War With Iraq

[kensson]

[s]Cain wrote on 16:35, 6th Mar 2003:

appeasing is the pursual, through diplomatic channels that exclude military engagement, of any things that can be done to prevent a war.



My point is this: Saddam Hussein is not starting a war, so it makes no sense to talk of appeasing him.

[James Baster]

I belive someone here has tried to claim the anti-war protesters often can't come up with reasons when asked about it, and the pro-war people are the grown-up ones.

Just for the record, I have deleted far more pro-war messages from unregistered users then anti-war. The anti-war ones are almost all reasonable and writtten nicely, whereas a lot of the pro-war ones are written, well, like this one for example:- "F_CK IRAQ AND KILL ALL THE SCUM THAT LIVE THERE" (That was the entire message)


[hr][s]Come Robin. We shall leave. Through the window. Inconspicuously ... Using our batropes.[/s]

[Andy_Bayley]

"The thousands of inocent Iraqi civilians killed during the inevitable carpet bombing by the invading forces and in the running ground battles as forces press towards Bagdad once again.
Y'know, the people you're trying to set free."

Overall though saddam will kill and torture more of his own people than we will kill in this invasion. If we have to kill 1000s of Iraqis to save tens of thousands we should do it, its a tough call but its worth it in the end. Proof of how evil he is, I just saw a report that Saddam has purchased uniforms of brittish and United States uniforms in order to dress his troops up like us to butcher his own civilians, and make us look guilty of war crimes.

[YRD2U@JUNO.COM]

It is very simple. We are all being whipped into a frenzy. We are being polarized to either blindly support a preposterous position that it is the duty of the US to enforce UN mandates by disarming Saddam, or to foolishly and publicly disgrace ourselves by mouthing mindless slogans(i.e. "Violence Never Solved Anything", etc) in opposition to the inevitable war. Both positions are shameless and indefensible.

The only just cause we have for renewing hostilities with Iraq is if we have sufficient reason to believe that that country, its agents, or representatives were involved in the planning, execution, or funding of the acts of war against the USA on and after 9/11(WTC, Pentagon, Anthrax, et al). If we do have such justification we ought to publicly and officially say so and need not seek permission from any other nation, or group there of, to defend our own via appropriate deterrent/retaliation. However, if we are merely tilting at windmills in a delusional effort to defend the imagined honor of the UN( the world's largest circle jerk) against some (well deserved) insult as our president and his heavy-handed administration seem to be awkwardly suggesting( "12 years, 17 resolutions") then let's call the whole thing off, right now. The US should have no part of any war the stated purpose of which is to, in any way, validate UN authority.

It is also the epitome of insincerity for US to claim that it is our intention to liberate the oppressed people of Iraq. If that if the case then we should also free the oppressed people of China while we're at it. We won't. We will even continue to subsidize their oppression by purchasing all the tariff-free cheap goods their forced labor(slavery) can produce. Our politicians will continue to fund their campaigns with the profits of the Chinese slave trade. And our beer soaked bloodshot eyes will reflexively avert from the "made in China" labels on our cheap consumer goods as our trade dollars pay for more Chinese nukes aimed at American cities. But, oh yeah, Communism's dead(only 1.4 billion serving) and China's our friend(truncated attention spans/short-term memory loss courtesy of MTV-Nintendo-marijuana-ritalin cocktails).

There are 2 words whose definitions have been tortured beyond recognition and are thus accepted by a mind-numbed global populace. The 1st word is PEACE. Peace seems to have become a religion with some people who now demonstrate a preference for it above liberty. The modern de facto definition of peace would appear to be this: the condition which arises when a society accepts indignities without resistance or complaint. That definition is incompatible with the existence of liberty which is something that must be fought for and jealously guarded to be won and preserved. The other word, the constant abuse of which has caught my attention, is DEMOCRACY. It was once widely acknowledged that a democracy was a tyranny of the majority that provided no protection for the rights of the minority. "A democracy is a sheep and 2 wolves voting on what's for dinner". Nevertheless, our "leaders"(what ever happened to public servants?) toss the word around as if it were a synonym for liberty and pretend that it's the form of government under which we live(it isn't). We live in a REPUBLIC which strictly limits the powers of the government(via a pesky constitution) to neglect the natural rights of its minority regardless of the fickle passions(will?) of the majority.

Call your elected representative -- whether you voted for the scoundrel or not -- and remind him that this is a nation of laws, established on the principle that all men have natural born rights that cannot be subverted through either autocracy or democracy. Warn him of the consequences of casting our lot with an international organization whose charter asserts that rights are derived from governments and whose member nations -- many of whom are ruled by ruthless thugs just as bad as the one we are now threatening to depose -- have an equal (in some cases superior) vote to ours in all its democratic organs. Tell him to start promoting the virtues of liberty and self-government and to stop pimping global "democracy".

http://www.wealth4freedom.com/truth/chapter1.htm
http://www.womensgroup.org/998NEWLT.html
http://www.wealth4freedom.com/truth/chapter3.htm

[kensson]

[s]Unregisted User Andy_Bayley wrote on 04:12, 7th Mar 2003:

Overall though saddam will kill and torture more of his own people than we will kill in this invasion. If we have to kill 1000s of Iraqis to save tens of thousands we should do it, its a tough call but its worth it in the end.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/analysis/stor ... 89,00.html

UN estimates:
* 100,000 direct bombing injuries
* 400,000 needing treatment after water and sewage plants are bombed.
* 3,000,000 without adequate food.
* 80% of these young children; many of the others pregnant or breast-feeding women.
* 900,000 refugees expected to flee to Iran, with no figures given for other neighbouring countries.
* 2,000,000 displaced within Iraq.
* 3,600,000 needing emergency shelter.

The Guardian speculates on around 80,000 to 110,000 civilian deaths. The New Scientist ( http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99993043 ) reckons it'd be more like half a million.

Given that Saddam Hussein is pretty old, I don't think he will kill and torture that many people in what's left of his reign.

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/background.htm
is another one to keep up with - just patrolling the no-fly zones has killed 14 people this year.


[hr]
My policy towards the USA remains one of regime change

[Andy_Bayley]

[s]kensson wrote on 11:29, 7th Mar 2003:
[s]Unregisted User Andy_Bayley wrote on 04:12, 7th Mar 2003:[i]

Overall though saddam will kill and torture more of his own people than we will kill in this invasion. If we have to kill 1000s of Iraqis to save tens of thousands we should do it, its a tough call but its worth it in the end.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/analysis/stor ... 89,00.html

UN estimates:
* 100,000 direct bombing injuries
* 400,000 needing treatment after water and sewage plants are bombed.
* 3,000,000 without adequate food.
* 80% of these young children; many of the others pregnant or breast-feeding women.
* 900,000 refugees expected to flee to Iran, with no figures given for other neighbouring countries.
* 2,000,000 displaced within Iraq.
* 3,600,000 needing emergency shelter.

The Guardian speculates on around 80,000 to 110,000 civilian deaths. The New Scientist ( http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99993043 ) reckons it'd be more like half a million.

Given that Saddam Hussein is pretty old, I don't think he will kill and torture that many people in what's left of his reign.

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/background.htm
is another one to keep up with - just patrolling the no-fly zones has killed 14 people this year.


[hr]
My policy towards the USA remains one of regime change
[/i]

I think those estimates are extremely high. In afghanistan collateral damage was right around 4000 casualties. And the majority of people are not going to fight for saddam. This will be over in a month. Also i love how people always bring up the no fly zones bombing. Everytime he attacks us we bomb something over there if he doesnt want anything bombed he shouldnt attack us.

[kensson]

[s]Unregisted User Andy_Bayley wrote on 04:12, 7th Mar 2003:
I think those estimates are extremely high. In afghanistan collateral damage was right around 4000 casualties. And the majority of people are not going to fight for saddam. This will be over in a month. Also i love how people always bring up the no fly zones bombing. Everytime he attacks us we bomb something over there if he doesnt want anything bombed he shouldnt attack us.


As I say, they are UN estimates. Moreover, if you'd bothered to read the article linked, you'd have seen explanations for the increased number, including that Afghanistan is a largely rural country, while Iraq is concentrated in cities.

As for the no-fly zones, I thought the whole idea of smart bombs was to avoid civilian casualties? My point was simply that civilians are being killed by US bombs even before a war.

[hr]
My policy towards the USA remains one of regime change

[puzzled]

[s]kensson wrote on 17:05, 7th Mar 2003:
As I say, they are UN estimates.

That doesn't exactly give me confidence in their accuracy.


As for the no-fly zones, I thought the whole idea of smart bombs was to avoid civilian casualties?

Compared to non-smart weapons, they do.

[kensson]

[s]puzzled wrote on 17:38, 7th Mar 2003:

"As I say, they are UN estimates."

That doesn't exactly give me confidence in their accuracy.

Perhaps; but they will at least have been researched by people who know something about war and its effects. If anything, I'd expect the UN to underestimate casualties, but I'm not qualified to judge. Which is why I quote their figures rather than make my own up.


"As for the no-fly zones, I thought the whole idea of smart bombs was to avoid civilian casualties?"

Compared to non-smart weapons, they do.


Smart weapons kill fewer civilians, yes, but more than no weapons. My point was that they still kill civilians. Strangely, I'm under the impression that this is a bad thing.

[hr]
My policy towards the USA remains one of regime change

[puzzled]

[s]kensson wrote on 17:46, 7th Mar 2003:

Smart weapons kill fewer civilians, yes, but more than no weapons. My point was that they still kill civilians. Strangely, I'm under the impression that this is a bad thing.


It isn't always.

[kensson]

[s]puzzled wrote on 18:35, 7th Mar 2003:
"Smart weapons kill fewer civilians, yes, but more than no weapons. My point was that they still kill civilians. Strangely, I'm under the impression that this is a bad thing."

It isn't always.


I suspect we'll have to agree to differ on this one - I think killing civilians is a bad thing, but can (in certain, exceptional circumstances) be mitigated.

[hr]
My policy towards the USA remains one of regime change

[Andy_Bayley]

[s]kensson wrote on 18:42, 7th Mar 2003:
[s]puzzled wrote on 18:35, 7th Mar 2003:[i]
"Smart weapons kill fewer civilians, yes, but more than no weapons. My point was that they still kill civilians. Strangely, I'm under the impression that this is a bad thing."

It isn't always.


I suspect we'll have to agree to differ on this one - I think killing civilians is a bad thing, but can (in certain, exceptional circumstances) be mitigated.

[hr]
killing civilians is always a bad thing but some times the ends justify the means, and i still believe with all of my heart that we will be saving more iraqis with him and his regime gone.
My policy towards the USA remains one of regime change
[/i]

[UnitedStatesOwnage]

Just read the following message posted...

http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark, ... ~mode=flat

[Al]

A lot of those "facts" are just the opinions of people who are pro-war, and, as such, are no more necessarily valid than those of people opposed to the war.

[hr]We are near waking when we dream we are dreaming.

[Cain]

Here's a thought from the Washington Times

"Those units will be deployed in and around his native town of Tikrit and Baghdad.
During the interview there was that one moment of truth, when Saddam, speaking to Mr. Rather about the looming war, lit up, smiled, paused, and said one word which he emphasized slowly and with great determination. The word was Baghdad. Or, as Saddam said it, "BA-GH-DAD.
And there, for me, was an epiphany. A revelation.
Saddam, remember, will not stand and fight in the desert. He will retrench in Baghdad and possibly Tikrit, where he and his special units will hold the local population hostage. There are already reports of Republican Guard units redeploying from the area around Mossul in the north toward the south — Tikrit and Baghdad.
With vast supplies he has surely stashed away, his extended network of secret tunnels and huge quantities of arms caches, Saddam can sustain a prolonged siege in Baghdad, a city larger than Los Angeles. The question here is, can the United States sustain maintaining prolonged sieges of Baghdad and Tikrit?
There is always the danger that the war on Iraq does turn into a long-drawn Stalingrad-like battle. If that does occur, as it well may, what will likely be the reaction from the rest of the Arab world and from Europe? Or for that matter, from American public opinion.
More importantly, what effect will such a siege of an Arab capital by U.S. forces have on the Islamic world, a small but nevertheless vociferous portion of which has already declared war on America?
What happens if Israel is dragged into the war? What happens if the Lebanese Shi'ite militant group, Hezbollah, activates Israel's northern front, as Dan Tichon, a former speaker of the Israeli Knesset, believes it undoubtedly will?"

The war in Iraq as a siege on Baghdad that will last for months and months. Not the month long campaign everyobdy is expecting. probably not bloodless either in terms of military casualties, or civilian deaths, as that's what happens when cities are held under siege. In that case, how long would it take for public support for the war to wane? Could Iraq turn into another Vietnam?

[Andy_Bayley]

[s]Al wrote on 10:52, 8th Mar 2003:
A lot of those "facts" are just the opinions of people who are pro-war, and, as such, are no more necessarily valid than those of people opposed to the war.

[hr][i]We are near waking when we dream we are dreaming.
[/i]



I wouldnt dismiss the whole thing especially the feeligns of Iraqi refugees. Its interesting to me that I have only heard Iraqis who arent Iraq talking in favor of the war. Im sure its not that 100 percent of Iraqi refugees favor war but I havent heard of Iraqis marching in "peace" rallies. But I've seen more interviews than I can account of Iraqi refugees asking for Iraq to be liberated.

[Guest]

Now we are going on our 12th year of disarmament negotiations with Saddams regime. I believe we are up to the 17th UN resolution that Saddam’s regime has defiantly broken. When is enough enough?

I respect the fact that everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion. That is one of the beautiful things that make countries like the US and UK so special. But please explain to me what else can be done. I’ve looked through so many posts and not one Anti-War posting has explained an “effective” way of dealing with Saddam’s weapons program. Sure, Saddam is destroying some of the missiles that the inspectors have found. But he has already ordered parts to continue production of those same missiles! He has continued to hide and move weapons/chemicals around in trucks and in some cases has hidden them in cars in local neighborhoods.

I bring these points and questions up to my liberal friends and they have no answer or solution. I also asked them about all the liberals who decided to go to Iraq as human shields. Well after all there talking, they all decided to pack it up and go home because they felt their lives were in danger. If you talk the talk, shouldn’t you walk the walk? Furthermore, why do liberals talk about human rights and yet don’t support removing a dictator like Saddam who oppresses, tortures, and kills his own people? Is that not hypocritical?

I would also like to bring up the point especially for the Arab individual, Rrankin, who obviously hates the US. Why point fingers at the US or even Bush? Why is it his fault? Why aren’t you pointing fingers at Saddam? He and He alone has the power to diffuse this standoff instantly. He alone has the power to save his people from going through a war. Doesn’t the fact that he selfishly refuses to stand down or even come clean with his weapons program for the benefit of his own people further display the type of person he is or what he is hiding?

The bottom line is that Saddam refuses to disarm, he continues to play games with the UN, and lets face it… He is an arrogant, expansionistic dictator with a violent past who so obviously continues his illegal weapons program. What else are we to do?

[Cain]

Unregistered user says Iraw have hidden weapons in cars and moved them around the country. How does he know this? how does anybody know this? They're hidden, right.

If America wants to play by the rules and order weapons inspections then that is wonderful. What it can't then do is nail Iraq for not disarming weapons that the US can't prove exists.

I'm not denying that Iraq probably has weapons. But the US wanted to prove so, and they haven't. They wanted to prove a link between Iraq and Al-Qaeda. They haven't. If they just come out and say "We want a war because we want a war" then that would be far more acceptable than pretending to do the diplomatic thing.

Unregisterd User says "lets face it… He is an arrogant, expansionistic dictator with a violent past who so obviously continues his illegal weapons program."

Oh, so arrogance is a reason for wanting to bomb a country into submission.
So, a bit of "previous" is a reason for assuming that you have valid reasons to bomb a country into submission.

Everybody commenting on this thread should also have a look at the Terry Jones article (under the thread Terry jones, funnily enough). at the very least, it's just a good read.


[hr]
whoever kills Cain will suffer a sevenfold vengeance

[kensson]

[s]Unregisted User Andy_Bayley wrote on 23:46, 8th Mar 2003:

I wouldnt dismiss the whole thing especially the feeligns of Iraqi refugees. Its interesting to me that I have only heard Iraqis who arent Iraq talking in favor of the war. Im sure its not that 100 percent of Iraqi refugees favor war but I havent heard of Iraqis marching in "peace" rallies. But I've seen more interviews than I can account of Iraqi refugees asking for Iraq to be liberated.


I understand there were at least some Iraqis on the march in London, although I can't back that up with a reference just now. I did see a feature on Channel 4 News with two Iraqi Kurds, one supporting and one decrying an invasion. Both claimed to have majority support of the Kurdish people.

Its interesting to me that I have only heard Iraqis who arent Iraq talking in favor of the war.

I have no idea what this sentence means. This is the point I was making about checking your posts.

[hr]
My policy towards the USA remains one of regime change

[Andy_Bayley]

[s]Cain wrote on 14:07, 9th Mar 2003:
Unregistered user says Iraw have hidden weapons in cars and moved them around the country. How does he know this? how does anybody know this? They're hidden, right.

If America wants to play by the rules and order weapons inspections then that is wonderful. What it can't then do is nail Iraq for not disarming weapons that the US can't prove exists.

I'm not denying that Iraq probably has weapons. But the US wanted to prove so, and they haven't. They wanted to prove a link between Iraq and Al-Qaeda. They haven't. If they just come out and say "We want a war because we want a war" then that would be far more acceptable than pretending to do the diplomatic thing.

Unregisterd User says "lets face it? He is an arrogant, expansionistic dictator with a violent past who so obviously continues his illegal weapons program."

Oh, so arrogance is a reason for wanting to bomb a country into submission.
So, a bit of "previous" is a reason for assuming that you have valid reasons to bomb a country into submission.

Everybody commenting on this thread should also have a look at the Terry Jones article (under the thread Terry jones, funnily enough). at the very least, it's just a good read.


[hr]
whoever kills Cain will suffer a sevenfold vengeance



No intellegence agency in the world denies that the weapons exist except for maybe france but only because they dont want war. Also if you listened to Powells speach at the UN a few weeks back there is no doubt what they are hiding.

As far as the second point, you just kind of dodged his question. Saddam is an evil tyrant and needs to be taken out. And I really cant see anyone for human rights not wanting him taken out.