War On Iraq

Ajnag

Sorry dave but what kind of logic is that??? Better off how, Earning picking of tourists, a nation with out dignity just so you can feel better.

In case you havent noticed, saddams keeping the thumb down, but he aint flying through the steets murdering thousands of Iraqis, No the Sanctions are doing that, and before you cry foul that saddams own behavour is holding sanctions(which in part it is) they are ****ing rediculous.Wheelbarrows are on hold list for ****s sakes(sorry just cant emphasise that enough), so are antibiotics, what saddams going to weaken our immune systems with a weapon of mass inoculation.

which part of affluence of norway did you not understand, yeah the people will be freer to live in ****holes, beg tourists, and the greatest of western gifts, the abilty to listen to brittany spears.In fact sanctions, deny Iraqi children Educational material,

So tell me how would you develop a weapon of mass destruction with childrens books, antibiotics, and sewarge pumps which are also on hold.

If this is modern humanitarianism, then this rock in space is well and truely ****ed.

Sorry for being a bit blunt, but you ever hit your head of a wall for others?

Zombrex

Originally posted by Sand
Does it justify a military attack or a terrorist one? Military yes, terrorist no - nothing ever justifies a terrorist attack.

But what is the difference between the World Trade Centre attacks and America bombing the crap out of an Iraqi hospital? America saying "whoops thought it was an arms dumb" doesn't bring back the dead. One mans justified military attack is another mans terrorist atrocity. Also the Pentagon is a military target. Does that mean Al Quada was justified in flying a plane into the side of it?

Originally posted by Sand
Makes no difference to the end result tbh - one less dictator, plus one democratic country.

There is no guarantee of this. Don't forget that America held a huge virtual war game against Iraq a year ago, and actually lost their own game.

And let us not forget Vietnam. I can see people saying back then "one less Soviet government, plus one democratic country." Granted Iraq is not Vietnam, but the idea that America can simply wish Saddam gone and it will be over by July 4 is very naive, given the history of its meddling. You don't simply "remove" a dictator like Saddam. America has admitted that Saddam would probably us W.O.M.D if his back was against the wall. Where does that leave the people of Iraq? No one was niave enough to say we should invade the Soviet Union because they oppress their people, cause they knew it would lead to nuclear war.

Originally posted by Sand
Iraq deserves freedom from their tyrannical dictator

This point is not in question. Of course Iraq deserves freedom, all countries do. But if America attacks Iraq in a first-strike it opens a Pandora’s box of what is acceptable reason for one country to invade another. There are loads of dictators in the world … if America wants to help make the world a better place it should stop supporting them, before it worries about removing them.

Zombrex

sorry -- final quote was made by daveirl not by Sand

... apologies to both of you.

Sand

But what is the difference between the World Trade Centre attacks and America bombing the crap out of an Iraqi hospital? America saying "whoops thought it was an arms dumb" doesn't bring back the dead. One mans justified military attack is another mans terrorist atrocity. Also the Pentagon is a military target. Does that mean Al Quada was justified in flying a plane into the side of it?

So the end justifies the means for you? In both cases civillians are killed but it doesnt matter that the WTC attack was intentional and the hospital bombing was accidental ( oh and accidental bombings happen, the Allied air force dropped a crazy amount of bombs on their own troops during WW2 )?

And the "one mans" mantra is just a get out clause for those unable/unwilling to call a spade a spade. Never gets old though.

There is no guarantee of this. Don't forget that America held a huge virtual war game against Iraq a year ago, and actually lost their own game.

Yes and they fought a real war against Iraq and won it easily.

Saddam would probably us W.O.M.D if his back was against the wall. Where does that leave the people of Iraq?

Now thats a good point youve raised. Would Saddam use WMD? Why not hes used chemical weapons before. Would he use it whilst he thought he still had a chance of conventional victory, probably not cos he knows the americans would hammer him then. If the Iraqi regime was on its knees and Saddam ordered his officers to target US forces inside Iraq qould they obey a leader on his way out or would that be the straw that broke the camels back? All very dicey though and Im sure the Pentagon is having sleepless nights over the possibilities. They wont commit until theyve got a plan *theyre* confident in, so well just have to see wont we:|

And let us not forget Vietnam.

Yes, let us not. Every war the US has engaged in since has been compared to a mostly infantry vs guerillas struggle in heavy jungles regardless of geography, politics and goal. Let us forget Desert Storm as that has no similarities with the potential conflict.

This point is not in question. Of course Iraq deserves freedom, all countries do. But if America attacks Iraq in a first-strike it opens a Pandora’s box of what is acceptable reason for one country to invade another

And why is being an undemocratic, inhumane regime not an acceptable reason for invasion? All countries deserve freedom, so long as theyre our country though?

Edit- corrected last line, skipped a word:x

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

shotamoose

Originally posted by Sand
Hell I must go back to school- I seem to be having trouble with the old reading here, or at least me and you seem to be having different reads.

With anyone else it really wouldn’t be necessary to go over this again, but I’ve got to make a few points.

You admit that the US supplied at least bacterial samples and dual-use technologies to a country which it knew was practising chemical warfare, yet praise Colin Powell for ‘putting his neck on the line’ by denying everything and refusing to discuss the matter any further.

You argue that the US didn’t KNOW Iraq would use the supplies for chemical warfare, basing this on what you report as the UN’s opinion that “it would [not] be accurate to say the United States government deliberately provided seed stocks to the Iraqis' biological weapons programs”. This might be significant if it came from the UN as you say it did. It did not, it came from FORMER UN Weapons inspector Jonathan Tucker. Given Tucker’s background, it would be as accurate (i.e. not very) to describe it as a US Government statement – before working as a weapons inspector in 1995, he “served with the Department of State, the congressional Office of Technology Assessment, and the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency” (see here for his bio), that is, he was a US Government scientist. And he gave the opinion you quote in his capacity as a media commentator on chemical weapons, not as a representative of the UN.

So having backed down on all this, you come up with three brilliant closing points:
Firstly, you point out that Europe and China supplied arms to Iraq. Nobody’s denying that, but this dispute was about the US – and does it make it okay if other countries are doing it too?

Secondly:

Most of the stories ( that i noted anyway ) are dated August or September, 3 or 4 months ago - as such there appears to have been no followup that has spread any further light on Disco Stus claims:

The New York times it *seems* hasnt found anything in the story to be worth following up on.......

So because the NYT doesn’t print the same thing again, it’s somehow not true or insignificant??? I’m having trouble following your logic here, perhaps because there isn’t one.

Thirdly, you are quite right to point out that nobody has proved that Rumsfeld personally handed, say, a thermos of anthrax to Saddam Hussein. You are quite wrong to believe that this is in any way significant, or at least more significant than a government supplying and approving the supply of chemical weapons to Iraq.

lili

by the way, all i have to say about the subject is that for the moment i'm more worred by the american imperialism than other threats.

Zombrex

Originally posted by Sand So the end justifies the means for you? In both cases civilians are killed but it doesn’t matter that the WTC attack was intentional and the hospital bombing was accidental

Originally posted by Sand And why is being an undemocratic, inhumane regime not an acceptable reason for invasion?

No the ends do not justify the means. That is my point. And it certainly doesn't matter to the dead people what reason was given for their deaths. I see no difference between a military action that kills civilians and a "terrorist" action that targets civilians. I call a spade a spade, and I call a dead person a dead person, not a “regrettable incident” or “collateral damage.”

Now I know sh*t happens in war, but if you are fighting a war you better have a damn good reason for every action. It is generally accepted that defence is the only justifiable reason for actions of war. Even the US know this. That is why America is trying so hard to find a link between Iraq and terrorism against America, or a link between Iraq and weapons of mass destruction that could target US soil or Israel. America is not, even publicly, using "freeing Iraq" as a justification for a first-strike because they know that is an international "no-no." Countries are not supposed to invade other countries, whatever the justification. China believes it is freeing Tibet from the horrors of religion. Hitler believed he was uniting the German people. Every first-strike invasion has a "justifiable" reason behind it. A justifiable reason will not stop thousands of innocent people being killed. However good intentioned the US maybe (not very in my opinion .. I still believe Bush doesn’t give a crap about the people of Iraq) they cannot just invade (and kill) people because they feel like it.

America cannot “fix” Iraq without a full-scale war that would result in the deaths of thousands of Americans and Iraqis, and create an even more unstable Middle-East. They should never have supported Saddam in the first place. They need to stop playing international policy with a sledgehammer. And they need to stop trying to fix the messes they make with even more mess.

Originally posted by Sand
Yes and they fought a real war against Iraq and won it easily.

But the US only removed Iraq from Kuwait. They did not occupy Iraq because they knew that it would open a sh*t storm. They knew it would very very hard to enter Baghdad and remove Saddam and that it would be generally a big mess. Not sure why they think it will be any easier this time round?

Originally posted by Sand
They wont commit until theyve got a plan *theyre* confident in.

You have a lot more faith in the wisdom of the Pentagon that I do! The US is not well known for there well thought-out plans.

Ajnag

Double that ^^^

Sand for a cynic, your faith in this all going well is bewildering,

Afghanistan is the most recent of a poor track record, Fighting still gos on, life for afghans has improved in terms of freedoms, however they still live in ****holes and 1.2 years later all the promised help and aid for the afghan people has still not arrived.It was nice to see the taliban gone, However It looks as If afghanistan is just gonna be an other 3rd world ****hole with warlords(Despite all the enlightened talk of Democracy) still in charge and not much of a future in sight.

Saddam is no where as brutal as the taliban were, and there are many other ways to remove him .The comming war is just gone to be another exercise in Military economics and International Theft.If you feel thats a fair price for a situation where the Iraqi people are no better off and robbed of their National Resources, then might I suggest that this is just a matter of feeling better about your self and your Ideology.


there are many other ways to remove him

Sand

You admit that the US supplied at least bacterial samples and dual-use technologies to a country which it knew was practising chemical warfare, yet praise Colin Powell for ‘putting his neck on the line’ by denying everything and refusing to discuss the matter any further.

Yes and you thoughtfully ignore the part where Rumsfeld, that evil basdtard, says the US will not look kindly on Saddams dreams of gretting WMD.

Mind you, Im sure the US is evil, dammed evil.

This might be significant if it came from the UN as you say it did. It did not, it came from FORMER UN Weapons inspector Jonathan Tucker.

The UN considered him to be a trustworthy judge of a difficult situation. You dont? Oh, but that means you feel the UN cannot be trusted to make the right decision. Welcome to the darkside my friend.

So having backed down on all this, you come up with three brilliant closing points:

Actually no, I came up with more than 3, but you choose to ignore the tricky ones that you cant tackle - thanks for the "brilliant" comment though- I do try.

Firstly, you point out that Europe and China supplied arms to Iraq. Nobody’s denying that, but this dispute was about the US

No one is mentioning it either- handily ignoring it to support the "US is evil" argument. God it would be so embarrassing with the Europeans standing as the forces of all thats right and true and then "ooops" they were supply the same crap too.

And Im pretty sure this thread wasnt about the US but the potential Iraqi conflict. However, we gave up on that long ago eh........

So because the NYT doesn’t print the same thing again, it’s somehow not true or insignificant??? I’m having trouble following your logic here, perhaps because there isn’t one.

Lets put it like this - reports of corruption come out. Usually these reports are followed up on to see if theres anything more to the story, to see if theres any truth to it or if its just "reports". Seeing as the mighty NYT havent seen fit to crucify Bush with the sins of the father every time he talks about Iraq maybe there isnt any truth to Discos claims?

Feel free to criticise the source you used to support Discos claims though.

Thirdly, you are quite right to point out that nobody has proved that Rumsfeld personally handed, say, a thermos of anthrax to Saddam Hussein. You are quite wrong to believe that this is in any way significant, or at least more significant than a government supplying and approving the supply of chemical weapons to Iraq.

Thanks for backing down on that.

With anyone else it really wouldn’t be necessary to go over this again, but I’ve got to make a few points.

Yeah, I know, an arts student is usually weak willed enough to take whatever crap he sees on a poster as "the Truth". Bloody non-"ologists".

by the way, all i have to say about the subject is that for the moment i'm more worred by the american imperialism than other threats.

Truly? The idea you may be murdered walking to your home from a bus stop doesnt concern you more than the idea Preseident Bush is going to declare himself Emperor of the Americas, Grand Mufti of the Middle East and Lord-Protector of the World?

Least you got your priorities sorted.

No the ends do not justify the means. That is my point

I see no difference between a military action that kills civilians and a "terrorist" action that targets civilians.

So lets take Terrorist A and Soldier B. A infiltrates a village and starts shooting it up , murdering a half dozen people. B is assigned to protect the village and shoots back. He hits a villager by accident. Are A and B the same sort of scumbag, cut from the same cloth with the goal of killing as many civillians as possible? I mean both of them have killed a villager. It makes no difference A entered the village to kill the villagers and B shot back to defend them? None at all?

America is not, even publicly, using "freeing Iraq" as a justification for a first-strike because they know that is an international "no-no."

And thats whats wrong with the world imo. We talk about humanity and stuff, and were so willing to fight and die for our freedom, but if you come from the wrong side of the border- sorry pal, well pass a few resolutions but dont expect us to bleed for ya and your rights. After all youre from the wrong side of the border.

Hitler believed he was uniting the German people

Hitler believed he was saving the German people by exterminating the Jewish people. Supposing he stayed inside Germanys borders and murdered all Jews he could get inside Germany would you say that war wasnt justified to overthrow him and save the jewish people? Afterall in such a case he wouldnt be threatening the rest of europe so defence wouldnt an exscuse for other nations and youve claimed defence is the only acceptable reason for war.

America cannot “fix” Iraq without a full-scale war that would result in the deaths of thousands of Americans and Iraqis, and create an even more unstable Middle-East.

Yes, and they couldnt "fix" nazi germany without a full scale war that resulted in the deaths of nearly half a million americans and millions of germans, creating an even more unstable post war europe.

Were their acts against naxi germany then morally wrong? Would you have supported them at that time? Do you support them now? Or do you feel the US shouldnt have done anything for fear of deaths?

You understand that Americans cold war policies have been based on the logic you present? Keep the status quo and support it for fear of something worse. No matter how reprehensible that satus quo is.

But the US only removed Iraq from Kuwait. They did not occupy Iraq because they knew that it would open a sh*t storm. They knew it would very very hard to enter Baghdad and remove Saddam and that it would be generally a big mess. Not sure why they think it will be any easier this time round?

Actually the US had the Iraqis on the run, nearly combat ineffective as a strategic force- the only reason Bush didnt finish of the regime was the fact that the UN only allowed him to liberate Kuwait and he felt that the alliance would dissolve if he tried to go past the UNs directives - good ol UN.

Instead Bush started trying to talk up Western support of Iraqi dissidents- he might have meant dissedents within the Iraqi milatary but what he got were lightly armed guerillas going up against the cowed Iraqi forces, and all the time they were hoping the US and allies would help them. Ah well - defence is the only reason they could have acted right? - so what if Saddam and co were butchering them within sight of the US forces?

there are many other ways to remove him

Free and fair elections? Another uprising by the Iraqi people ( look how well the last one did with no support )? Sanctions?

Ajnag

****! Have to retype now.


How much will it cost to get all that equipment, troops, down there.All those multi million dollar missiles that have to be used, and how much else to be spent.

What about a coup?, Its been done before, and this would have added advantages, in that it would be easier for troops to change sides, Better local knowledge then could ever be achieved with recon, and saddams generals are probably not too loyal given a chance to get out from under the sword of demecles.If convintional war gos ahead, saddam will get all that support to him self, You know why, because I DOUBT THE IRAQIS HOLD THE 91 BETRAYAL IN HIGH REGUARD.Also the Iraqi people get the option of fighting for their freedom as opposed to being scared sh.itless night after night wondering if their about to be come "collateral damage"(what high reguard for arab life !)All details such as cohesion among the different factions, Constitution and govermental frame work can be arranged outside Iraq before hand.coup leaders would have to agree to be temporary( and I dont mean the afghan version either), and to Imediate implimentation of the agreed frame work.

Think it wont work?, well if the U.s gos in they face an urban war and a higher chance of chemical attack.

Think the Logistics are unreal?,
well its a hell of a lot easier then getting everything down there, and the iraqis get their natural resources, so our wonderful oil companys dont have the logistics of dividing the stolen oil.Also support of the coup could be a way for the u.s to avoid the massive clean up required after the use of depleted uranium(Wmd as it has the same radioactivity as normal nukes only dispersion is far less.You dont here the wonderful defenders of freedom mention the level of cancer after gw1)

Think its improbable?, Same method has been used before to install worse then saddam, ie Indonesia.Also notice oil strikes in venesula, and the white house blunder on calling chavez to resign, despite it being unconstitutional and his DEMOCRATIC 70% SUPPORT.The statement was retracted with a very rare red face on that **** ari flisher.


What do you know that We dont.

Zombrex

Originally posted by Sand
It makes no difference A entered the village to kill the villagers and B shot back to defend them?

If you actually read my post I said that defence is a justifiable reason for "accidence" in war. If the US shot down the AA flight heading for the Pentagon and it landed on a house, I would say that was regrettable. But when the US carpet bomb a hospital in Iraq, or blow a bridge full of people in Serbia, this is not acceptable.

Originally posted by Sand
Supposing he stayed inside Germanys borders and murdered all Jews he could get inside Germany would you say that war wasn’t justified to overthrow him and save the Jewish people?

Not quite sure what history books you have been reading, but Hitler did stay inside his borders while he was murdering Jews. The rest of the world choose not to acknowledge that this was happening, despite evidence. The US still didn't accept it had happened even after Berlin had been taken in 1945 (and it certainly was not the reason for the war). I don't know about a first-strike invasion to remove Hitler in 1935/36, but I think it would have been better if the US and UK hadn't supported him in building up his army (seems kinda familiar doesn't it).

The US should really stop supporting dictatorships before it begins removing them.

Originally posted by Sand
Were their acts against nazi Germany then morally wrong? Would you have supported them at that time? Do you support them now? Or do you feel the US shouldn’t have done anything for fear of deaths?

Again with the history book ... the US and UK did not choose war against the Axis ... they were pulled kicking and screaming into war (especially the US) by German and Japan's actions. Germany invaded Poland (which forced the UK to defend them), and Japan attacked Pear Harbour. It is winners propaganda that both the US and UK took up the sword for human-rights and civil liberties. Also neither actions by the UK or US were first-strike invasions so it doesn’t really relate to Iraq (Vietnam relates a lot more), and I can't answer whether it was morally wrong for the Allies to jump to the aid of the Jews, because neither of them actually did.

Let me ask as question to pro-war supporters. What is an acceptable number of Iraqis that Bush can kill while he is freeing them?

Jimmy Carter - New York Times 5/27/99
The approach the United States has taken recently has been to devise a solution that best suits its own purposes, recruit at least tacit support in whichever forum it can best influence, provide the dominant military force, present an ultimatum to recalcitrant parties and then take punitive action against the entire nation to force compliance.

The often tragic result of this final decision is that already oppressed citizens suffer, while the oppressor may feel free of further consequences if he perpetrates even worse crimes. Through control of the news media, he is often made to seem heroic by defending his homeland against foreign aggression and shifting blame for economic or political woes away from himself.

Could not have said it better myself (and this was written while Clinton was in power and before 9-11 ... there is just something about US foreign policy, no matter who is heading it up ... must be something in the White House water).

Zombrex

These quotes are taken from an article Jimmy Carter wrote in 1999 about the Balkans conflict. They are partially relevant to the prospect of an Iraq war, as the US seems not to have learnt anything.

Jimmy Carter - New York Times 5/27/99
Because of its dominant role in the United Nations Security Council and NATO, the United States tends to orchestrate global peacemaking. Unfortunately, many of these efforts are seriously flawed.

Jimmy Carter - New York Times 5/27/99
Our general purposes are admirable: to enhance peace, freedom, democracy, human rights and economic progress. But this flawed approach is now causing unwarranted suffering and strengthening unsavory regimes in several countries, including Sudan, Cuba, Iraq and -- the most troubling example -- Serbia.

Jimmy Carter - New York Times 5/27/99
But the decision to attack the entire nation [Serbia] has been counterproductive, and our destruction of civilian life has now become senseless and excessively brutal.

Jimmy Carter - New York Times 5/27/99
As the American-led force has expanded targets to inhabited areas and resorted to the use of anti-personnel cluster bombs, the result has been damage to hospitals, offices and residences of a half-dozen ambassadors, and the killing of hundreds of innocent civilians and an untold number of conscripted troops.

Very good point about he conscripted troops, which is relevant in Iraq. The army that America will have to kill are forced to fight for Iraq.

Jimmy Carter - New York Times 5/27/99
Instead of focusing on Serbian military forces, missiles and bombs are now concentrating on the destruction of bridges, railways, roads, electric power, and fuel and fresh water supplies. Serbian citizens report that they are living like cavemen, and their torment increases daily.

Anyone have any idea why a war with Iraq would be any better?? Or do people believe it is worth it.

Jimmy Carter - New York Times 5/27/99
Even for the world's only superpower, the ends don't always justify the means.

Turnip

A war with Iraq might cause a domino effect and help topple the other dictatorships in the region. The sooner they modernise and democratise the better it'll be for all of us. And how do lefties think that democracy will come about there? By asking the monarchies nicely to step aside? Purleeease.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Ajnag

A war with Iraq might cause a domino effect and help topple the other dictatorships in the region.

Oh!?, and why didn't afghanistan, start this magical, Domino effect.Guess everyone is just gonna go all pinko, and say Hey guys lets give up this dictatorship lark.

The sooner they modernise and democratise the better it'll be for all of us. And how do lefties think that democracy will come about there? By asking the monarchies nicely to step aside? Purleeease

In otherwords the sooner they become like you, start worrying more about consuming and start listening to westlife.

The saudi Monarchy is kept in power, by people spouting **** about Democracy.The Saudi monarchy is sponcered, by Britian, the U.s and Oil intrests.Intrestingly while we are so concerned about the dictatorship next door, No one is crying to democratise the saudi monarchy which has proven links with al-quidea(read terrorism).Also If it really bothers you that much, Care to do something about democracy in Afghanistan, or is it just like top of the pops to you, another piece of sh-it to waffel on about until it go's out of fashion.

Going off topic but when did Jimmy Carter become knowledgeable on all these matters. Wasn't he regarded as an idiot of a president?

Are these the same people who thought clinton was an Idiot, Despite bush destroying the U.S boom economy that came about after clinton?
Carters been the one the most positive influences on foregin policy in the u.s for 20 years.And I would still argue that nobel peace prizes are not handed out to Idiots.(despite trimble sharing it)

Sand

How much will it cost to get all that equipment, troops, down there.All those multi million dollar missiles that have to be used, and how much else to be spent.

An incredible amount of money is spent on that stuff anyway- It might as well be put to a good use overthrowing regimes such as Saddams.

What about a coup?,

Yeah, Saddams son or one of his Generals. Brilliant. Sure you werent an advisor on American foreign policy in a past life?:)

Think its improbable?, Same method has been used before to install worse then saddam,

Exactly- the whole point to toppling Saddam should be to install something better. Cynical as I am I still trust a US led coalition to be far more likely to install a democratic regime than a collection of coup plotting iraqi generals- most of whom have been up to their necks in opressing the iraqis.

If you actually read my post I said that defence is a justifiable reason for "accidence" in war. If the US shot down the AA flight heading for the Pentagon and it landed on a house, I would say that was regrettable. But when the US carpet bomb a hospital in Iraq, or blow a bridge full of people in Serbia, this is not acceptable.

Ah but Soldier Bs actions were a milatary operation werent they? That resulted in the deaths of civillians? No difference to terrorism you say. Maybe the US was blowing up that bridge in Serbia to stop supplies and reinforcements reaching the Serbs in Kosovo as they went about their campaign of ethnic cleansing? What was the target there? The bridge or the people who happened to be on it? When I shoot down an AA airliner over a city its pretty obvious its going to land on a house, that the civillians on board are going to die - thats okay though, but blowing up a bridge is evil? messed up logic there friend.

Not quite sure what history books you have been reading, but Hitler did stay inside his borders while he was murdering Jews.

LOL, yeah I guess, if you consider Germanys borders to be pretty chaotic during the 1939 to 1945 period:D

Jews were rounded up from France, the Low Countries, Italy, Eastern Europe and the occupied USSR, Denmark ( Though Danish jews had a pretty high survival rate during the war because they were evactuated to Sweden ). They were taken to camps across occupied Europe (some of the most infamous were in Poland and other Eastern European countries) and murdered.

(and it certainly was not the reason for the war).

EXACTLY. This is what Ive been saying all the time. Youre going on about how evil the US is. I dont honestly care, because if they invade Iraq they will topple Saddam and install a friendly, democratic regime.

Much as during WW2 the US wasnt all that nice ( interned Japanese americans for example ) but they *still* toppled Nazism, guaranteed democracy in Western Europe and ended the horror of the holocaust.

Just because they werent doing it for the "right reasons" doesnt mean what they did was any less of a great thing.

The US should really stop supporting dictatorships before it begins removing them.

Agreed. But it shouldnt stop removing dictatorships.

Again with the history book ... the US and UK did not choose war against the Axis ... they were pulled kicking and screaming into war (especially the US) by German and Japan's actions.

Actually the UK were extremely strong during the darkest days of WW2 when the Nazis had steamrollered through France, Poland, Scandinavia. Hitler spared the BEF at Dunkirk because he hoped the British would then accept peace. He was convinced that after such a series of defeats the UK would sue for peace. He was wrong, the UK stayed in the fight despite the blitz. In a very real way the UK chose to fight the Nazis, they could have taken the easy, even smart way out in 1941.

It is winners propaganda that both the US and UK took up the sword for human-rights and civil liberties.

Yeah the UK stayed in the war because it was in its interests to keep getting bombed by the Germans, when the Germans would have been ahppy to be generous in peace terms?

Let me ask as question to pro-war supporters. What is an acceptable number of Iraqis that Bush can kill while he is freeing them?

What was the acceptable number of civillians killed in WW2 to end the Nazis?

Very good point about he conscripted troops, which is relevant in Iraq. The army that America will have to kill are forced to fight for Iraq.

And theyve got no problems with surrendering - The only thing the US hadnt planned on in the Gulf War was how easily the Iraqis would surrender. There facilities for prisoners was inadequate given the huge numbers waving white flags. You really belive theyll be fighting "to the last man, to the last bullet" this time around?

But the decision to attack the entire nation [Serbia] has been counterproductive, and our destruction of civilian life has now become senseless and excessively brutal.

Oh yeah - Kosovo "liberated", with hope for the future there. Milosevic in a war crimes court, and the Serbs without their butchering overlord at least being able to move forward, stability seemingly secured in the Balkans after a decade of war and ethnic conflict.

Fecking pointless in the end wasnt it.

Ajnag

Sand I did out line who was to take over after the coup, and I sure as hell didnt mention Uday or any ****head son of saddam.

All details such as cohesion among the different factions, Constitution and govermental frame work can be arranged outside Iraq before hand.coup leaders would have to agree to be temporary( and I dont mean the afghan version either), and to Imediate implimentation of the agreed frame work.

An incredible amount of money is spent on that stuff anyway- It might as well be put to a good use overthrowing regimes such as Saddams.

Damn all those nukes!, wouldnt want to waste money now would we.Its a dangerous logic in weapons spending, you buy all those weapons and when no one attacks you, you have to put them to use somehow just so you can avoid looking like an Idiot in the first place.

Exactly- the whole point to toppling Saddam should be to install something better. Cynical as I am I still trust a US led coalition to be far more likely to install a democratic regime than a collection of coup plotting iraqi generals- most of whom have been up to their necks in opressing the iraqis.

dunno, afghanistan still aint democratic, and youll understand if I differ to support nam avoiding pinkos like dubbya who want Oil.

Ajnag

Hey I think this could solve all the problems and keep everyone happy.

On Oct. 3, Iraqi Vice President Taha Yassin Ramadan offered that President Bush and Vice President Cheney should each take one weapon and take on both Saddam Hussein and himself in a duel on neutral territory, with Kofi Annan as referee.

Take to the streets, we could save a lot of lives if this became the norm in geo politics.

Imagine all the dueling, You may say Im a dreamer..............

Zombrex

Originally posted by Sand
When I shoot down an AA airliner over a city its pretty obvious its going to land on a house, that the civillians on board are going to die - thats okay though, but blowing up a bridge is evil? messed up logic there friend.

<sigh> ... I was talking about the airliner that was hijacked on 9-11 ... to defend themselves the US shoot down the airliner, which lands on a house killing civilians. Not very nice for those killed, but it would be argued that it was necessary for the defence of Washington.

When the US blow up a bridge (not even a military target that threatens any America soldier) in a country thousands of miles away, killing lots of civilians, that is a little harder to justify (is the small advantage of a bridge that can be rebuild in a few weeks worth the lives of the people on it?). When the US accidentally blows up a hospital in Iraq thinking it was a weapons dumb, that is even harder to justify. The claim that the US doesn't mean to kill civilians, it just sort of happens, so therefore they are not responsible, is insulting to the dead.

America has an appalling history of "accidentally" blowing civilians up. But by your logic that is all okay, cause they mean well. I am sure Al Quadia believe they mean well also.

Originally posted by Sand
Cynical as I am I still trust a US led coalition to be far more likely to install a democratic regime than a collection of coup plotting iraqi generals- most of whom have been up to their necks in opressing the iraqis.

And how exactly is the US going to do that ... it was very hard for the US to find anyone to run Afghanistan after the war, and they had a friendly army supporting them. The government system in the country is still pretty unstable. It would be a million times worse in Iraq. Is America going to stay in Iraq indefinitely running the country? Or who are they going to turn the country over too. In the end, it is the person with the support of the army that controls the country. And as you said the army is controlled by Saddam's family.

But I'm not worried, there probably won't by much of an Iraq left to fight over once the dust settles.

Originally posted by Sand
LOL, yeah I guess, if you consider Germanys borders to be pretty chaotic during the 1939 to 1945 period

<sigh> (again) ...(getting off the topic but anyways)... I suppose you think that Jews in Germany between 1932 and 1937 had a pretty alright time. Hitler persecuted Jews long before the war, all under the indifferent watch of both the US and the UK. There were lots of things that the UK could have done to try and stop this (not a first-strike kill’em all answer mind) and choose not to and even supported Hitler in many ways.

Same with Iraq. All this bull**** America is saying about how evil Iraq is cause it used WMD on it's own people. It is hypocritical crap, because the US knew and supported Iraq using WMD. What does that make the US?? In my view pretty unqualified to lead a war against their former friend.

Originally posted by Sand
Fecking pointless in the end wasnt it

Couldn't agree with you more ... America and NATO took the biased side of the KLA and gave Serbia an ultimatum that they couldn't possible agree to. Instead of trying to find a peaceful solution to the conflict the US steam-rolled both sides into a bloody war that cost the lives of thousands on both sides. Americas answer to everything is a good old fashioned war.

The US did not remove Milosevic, he was removed by his own people.

Sand

Sand I did out line who was to take over after the coup, and I sure as hell didnt mention Uday or any ****head son of saddam.

No, you outlined an aspiration. Any successful coup is going to be an army coup, a coup by one or more generals- the same generals who are busy oppressing the Iraqis now. The ordinairy Iraqis rose after the Gulf War and were crushed by a force that had just taken an almighty beating- 10 years later you expect them to fare better?

The only way serious change is going to occur in Iraq is if an outside force creates that change. Otherwise its just butcher B replacing butcher A.

Its a dangerous logic in weapons spending, you buy all those weapons and when no one attacks you, you have to put them to use somehow just so you can avoid looking like an Idiot in the first place.

Pffft, youre flying off the pont now.

- It costs lots of money to fight this war

-Money is being spent on war machine anyway, so no change really

-So US is only fighting this war to justify the money spent

-huh, wtf?

Imagine all the dueling, You may say Im a dreamer..............

That would be great- can you imagine the TV viewership?:)

to defend themselves the US shoot down the airliner, which lands on a house killing civilians. Not very nice for those killed, but it would be argued that it was necessary for the defence of Washington.

Ah yes, but that plane was going for the Pentagon, a valid milatary target - they could have just evacuated the place ASAP, and taken it on the chin after that. But instead you reckon they should shoot it down and sacrifice civillians instead.......

Fair enough but thats hardly the sweetness and light approach.

When the US blow up a bridge (not even a military target that threatens any America soldier) in a country thousands of miles away, killing lots of civilians, that is a little harder to justify

Hardly, that bridge carries supplies from Serbia into Kosovo to keep the Serbs there supplied with everything they need to kill Allied troops, and murder kosovars. By leaving it up you merely allow the serbs to continue to operate in the field. Take it down and you win the war. The bridge is a valid milatary target.

The claim that the US doesn't mean to kill civilians, it just sort of happens, so therefore they are not responsible, is insulting to the dead.

The claim that the US war plans are A-Kill the enemy B-Kill as many civillians as possible, or that theyre handing out high fives every time they hit a civillian is insulting to the intelligent. Accidents happen, especially in wars, where firendly fire incidents occur regularly. You mightnt want to accept that but human error is a constant fact of life.

In the end, it is the person with the support of the army that controls the country. And as you said the army is controlled by Saddam's family.

Pffft, a defeated army, with most of its command in jail or on trial for war crimes- yeah, lets give them the country.

Or they could simply call in the UN and their peacekeeprs to assist in creating a provisional government and arrange for elections later on. Kosovo is still holding together despite the outright hatred existing between the ethnic groups.

<sigh> (again) ...(getting off the topic but anyways)... I suppose you think that Jews in Germany between 1932 and 1937 had a pretty alright time.

Been off topic for the last while, why stop now:)

Im well aware of the 1932-37 period but the holocaust proper, the final solution, kicked off during the war in a major way.

But the nations between 1932-37 did nothing wrong by your logic. They could not launch a war unless they were defending themselves. So if adolf hitler was just inside germanys borders and murdering jews in sight of the border post youd be saying "Well thats nasty, but were not threatened so we cant do anything about it. I know, lets go to the League of nations and pass a few resolutions asking Adolf to stop nicely"

In my view pretty unqualified to lead a war against their former friend.

And who else is going to lead it? The UN? pfffft.

The US did not remove Milosevic, he was removed by his own people.

Because the US gave them an ultimatumn that their newly elected government would not receive urgently needed financial aid unless Milosevic was handed over for trial. Up until that the serbs didnt want to tackle that potential hornets nest.

Ajnag

Yes sand the coup is an aspiration, how ever there are far better stratagists out there, with other more realistic Ideas and the knowledge to impliment them.Dosnt it bother you that despite the consequeces outlined previously, that no one has even disscussed an alternative.Not even a covert war considered.Its theft pure and simple, because the focus is oil, Not saving lives.

The ordinairy Iraqis rose after the Gulf War and were crushed by a force that had just taken an almighty beating- 10 years later you expect them to fare better?

The self labled defenders of freedom watched on as Iraqi helicopters poured kerosene on the rebels.OF course the didnt have a chance, How fuc-kin simple can the Logic be.You telling me that through some miracle of logic, that there is enough Intel, and money for war, but none for this type of approach?


As for spending, Yes you do have to justify spending, People do seem to have some input still.If you didnt have to justify, then chances are your in dictatorship. You buy weapons you have to justify having them, proxy wars usually achieve this aim.


Current Leading stratagists in the u.s are pursuing global-domination and the bush admin listens, The last time one nation wanted world domination and there was no counter balence is such a commonly used example Il let you guess.