War With Iraq

[kensson]

[s]Unregisted User :p wrote on 23:55, 14th Feb 2003:

And as for Iraq not being a threat to our country, was Germany really considered a threat when it knocked out the little country of Poland?

Britain was tied by treaties into action in 1939. In that case, I believe war was justified - in response to an act of aggression. At the moment, the only acts of aggression are being perpetrated by the US.

I agree that the world would be a better place if Saddam Hussein were not in power. However, international law is there for a reason. If, in true vigilante style, Mr. Bush decides that one leader is a tyrant and should be disposed of, what's to stop, say, Saudi Arabia deciding that Ariel Sharon is a menace? If the US can invade a country unilaterally because of some perceived threat, why should Pakistan not invade India?

Mr. Blair made great play in his speech yesterday of 500,000 being the number of people Saddam Hussein has killed in his reign, and one million being the number of deaths in wars he started. Just for now I'm not going to get into the Iran-Iraq war, but instead refer to UN reports citing 500,000 as the likely number of deaths in a war on Iraq and two million as the number of refugees caused by it.

Mr. Bush is at pains to stress that he doesn't want a war. The simple way to avoid it is not to start it.

[Oddball]

[s][b:mbz4sq81]Unregisted User :p wrote on 23:55, 14th Feb 2003:[/b:mbz4sq81][i:mbz4sq81]

And as for Iraq not being a threat to our country, was Germany really considered a threat when it knocked out the little country of Poland?[/i:mbz4sq81]

Britain was tied by treaties into action in 1939. In that case, I believe war was justified - in response to an act of aggression. At the moment, the only acts of aggression are being perpetrated by the US.

I agree that the world would be a better place if Saddam Hussein were not in power. However, international law is there for a reason. If, in true vigilante style, Mr. Bush decides that one leader is a tyrant and should be disposed of, what's to stop, say, Saudi Arabia deciding that Ariel Sharon is a menace? If the US can invade a country unilaterally because of some perceived threat, why should Pakistan not invade India?

Mr. Blair made great play in his speech yesterday of 500,000 being the number of people Saddam Hussein has killed in his reign, and one million being the number of deaths in wars he started. Just for now I'm not going to get into the Iran-Iraq war, but instead refer to UN reports citing 500,000 as the likely number of deaths in a war on Iraq and two million as the number of refugees caused by it.

Mr. Bush is at pains to stress that he doesn't want a war. The simple way to avoid it is not to start it.

[Oddball]

Claiming that International Law stops Bush from acting is a foolish line to take. International law has had very little effect on most modern conflicts, NATO or the UN only gets involved in cases of National Interest. By applying the wishful concept of International Law to America the only possible result will be to ensure that it either it will be ignored, thus weakening the concept, or at best if America does not go to war there will be nobody to enforce it next time. America is the only country with sufficient military clout to really decide such affairs, but if it is left bitter then how can the 'International community' expect help from the US. The main determinant of a countries foreign policy is national interest, which can of course include domestic political agendas. To have International Law you need an International Policeman, a task which the UN could hardly hope to achieve.

Those opposed to war will probably weaken the UN rather than strenthen it by their actions. And in response to the question of why shouldn't the Saudi's take on Israel, the answer is relatively simple. They would probably lose, and in their case that could involve facing atomic weapons. The same goes for Pakistan, it would undoubtedly lose a nuclear exchange, and is also outgunned in conventional weapons. Neither India nor Pakistan would benefit from a war at present. It is hardly the threat of International Law that stops these countries from fighting each other.

[Cattet]

Some good points, Oddball. It's too bad that the US won't sit still long enough for someone from Iraq or its neighbors to remove Saddam themselves. I think that's the better way to market the idea of ousting the man. It would be far better to be the big guy backing up the fellow who took him out. Perhaps then a new democratic government, supported by other world nations, could actually begin to work. Provided, of course, that factions/tribes wouldn't cause complete chaos...But that's another chapter of the saga.

[Floor]

You're going to save our buts by getting us involved in a war?

[Decadence]

[s]Oddball wrote on 14:19, 16th Feb 2003:
Neither India nor Pakistan would benefit from a war at present

Umm, how about regaining the territory that is illegally held by Pakistan, or stopping the murder and forced displacement of Indian civilians (such as my family) in Kashmir?

I think that counts as a 'threat to national security' and therefore a reason for war...

Not that I think war is a reasonable solution to any problem, but I just wonder why you said the above?

D.

[hr]
"Yes, I am an agent of Satan,
But my duties are largely ceremonial."

... Thus spake the Cardinal of Decadence

[Cola Cube]

[s]Oddball wrote on 14:19, 16th Feb 2003:
Neither India nor Pakistan would benefit from a war at present

Because many people would be blasted apart by nuclear weapons, due to the two countries becoming ever so slightly trigger happy in the event of war perhaps.

[Fr. Mike]

Here is a quote from Thomas Merton who was a very holy and wise Christian:

"So, instead of loving what you think is peace, Love other and Love God above all. And instead of hating the people you think are warmongers, hate the appetite and the disorder in YOUR OWN SOUL, which causes war. If you love peace, then hate injustice, hate tyrrany, hate greed - But hate these things IN YOURSELF, Not in another."

-a quote by Thomas Merton, a Christian Solitary and lover of God.

[Little she-bear]

At what point have the anti-war types characterised themselves as pro-Saddam types? Please don't put words in people's mouths, thankyou.

[Guest]

President Blair is a good fellow and I would think or should I say I hope that he and President Bush know a lot more about the situation thany any of us do. Therefore let them get on with the jobs that the people of Britain and America have given them and let them along with there many advisors judge if it is best or not to go to war with Iraq!!!!

[Pilmour Boy]

This thread seems to have got really bogged down, so why don't we start a new thread with each of us setting out our own position as to the Iraq situation?

[hr]One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors. - Plato

[The_Farwall]

[s]Pilmour Boy wrote on 18:18, 18th Feb 2003:
This thread seems to have got really bogged down, so why don't we start a new thread with each of us setting out our own position as to the Iraq situation?

Erm, because there are about 20 other threads hanging around the top of the board covering exactly the same subject. No more, please!
[hr]
[s]My weakness is none of your business[/s]

[Prophet Tenebrae]

I think that sometimes its just better to start a new, than to keep one thread going. Especially when they get as bogged down and off topic as this one has.

[Oddball]

Don't start a new post, we should aim to set a new record with this one.

[Durham]

War on Iraq is clearly the only option. Let's just finish off this thorn in the world's side quickly and decisively.

[cc105]

I was just curious to why some of you believe more inspectors would be a good idea, considering they have done such a brilliant job thus far. Also, with your talk of international law, it’s strange that you find a problem with what the US is doing yet have no problems with Saddam disregarding various resolutions. You can make as many laws as you want or resolutions for that matter, but if you don’t enforce punishment than they are no good. And as for the brilliance of France, when have they not chosen a position that is opposite the United States- only when they need to be bailed out by the US. Germany is backed in a corner now with Schroeder’s use of anti-war rhetoric so he could get reelected and the only English word France knows is appeasement- you guys are right, Germany and France’s arguments are much more logical, too bad they don’t control the policies of Europe, or isn’t that really their desire.

[harmless loony]

[s]Decadence wrote on 13:19, 17th Feb 2003:
[s]Oddball wrote on 14:19, 16th Feb 2003:[i]
Neither India nor Pakistan would benefit from a war at present

"Umm, how about regaining the territory that is illegally held by Pakistan, or stopping the murder and forced displacement of Indian civilians (such as my family) in Kashmir?"


sorry i disagree with u. How about thinking about the 100s of women raped everyday by the indian forces. With over 90% of Kashmir being Muslim - i dont see why it shud be part of india - how about letting the kashmiris decide?

[Cola Cube]

President Chirac isn't anti-war, he merely pretends to be to win favour at home. As it becomes more and more obvious that there will be a war, France will move closer to being pro-war. They don't seriously want to be left out as this would do them no favourswith the oil situation.

This would explain why Chirac constantly preaches that war is bad, yet his forces are either on their way or already in the Gulf.

[Ashley]

I always thought that Chirac's position was to try and find other solutions before going to war. True, a lot of time has passed and we must be getting near the end of the line but when I hear America needs to attack before April or whatever so their troops don't have to fight in harsher conditions in Iraq, then I get worried.

Collateral Damage is a term worth remembering. Regardless of how smart their bombs are there will be, no doubt about it, innocent civilian casualties. War is not something to be taken into lightly.

In response to the original point, Chirac, in order to prepare for any eventual war, which incidentally was declared today by the EU "a last resort" preparations need to be made, i.e. the moving of troops to the region.


[hr]When two tribes go to war, a point is all that you can score

[Cola Cube]

Or he's just trying to have his cake and eat. Appeasing his voters and getting his slice of the oil that will come with Saddam's defeat.

Crafty bugger.