. This did force Iran to accept peace--which they had refused for years. To call the war an Iraqi victory is a stretch. Iraq failed in its goal to seize significant portions of Iran and essentially settled for a stalemate, but with a peace agreement that favored Iraq.}

You are stretching it using the statements in that article to say we put Saddam in power. The article talks about supporting a coup to prevent yet another from taking over Kuwait, but Saddam was a member, not the leader. He took control many years later. Nice try.

I do not believe that the chemical weapons technology for gassing Iran came from the US. If you have proof otherwise, then post it. That is NOT what the article says It makes some claims about giving up weapons supplied by the west but does not state what. France was the one that was helping him with nuclear technology. Chemical weapons technology is not that difficult in this day and age. It is WWI technology and with a few chemical engineers, chemists, and some munitions experts it should be a rather simple task.

Also, the author did not state that gas was used in the &#39;20&#39;s by the Brits. In fact, his later responses indicate that he no longer believes they did. However, he does state that they were requested. Again, another stretch in your post.

I stand by my point that France and Russia are most responsible for this because they literally backed Saddam this time around rather than sending him unequivocal signals to disarm.
Red Harvest,

My point about the 80&#39;s and that nearly ALL of the western powers armed Iraq was to counter-claim your point that Russian and France were solely responsible. You made alot of mention of exocets, nuclear/chemical stuff, black berets and russian tanks. This is all true but ALL the western powers must share the blame for the arming of Iraq (including US and Britain)....and not just Russian and France. US sold helicopters to Iraq for example so you should mention them. (I believe those were the same helicopters the Iraqis used to put down the revolts in 91 after Gulf War I but I&#39;m not 100%).

The below web-site is quite a good article site which discusses US government records as evidence on what was supplied from US to Iraq. I like this site as it uses senate hearings and government records as evidence and does not just makes paranoid claims for the sake of it. There is also several books to read which can further back some of the statements.

http://www.wf.org/iraq-west.htm

About the chemical weapons supplied to Iraq by the US, point 3 discusses that by examining the export licences and records from certain US firms to show that they shipped various components needed to make chemical and even nuclear weapons....quite surprising, it claims that US even provided nuclear detonation training to Iraqi scientist. I&#39;ve cut and pasted the relevant portion at the end here for reference but please read the entire article to get the entire picture.

I&#39;ve not stated once that US is solely responsible for arming Iraq....and if you agree with that statement then you must also agree with the statement then Russian or France are not also solely responsible. So if you are going to mention exocet missiles and russian tanks then you should also mention what everyone else sold to Iraq as well. ALL western nations must share the responsiblty for arming Iraq in the 80&#39;s....pure and simple.

Churchill using chemical weapons against the kurds
Well we are going off on a slight tangent here from the topic of this thread so I&#39;ll be brief. The debate rages on whether they did use chemical weapons or not...however given the tactics the british used to keep their empire together in the 20s (Ireland, India, Africa etc) it wouldn&#39;t surprise. A good book is Simons, Geoff. *Iraq: From Sumer to Saddam*.
The below link gives a extract from this book and gives evidence that churchill was all for the use of this gas. Difficult to make an complete opinion without reading the entire book/chapter.
http://iraqwar.org/chemical.htm

Saddam coming to power
Sure the US didn&#39;t choose Saddam as the leader during the coup. My point was simply that US-led coup provided the appropraite conditions with which a ruthless and determined man could achieve power. If he hadn&#39;t have been able to achieve a degree of power during this coup then we probably might never have heard of him.

Your final point below:-

I stand by my point that France and Russia are most responsible for this because they literally backed Saddam this time around rather than sending him unequivocal signals to disarm.

France and Russia
Hmm so they are responsible for war because they didn&#39;t want to go to war against Iraq ? Doesn&#39;t that make them the least responsible for war because they didn&#39;t want it ?Aren&#39;t the US and Britain more responsible for this war for actually invading Iraq and refusing to allow the UN enough time to find a peaceful resolution ? Also were are all these WMDs ? After 2 weeks of searching, the american and british forces can&#39;t find them. I find it strange that after not finding them in Iraq and after months of hearing about how Iraq must disarm, we suddenly find out that Iraq&#39;s WMD&#39;s have been in Syria the whole time. Strange that they only told us now......ain&#39;t it ?

You shouldn&#39;t get confused between who are anti-war and pro-Saddam positions. Nations and people who don&#39;t want war are by no means pro-saddam. I believe Chirac has already congratuled the US and Brits for getting rid of Saddam.

Anyway, it&#39;s been fun. Hope you enjoyed the posts and alternative view-points.

Cheers
Brendan

Several current and former government officials from the Department of Defense, the Commerce Department and the Customs service have testified during the past two years that U.S. firms enhanced Iraq&#39;s conventional and nonconventional military capability. (see Appendix)

Dozens of U.S. firms participated in Petrochemical Complex II, many with export licenses, which provided Iraq with the capability to produce ethylene oxide, a major ingredient in fuel air explosives bombs as well as being a precursor for certain chemical weapons. PC-2 was also a major front for the procurement of Super Gun components. (see Appendix)

The Commerce Department approved a license for Iraqi front company Matrix Churchill despite a plethora of CIA reports showing that the firm was part of Iraq&#39;s nuclear procurement network and despite ample evidence showing that the listed end user of the technology, a firm called Techcorp, was in charge of Iraq&#39;s ballistic missile an secret nuclear weapons program. (see Appendix)

The Export-Import Bank financed the sale of U.S. equipment to several Iraqi weapons complexes, the Condor II ballistic missile program, and Iraq&#39;s covert nuclear weapons program. The Export-Import Bank financed the sale of armored ambulances and communications equipment directly to the Iraqi military. (see Appendix)

In 1986 and 1987 two Iraqi scientists were permitted to visit the Los Alamos National Laboratory, a major U.S. nuclear weapons facility. Incredibly, in 1989 three employees of Iraq’s main explosives factory, called Al Qaqaa, were permitted to attend U.S. government sponsored seminar on nuclear weapons detonation. (See Appendix)

[HindSight2020]

Governments are free to disagree with each other as long as they operate within certain guidelines. This is a small planet. It would only take a moron who releases some biologically engineered plague on his neighbor to destroy human life as we know it, and it would take another moron to unleash nuclear holocaust on the planet. There are enough morons on the planet. With the launching of the first SCUD missile by Iraqi forces, there was enough proof that Saddam was not complying with the agreement he made with the U.N. forces in 1991. Yesterday, the coalition forces found mobile biological labs buried near Bagdad. That is probably only the beginning. It will take months to find everything. I hate war, but it looks like Saddam was one moron who needed to be reigned in.

[Red Harvest]

Quote[/b] (starkhorn @ April 15 2003,05:24)]Red Harvest,

My point about the 80&#39;s and that nearly ALL of the western powers armed Iraq was to counter-claim your point that Russian and France were solely responsible. You made alot of mention of exocets, nuclear/chemical stuff, black berets and russian tanks. This is all true but ALL the western powers must share the blame for the arming of Iraq (including US and Britain)....and not just Russian and France. US sold helicopters to Iraq for example so you should mention them. (I believe those were the same helicopters the Iraqis used to put down the revolts in 91 after Gulf War I but I&#39;m not 100%).

The below web-site is quite a good article site which discusses US government records as evidence on what was supplied from US to Iraq. I like this site as it uses senate hearings and government records as evidence and does not just makes paranoid claims for the sake of it. There is also several books to read which can further back some of the statements.

http://www.wf.org/iraq-west.htm

About the chemical weapons supplied to Iraq by the US, point 3 discusses that by examining the export licences and records from certain US firms to show that they shipped various components needed to make chemical and even nuclear weapons....quite surprising, it claims that US even provided nuclear detonation training to Iraqi scientist. I&#39;ve cut and pasted the relevant portion at the end here for reference but please read the entire article to get the entire picture.

I&#39;ve not stated once that US is solely responsible for arming Iraq....and if you agree with that statement then you must also agree with the statement then Russian or France are not also solely responsible. So if you are going to mention exocet missiles and russian tanks then you should also mention what everyone else sold to Iraq as well. ALL western nations must share the responsiblty for arming Iraq in the 80&#39;s....pure and simple.



Your final point below:-

I stand by my point that France and Russia are most responsible for this because they literally backed Saddam this time around rather than sending him unequivocal signals to disarm.

France and Russia
Also were are all these WMDs ? After 2 weeks of searching, the american and british forces can&#39;t find them. I find it strange that after not finding them in Iraq and after months of hearing about how Iraq must disarm, we suddenly find out that Iraq&#39;s WMD&#39;s have been in Syria the whole time. Strange that they only told us now......ain&#39;t it ?

You shouldn&#39;t get confused between who are anti-war and pro-Saddam positions. Nations and people who don&#39;t want war are by no means pro-saddam. I believe Chirac has already congratuled the US and Brits for getting rid of Saddam.

Anyway, it&#39;s been fun. Hope you enjoyed the posts and alternative view-points.

Cheers
Brendan

Several current and former government officials from the Department of Defense, the Commerce Department and the Customs service have testified during the past two years that U.S. firms enhanced Iraq&#39;s conventional and nonconventional military capability. (see Appendix)

Dozens of U.S. firms participated in Petrochemical Complex II, many with export licenses, which provided Iraq with the capability to produce ethylene oxide, a major ingredient in fuel air explosives bombs as well as being a precursor for certain chemical weapons. PC-2 was also a major front for the procurement of Super Gun components. (see Appendix)

The Commerce Department approved a license for Iraqi front company Matrix Churchill despite a plethora of CIA reports showing that the firm was part of Iraq&#39;s nuclear procurement network and despite ample evidence showing that the listed end user of the technology, a firm called Techcorp, was in charge of Iraq&#39;s ballistic missile an secret nuclear weapons program. (see Appendix)

The Export-Import Bank financed the sale of U.S. equipment to several Iraqi weapons complexes, the Condor II ballistic missile program, and Iraq&#39;s covert nuclear weapons program. The Export-Import Bank financed the sale of armored ambulances and communications equipment directly to the Iraqi military. (see Appendix)

In 1986 and 1987 two Iraqi scientists were permitted to visit the Los Alamos National Laboratory, a major U.S. nuclear weapons facility. Incredibly, in 1989 three employees of Iraq’s main explosives factory, called Al Qaqaa, were permitted to attend U.S. government sponsored seminar on nuclear weapons detonation. (See Appendix)
Starkhorn,

Nice try at putting words into my mouth, but I never said that the US was not involved in the &#39;80&#39;s backing Iraq&#39;s efforts vs. Iran. The difference between the US and France/Russia is that our backing ended around the time of the Kuwait invasion... With the way the Iranian revolution was running in the &#39;80&#39;s it was an understandable attempt at containment during a Cold War mess (let&#39;s see if you can remember who were the bad guys in the Cold War.) France and Russia were busy trying to sign big business deals with Iraq during the embargo of the past 12 years and the Russian GPS jammers are relatively new technology (post Gulf War) plus they were sharing intelligence with Iraq.

I&#39;m not impressed with the website or your quotes from it. You really are stretching already rather tenuous connections. Particularly humorous to me personally is the quote about a petrochemical complex producing ethylene oxide...ooh, scarey I&#39;ve designed equipment for an ethylene oxide plant in the US but I hardly would consider it evidence of chemical weapons support, LOL. It&#39;s a basic building block chemical intermediate and you can do many things with it. We make ethylene glycol (anti-freeze) from it. EO is quite unstable and has a tendency to blow up your reactor or distillation columns unless you know what your are doing, but that reactivity is what makes it a good building block. It is one of a variety of compounds that petrochem complexes might convert their light hydrocarbon gases into. Companies build what they can to consume these gases since they are not easily transported like crude. Simple chemical weapons are not that difficult to make, the technology is old. The difficult part is in handling and delivering what you make.

I hardly consider allowing a couple of Iraqi scientists to attend one seminar much in the way of evidence. I&#39;ve been to a few engineering and science seminars and there is rarely that much depth.

Hmm so they are responsible for war because they didn&#39;t want to go to war against Iraq ? Doesn&#39;t that make them the least responsible for war because they didn&#39;t want it ?Aren&#39;t the US and Britain more responsible for this war for actually invading Iraq and refusing to allow the UN enough time to find a peaceful resolution ?

LOL. The UN had 12 years and they failed. Given another 12 years they would have failed again. Why? Because Saddam would only do things when pressured by actual airstrikes by the US. In MOST conflicts the UN is helpless unless the US shoulders the burden for it. France and Russia could talk themselves silly and nothing would happen, if you believe otherwise then you are seriously deluded. France and Russia signalled in Nov. that the would prevent any forceful resolution diplomatically. That started the build up to war since diplomacy was no longer a viable option. Once the build up started the only way to stop it was for Saddam to leave. France and Russia definitely sent the WRONG MESSAGE. The US spent twelve years waiting for resolution. It didn&#39;t happen and asking us to wait another year was definitely unreasonable based on the track record (since attacking later in the year would have been more difficult--costing more lives on both sides through prolonged conflict). We decided to finish the job so that eventually we will be able to leave. The Imperialist name calling won&#39;t stick, because unlike European powers of yore, we just want to get out as soon as the mess is cleaned up.

Here is an easy one for you: wouldn&#39;t Iraq be better off today if we had ignored the limits of the UN mandate 12 years ago and had toppled Saddam when many of his army units, the Kurds, and Shiites revolted? How many Iraqi lives would have been saved or enriched by it? You can debate all you want, but that is what it will ultimately come down to, and how we will be judged by history. All that really matters is whether or not the world will become better as a result of actions like dismantling the Taliban and Baath parties. Left to France/Russia nothing positive would ever get done.

You shouldn&#39;t get confused between who are anti-war and pro-Saddam positions. Nations and people who don&#39;t want war are by no means pro-saddam. I believe Chirac has already congratuled the US and Brits for getting rid of Saddam.

We&#39;re not confused about it. It is pretty clear to the majority in the US that France and Russia alligned themselves with Saddam, since they did everything they could to oppose us (short of war.) Chirac&#39;s congratulations is merely further evidence of his hypocrisy. (Really enjoyed his threats against new EU nations for signing a petition supporting some binding resolutions. One of the funniest statements I&#39;ve read in a long time and utterly destroyed his credibility.) Incidentally, nations and people who don&#39;t want war at any costs are exactly the kinds that Stalin, Hitler, Milosovic, and Hussein have counted on throughout the years. Doing nothing is often far worse than doing something. It&#39;s like sitting around and watching an assault or rape rather than trying to stop it. I refer to it as contemptable pascifism. The US was guilty of it in WWII until Pearl Harbor. It was guilty again when Bush senior failed to do anything to halt the Serbs early on (while Europe fiddled and the UN decided an arms embargo would help, that way the groups being attacked could not even defend themselves--military geniuses those diplomats.)

As for WMD&#39;s, we will see. It&#39;s going to take some time before we know what is really there (per your new UN rules we get at least 12 years, correct?) Some things were found by arms inspectors before the war and there is no doubt about one time existence of his nuke and chem programs (since used gas on Iranians and Kurds.) The question is were they still active? Saddam failed to provide documentation of their dismantlement so we went in. He had years to hide things with no inspectors around (or to prove his compliance which he did not seriously try to do), so it could take some time to uncover the truth. I doubt some of the noise about Syria. However, it is not implausible. Syria has been a rat hole for terrorism anyway; and Iraq flew their jets to their enemy Iran during the first Gulf War to prevent their destruction, so it is not inconceivable that Saddam would share a bit to hide things. If Bush was wrong about the Iraq WMD issue, then he will pay the price at home next election cycle.

[MrNiceGuy]

On a personal level I may profit from this war when the reconstruction phase hits the industrial level. Once an interim government is formed, recognition gained and contracts offered there will be a number of foreign companies sending in workers at all levels.

I believe that a majority of early contracts will go to US and UK corporations. Beyond the oil, only bread and circuses are likely for Iraq and the rest of the world, or at least my experiences working in Khazakstan would lead me to believe.

The Iraqi people may see some benefit from the early reconstruction, but only until the resources become the focus of foreign businesses. But I doubt that they will fare any better than they have under any other foreign invader settling on their land and replacing the entire regime.

At least it has once again become stylish to declare victory when the opponent disappears from sight. Might we once again suffer the prince pretender popping up in backwater areas claiming an old throne or will we just get more spam from cheap Iraqi servers?

[SmokWawelski]

Quote[/b] ]The Iraqi people may see some benefit from the early reconstruction, but only until the resources become the focus of foreign businesses. But I doubt that they will fare any better than they have under any other foreign invader settling on their land and replacing the entire regime.

I am afraid that you are right, and that the US/UK will focus on getting their war investments back, and if there are any leftovers, rebuilding a hospital or two. Already some Iraqis would like to send the liberators away. Will the Afghanistan repeat itslef?

[Portuguese Rebel]

Some americans seem to think that this war is against terrorism http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

I equate this situation to having a wasp hive in your backyard. You are afraid of wasps and they may hurt you (well, they hurt but don&#39;t do all that much damage). So what do you do? you go beat their hive with a stick, of course... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

What is wrong with this picture? you want to end terrorist atacks so you go to war and kill people from normal a family? What will the sons of a slain father do? It&#39;s real easy to guess. You americans can expect a big load of terrorism in the coming years.

Can&#39;t you see through the propaganda? Iraqys don&#39;t like you, how could they? Have you noticed how CNN makes good close up shots to fill the screen with people giving grace to US soldiers? If you count them they are not that many... Remember, Bagdad has millions of inhabitants. If two dozens are giving thanks (and even so, after they are given something to eat, the poor bastards), that is not a victory.
Why doesn&#39;t CNN show dead people? It&#39;s a war, there are dead people all over the place. AL jazz have no problems in finding them. Children crying in hospitals with some limbs amputated.

The american goverment has learned it&#39;s lesson well from vietnam. They are hidding and doing propaganda.

Next there will be more terrorist atacks, and you will atack another country because they have training camps...

What is a terrorist training camp? If they were that easy to trace and identify the israelits would have stoped palestinian freedom fighters (in my mind it&#39;s how i see them), long ago...

American society sets worlds fashions in entertainment but when it comes to culture and information they lack the most basic freedoms. You can flame me but i wouldn&#39;t have my CD covers censored if i could help it, but when it comes to my news, it is a much more serious matter.

[Red Harvest]

Quote[/b] (SmokWawelski @ April 16 2003,14:07)]
Quote[/b] ]The Iraqi people may see some benefit from the early reconstruction, but only until the resources become the focus of foreign businesses. But I doubt that they will fare any better than they have under any other foreign invader settling on their land and replacing the entire regime.

I am afraid that you are right, and that the US/UK will focus on getting their war investments back, and if there are any leftovers, rebuilding a hospital or two. Already some Iraqis would like to send the liberators away. Will the Afghanistan repeat itslef?
Some folks really could use a reality check. So you think the average Afghan has not benefitted from the end of Taliban rule? I&#39;m sure they were better off (particularly the 50+% that are female) under medieval religious law...NOT. The country had very little education for its citizens and the soviets had reduced it to near stone age status with regards to infrastructure. It was run by war lords and foreign terrorists. Its GNP was a trickle and it had a couple of total miles of paved rodes. The Taliban routinely slaughtered non-Pashtun villagers and men of military age. They had even destroyed much of the agriculture of non-Pashtun villages. They destroyed antiquities in a misguided attempt to protect Islam.

Roughly a year later education has resumed and small businesses are now able to function. Entertainment is now legal. There is considerable work being done to improve the infrastructure and allow trade and supplies with neighboring countries. Efforts are underway to develop some central rule so that warlords no longer run the place. There are still nutcases crossing from Pakistan and elsewhere, but at least the Afghans have some opportunity to run their own affairs. Eventually they should have all of their autonomy restored.

In summary, under the Taliban you had a society that was regressing and making it more difficult for average folk to feed themselves and just survive. Now, you have a society that is working to improve itself. There is hope, whereas before there was none. No, there are no miracles. You can&#39;t rebuild a country in a year that was systematically destroyed over 20 years.

The Iraq situation is much easier by comparison. It has oil wealth and the country will be able to use it for rebuilding. For the past 20+ years all that wealth was spent on Saddam&#39;s wars and personal enrichment. Iraqi&#39;s are better educated on average than Afghans and Iraq&#39;s infrastructure is damaged, not destroyed. Still it is going some time to reverse the damage that was done by Hussein over two decades.

[MrNiceGuy]

Quote[/b] ]In summary, under the Taliban you had a society that was regressing and making it more difficult for average folk to feed themselves and just survive. Now, you have a society that is working to improve itself. There is hope, whereas before there was none. No, there are no miracles. You can&#39;t rebuild a country in a year that was systematically destroyed over 20 years.

I suppose that the improvements in afghanistan include this:


Quote[/b] ]Though Western reporting emphasizes the liberation of private enterprise in post-Taliban Afghanistan, not all of it is savory. With lawlessness rising, the farmers are finding it more and more attractive to sow poppy all over the country. That means Afghanistan is re-emerging as a major exporter of heroin and opium. This correspondent saw poppy fields spread all over eastern Afghanistan - and a number of farmers revealed that those who have not sown poppy this winter are only weighing the situation. Many intend to get into the business during the next season if there [is] no crackdown by the next government.

Source (http://www.eurasianet.net/departments/environment/articles/eav031202.shtml)

Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) has an ally on the Conservative Benches.
I heard the interview myself. I am not sure that my recollection—of course we can both consider the transcript—is quite the same as that of my hon. Friend. General Wesley Clark certainly suggested that pressure was best brought to bear on states rather than on what he described as shadowy terrorist groups. Indeed, Afghanistan demonstrates that we have made very good progress, not just on behalf of the international community, but of the people of Afghanistan, particularly the women, who now have a prospect of a better and more decent life than if we had not done so.


Source (http://www.privycouncil.gov.uk/textonly/page123.asp)

This is the general opinion found in most transcripts of political debate. The tendencies to talk about improvements are focused on women&#39;s issues and abstracts along the lines of &#39;experts agree - everything is fine&#39;. Although there are some debates that touch on the realities of post-Taliban life for the afghan people, but this is usually reserved for budget debates, as in the following:

SEN. FEINSTEIN: Well, I appreciate that, and because this came out in California, I&#39;ve had a lot of people very deeply concerned about. As a matter of fact, they know much more about this than they do about our approval of judges, which happens to be another resounding call. And there is really deep concern. And I think -- I think if it&#39;s wrong, the record has to be corrected.
But I&#39;d like to go on, before my time expires, to one other quick thing, General. I&#39;m very concerned about the deterioration in Afghanistan. I&#39;m concerned about the reports that there is deterioration in the stability of the establishment of a new government. I&#39;m concerned by the skirmishes that are now taking place, which indicate to me a real resiliency on the part of the Taliban and al Qaeda, that they will in fact try to come back if in fact they can come back. And I&#39;m concerned that this budget may not reflect our best interests in terms of maintaining a long-term peaceful stability to enable a new government to develop, to enable a new military to develop, and to enable a country decimated to get on its feet economically. And, you know, this goes into something -- Senator (Joseph) Biden (D-DE) made comments about this in additional funds that he sought, and that I think there&#39;s a very strong feeling among many of us that it is to our interests to see that the country remains stable and that we have a peacekeeping force there to ensure it.

Source (http://www.defenselink.mil/speeches/2002/s20020521-secdef.html)

Then there is the liberal media spin on Afghani life, which tends to be more a foreboding doom in nature.


What of the American troops and the bow-bows — the nickname the Afghans have given the mighty B-52s and the awesome destructiveness of their bombs?
Washington says it will stay until its objectives are achieved, namely, the death or capture of Bin Laden and the annihilation of his Al Qaeda network.
But if the B-52S do depart, will there be civil war once again? many Afghans think only the US military presence is keeping the peace.
If they go, we’ll start fighting one another again, said a taxi driver.
And if the US forces stay on, what then?
A former Taliban commander, now working for the new Government’s secret police, said he thought the Americans had a grace period of about six months.
We all need a rest, he said. But if they’re still here after six months, well...
He didn’t complete the sentence, but the soviets would have known exactly what he meant.


Source (http://www.dailyexcelsior.com/02feb03/inter.htm#3)

More recently, March 14th 2003, a few articles mention facts and figures in relation to changes in Afghani life. The prognosis remains dark even from this usually cheerful source:

With winter in Afghanistan coming to an end, hundreds of thousands of Afghan refugees are returning home from Pakistan, according the UN High Commissioner for Refugees earlier this week. The agency expects roughly 600,000 refugees to return this year, down from 1.5 million last year. However, the outlook in Afghanistan remains bleak. According to the Times, student enrollment at madrasas, or Islamic religious schools, are anticipating growth, recruiting children refugees—many of whom have resorted to collecting recyclables in garbage. The Times reports that roughly 60 percent of an estimated 10,000 madrasas are operated by the radical sect Deobandi that created the Taliban.

Source (http://www.msmagazine.com/news/uswirestory.asp?id=7622)

To reiterate: with the current change of regimes in both Afghanistan and Iraq I doubt that the average citizen will see anything more than a new hand controlling the same yoke on their backs.
Just because these &#39;liberated and newly democratic&#39; people will soon be able to sip espresso in Starbucks™ and read the &#39;NY times, Afghanistan edition&#39;(or Iraq edition) doesn&#39;t mean that they will be any better off watching foreign corporations and governments leech and rape their country&#39;s resources, knowing that a government focused on the well-being of the people would prevent rampant pollution or relief from being dragged out their homes at night by black ops/criminal gangs and a trifle of the outgoing profits could give them their own &#39;New Deal&#39; .

[Red Harvest]

MrNiceGuy,

I suppose those 2 million plus Afghans returning are doing so because things have gotten worse? They are returning because they believe they can eke out a living in their resource poor homeland. Lays your theory to waste, thanks for posting the info.

I don&#39;t doubt that US presence is what is preventing civil war in Afghanistan. You have plenty of vultures waiting should such a weak divided country have its protector removed. Pakistan and Iran would be busy fighting proxy battles for control of sections through warlords same as before. The extremists would return from around the islamic world. It will take some time to develop a sense of identity and something less than your traditional rule of the tyrant/fanatics.

Your pollution and evil foreign industry rant is hilarious. I suppose you think a gov&#39;t that used poison gas on their own people, pumped their oil to pay for military expansion, set the Kuwaiti wells on fire, etc. was a better neighbor? LMAO. The petro chem industry was pretty bad back in the 60&#39;s and 70&#39;s. Most of that has been cleaned up, but the stigma won&#39;t ever go away. Industry definitely was irresponsible back then and deserved the black eye they got. I&#39;m actually an environmentalist, and am proud of what my company does and what I have done personally to reduce emissions and energy use. It is too bad individuals don&#39;t realize how badly they personally pollute. I&#39;ve also worked at one of our asian sites and it was quite clean and built to the same standards we use in the US. But we aren&#39;t petrochem, and definitely wouldn&#39;t be building in Iraq.

[MrNiceGuy]

Quote[/b] ]The petro chem industry was pretty bad back in the 60&#39;s and 70&#39;s. Most of that has been cleaned up, but the stigma won&#39;t ever go away. Industry definitely was irresponsible back then and deserved the black eye they got

So when you&#39;re checking out that cat cracker or coke drum you don&#39;t notice all those wonderful, sweet light end aromas or delight in the small colorful clouds of coke dust you kick up when walking through a refinery unit.

As an inspector I&#39;ve seen refineries up close and way too personal. After a job in a Hersheys factory it was over a year before I ate chocolate. In South American and Asian (excepting Japan) countries with little or no environmental laws you&#39;ll see petrochem industries more than 50 miles away from the flares burning off the parts of hydrocarbons they can&#39;t use. My favorite quote was from a brit showing me around one worksite when you see the number four flare burn green you should get indoors, that means the acid from the desulferization unit is out of whack. I can&#39;t vouch for any spot in Africa as I&#39;ve never been and don&#39;t want to go.

So that evil foreign industry is also my main bread and butter as well as yours. The only truly clean and friendly company I&#39;ve ever seen was every manned Air Products plant, but they only deal with gasses.

The refugees are returning for better opportunities, true, but most are going back because they&#39;re more likely to die if they stay where they are.

Link (http://www.refugees.org/world/articles/pakistan_new_2001.htm)

Link (http://www.rawa.org/refugees.htm)

Link (http://www.reliefweb.int/w/rwb.nsf/a94094ac73e84191c125671c002fcbbc/6da60521a4f6b02549256ce6001039ee?OpenDocument)

Hmmm... things look rosy when all you have to look forward to is the choice of waiting for an aid package to arrive in the middle of an unfriendly territory or a long ardous walk back home with small hope of anything other than a chance at seeing your original home in somewhat decent shape.

Every regime in the region of Iraq has been bad for the majority of people, from the Sumerians on up. Well the early period of the Akkadian reign may be the exception here, but they made up for it towards their demise.

Holding my breath for a better coalition government in Iraq than what the Afghanis got, or maybe it&#39;s from that H2S leak from a poorly designed tail gas scrubber.

[SmokWawelski]

As to the chemical discussion: most chem factories/plants migrate out of this country to escape the harsh healh regulations, get cheap labor (both ethicaly questionable).

As my last post on any war-related topic let me only say this: No government created on the basis of military intrusion by a foreign power will be stable and fully recognized by its own people. It fails on the principle of people being able to decide for themselfs, and forcefully replaces one regime with another one, supposedly democratic. I stay correct: No to War