War With Iraq

[splittter]

from my (hopefully) above post ... thats of course if there are any readers apart from myself, kennson and unregistered user

Also I apologise for misquoting the latter, although I don't think the additions were outside of the tone of the original post and it was certainly not meant maliciously ... I just couldn't be bothered to hit back on my browser. Sorry.

[Guest]

Al,

Don’t consider it a personal attack; believe it or not that was wasn’t my intent. As un-conventional as it may seem, using this technique typically encourages people to be more careful of not only their postings but also reading other’s more carefully. I wanted to address your misquotes, mis-information, and intentional or un-intentional avoidance of my questions because repeating myself didn’t seem to work. Regardless, it got your attention, and more than likely will have the effect I intended.


Al,

-“Ah! Abuse. The last refuge of those without a credible argument”

I explained the reasoning behind my comments. What’s yours? Look at your past posts, full of fictional comments and un-researched slander that proved you were over your head in the discussion. Remember the so-called election you claimed Bush fixed? Yet you had no understanding of the electoral process and confused electoral votes with popular. By the end of our discussion you admitted you were a hypocrite. Enough said.


Kensson,

Yes, I did purposely avoid replying to all your comments to keep us from going off on a numerous tangents that you seemed so persistent in going on. Let me remind you that this post was entitled War on Iraq, not Bush’s political past, the US’s election process, human rights etc. etc…


One last viewpoint:

Sadam is a tyrant; he clearly demonstrates this with his oppressive behavior towards his own people, his refusal to come to a peaceful resolution, and his aggressive behavior towards his neighboring countries. Would I trust him with nuclear weapons? I’d say not and think you would by lying if you said you did. The diplomatic approach should always be the first chosen path to avoid any military approach. But for this diplomatic approach to work, Saddam needs to allow inspectors access to all his sites, no exceptions, when they deem necessary, not when he does. I don’t want to see the same thing happen that occurred in 1996 when he put an end to inspections. He needs to be aware that the UN won’t tolerate another violation in a resolution act/mandate. I don’t think the UN should or could settle for anything less to “contain” Saddam and to ensure he won’t pose any threat in the future. This is what the UK/US are currently pushing for and I for one am 100% behind them.

[Al]

Aren't I lucky? I get two comments directed at me. I only wish either made even the slightest bit of sense.

"Look at your past posts, full of fictional comments and un-researched slander."

"Fictional comments"? I imagine you mean that I was making stuff up. For the record, I wasn't.

"Un-researched slander"? If slander is publishing something untrue about someone, then it must be, by definition, "un-researched". Unless you use the "Big Book of Errors and Lies".

"...that proved you were over your head in the discussion."

I shall treat that remark with the contempt you deserve. I wasn't aware of you taking part in any discussion. I was only aware of you ranting, raving and becoming ever more abusive.

"Remember the so-called election you claimed Bush fixed?"

I never claimed, or at least I don't remember claiming, that Bush fixed the election personally. I doubt very much he has the ability to fix his own hair let alone his own election. Mind you, I agree that it was only a "so-called election".

"Yet you had no understanding of the electoral process and confused electoral votes with popular."

Actually, I understand the process perfectly well. I just fail to see why a country that prides itself on being the bastion of democracy can't have a electoral system that reflects such a proud boast.

"By the end of our discussion you admitted you were a hypocrite."

That is not what I said. What I said was "A hypocrite I may be. All people are hypocritical at some time or another. Ignorant I am not." Which is not the same thing. At all.

"Enough said."

By you? God, I hope so. I really do.

[hr]"Shelley and jazz and lieder and love and hymn-tunes and day returns too soon...."

[Prophet Tenebrae]

“Ah! Abuse. The last refuge of those without a credible argument”

Abuse is just a way to provoke opponents.

[Guest]

I apologize; the first paragraph was directed to Splitter.

-“How about the evidence of the electoral audit that found overwhelmingly that Gore had gained more votes? Or does that not count in your world?”

Your quote Al, and yes you making stuff up. Then you showed me the popular vote numbers not electoral. Sure you have an understanding about it now, after I explained it to you.

"A hypocrite I may be. All people are hypocritical at some time or another. Ignorant I am not." Which is not the same thing. At all”

How do you figure? Your admitting you’re a hypocrite, and then try to justify it by claiming everyone is.

Last I checked no one forced you to read my posts, if you don’t like what I have to say then don’t read them.

[Al]

I had hoped we had seen the last of you and your nonsensical ravings. But you just won't give it a rest, will you?

"Sure you have an understanding about it now, after I explained it to you."

As I have said many times before, I already understood it. I didn't need any input from you.

"How do you figure? Your admitting you’re a hypocrite, and then try to justify it by claiming everyone is."

I'm guessing that English isn't your first language, am I right? Otherwise, I fail to see how you cannot understand such a simple construction as:

"'A hypocrite I may be. All people are hypocritical at some time or another. Ignorant I am not.' Which is not the same thing. At all."

I would explain, but I fear any explanation would be wasted on any one who does not know the difference between "your" and "you're".

"Last I checked no one forced you to read my posts.."

True. But it's hard to resist. I live in the hope that one day you might make some sense. But I think it's a forlorn hope.

[hr]"Happiness is a time, a place...a chemical imbalance"

[kensson]

I feel Bush's political past - in fact, his record in terms of executions - is entirely relevant in assessing the value on human life, which is why I mention it.

An understanding of US foreign policy (ancient and modern) is important in understanding the antipathy felt towards the US by some people.

Human rights are also important because as soon as you cite them as justification for a war against Iraq you have to consider war against Israel, Pakistan, probably Russia and China. I don't think any of us want that.

The US election process is a valid point to raise because it is a possible - even probable - motivation for starting a war (the oldest trick in the political book). For exactly that reason, the economy is also a key point.

And for the record: the UN weapons inspectors withdrew in 1998, two years later than you seem to remember.

[Guest]

Al,

Your quote again:
“Ah! Abuse. The last refuge of those without a credible argument”

Get a grip! This only a board, expect to see different opinions. English is my first language. I’m not going to argue what you meant and what you wrote. My only suggestion is to drop it; you’ll only make yourself look worse if you choose not to.


Kensson,

-“I feel Bush's political past - in fact, his record in terms of executions - is entirely relevant in assessing the value on human life, which is why I mention it.”

I understand why you pointed out Bush’s past. However, you have to admit assessing the value of violent prisoners lives, those that have been imprisoned for brutal slayings is quite different then assessing the value of innocent civilians lives.

-“An understanding of US foreign policy (ancient and modern) is important in understanding the antipathy felt towards the US by some people. “

I don’t know how much ancient has to play in today’s dealings but ok yes modern. Now flip this around to the other side. Just as much attention needs to be taken with Saddam’s foreign policies.

-“Human rights are also important because as soon as you cite them as justification for a war against Iraq you have to consider war against Israel, Pakistan, probably Russia and China. I don't think any of us want that.”

Israel, yes, I agreed that special attention would need to be taken if, I say again if, an invasion was necessary. Pakistan is much more unlikely especially since they’re main focus is India at the moment. Russia and China definitely extremely unlikely, although relations between the countries might suffer a bit, I don’t really think it would be anything that couldn’t be resolved in the future.

-“The US election process is a valid point to raise because it is a possible - even probable - motivation for starting a war (the oldest trick in the political book). For exactly that reason, the economy is also a key point.”

That may be true, but let me remind you that the US/UK are currently exhausting a diplomatic approach and have been for the past months.

-“And for the record: the UN weapons inspectors withdrew in 1998, two years later than you seem to remember. “

I stand corrected. I think we would both agree that four years is still too long.

I have a couple questions for you Kensson.

Do you think weapons inspectors should be allowed to all facilities in Iraq?
Do you think inspectors should have full access when they deem necessary?
Do you think high-ranking Iraqi officials should be given the opportunity to take their entire families to other countries to answer questions about Iraq’s weapons program if they choose to do so?
Do you think Saddam’s regime should be held accountable if they do not cooperate or choose in the future not to cooperate with the weapons inspections?
Do you think Saddam would use or secretly share weapons of mass destruction with terrorist groups, knowing what he has done in the past 20 years?

[Al]

"Al,

Your quote again:
“Ah! Abuse. The last refuge of those without a credible argument”"

Why do you keep repeating that? You are the most abusive person posting on this board. Who was it who compared someone to Stalin? Wasn't it you? Perhaps you are trying to admit that you don't have a credible argument?

"Get a grip! This only a board, expect to see different opinions. English is my first language. I’m not going to argue what you meant and what you wrote. My only suggestion is to drop it; you’ll only make yourself look worse if you choose not to."

Oh dear Lord! Instead of expecting everyone to adopt your opinions, why don't you follow your own advice?

[hr]"Happiness is a time, a place...a chemical imbalance"

[Guest]

"Al,

Your quote again:
“Ah! Abuse. The last refuge of those without a credible argument”"

-“Why do you keep repeating that? “

Just pointing out another hypocritical statement.

-“Oh dear Lord! Instead of expecting everyone to adopt your opinions, why don't you follow your own advice?”

I never expected anyone to adopt my opinions. But people seem to have a problem justifying their own opinions. The common statement I’ve seen is that Saddam is an evil dictator and the world would be better without him. However, no one seems to back the countries that are trying to do so. They go on to say how the US/UK are pressing a violent war, when in reality a diplomatic approach has been sought for months now. The reason why I keep bringing up the same points is that no one seems to address them. Instead they choose to criticize other leaders, financial issues etc etc. They choose to tip toe around the main underlying point, Saddam can’t be trusted with weapons of mass destruction.

Last I checked this is a message board, all opinions are welcome. Once again I repeat, you have a choice to read these boards, if you don’t like what I have to say, don’t read them.

[Al]

You are very keen when it comes to pointing out supposed hypocrisy in others but less keen on adopting for yourself the high standards you expect in others. The most abusive statement to have been made on this thread was when you compared someone to Stalin.

"I never expected anyone to adopt my opinions. But people seem to have a problem justifying their own opinions."

Justify them to whom? You? Why should they even try? You don't seem capable of accepting as valid any opinion that doesn't coincide with yours.

"They go on to say how the US/UK are pressing a violent war, when in reality a diplomatic approach has been sought for months now"

You have a strange definition of the concept of diplomacy. Threatening a nation with destruction unless they comply with your every wish is not diplomacy. Make no mistake - unless the US and UK are committed to a long, bloody and costly ground war - Saddam Hussein will survive. A bombing campaign will only hurt the innocent Iraqi people.

"Last I checked this is a message board, all opinions are welcome. Once again I repeat, you have a choice to read these boards, if you don’t like what I have to say, don’t read them."

No one is denying that. But again, you say things you appear to believe don't apply to you. If you don't like what others have to say, don't read their posts.

[hr]"Happiness is a time, a place...a chemical imbalance"

[Guest]

-“You are very keen when it comes to pointing out supposed hypocrisy in others but less keen on adopting for yourself the high standards you expect in others. The most abusive statement to have been made on this thread was when you compared someone to Stalin. “

Keen? Thanks, but you made it quite easy for me to point it out. I used YOUR own words to display the hypocrisy in your comments. Furthermore, I don’t recall ever saying it was wrong for someone to criticize another’s comments. And you wonder why I repeat things? I explained why I used the verbiage I chose. Furthermore, I found it humorous that Splitter started justifying Saddam’s regime and their actions. Take a look at Saddam’s regime and you will notice many similarities with Stalinism.

-“Justify them to whom? You? Why should they even try? You don't seem capable of accepting as valid any opinion that doesn't coincide with yours. “

Again… this is a board right? People normally post to make a point. If you can’t back up those points then expect to be called on them. Don’t like it, don’t post them.

-“You have a strange definition of the concept of diplomacy. Threatening a nation with destruction unless they comply with your every wish is not diplomacy.”

I see your problem now; you have a distorted view of reality. No, I don’t remember them threatening a nation with destruction. I believe they specifically stated that Saddam’s regime would be removed. Again, that stop or I’ll say stop again approach doesn’t seem to work with Saddam. A stricter policy needs to be put in place. What I don’t understand, and am still waiting for someone to explain is, why don’t you, Splitter, or Kensson?

-“Make no mistake - unless the US and UK are committed to a long, bloody and costly ground war - Saddam Hussein will survive. A bombing campaign will only hurt the innocent Iraqi people. “

I didn’t think wars came in any other way. I disagree that Saddam would survive. Saddam has very few allies; he would have difficulties finding assistance even among his own people.

-“No one is denying that. But again, you say things you appear to believe don't apply to you. If you don't like what others have to say, don't read their posts.”

And what things are those? I choose to call people on their comments and hold them accountable. Whether you choose to ignore them is your prerogative. But remember, while ignoring me or anyone else on this board might prove to be effective, ignoring Saddam Hussein won’t be.

[kensson]

I refuse to argue with someone who refuses to listen to my arguments.

My reasons for rejecting wholeheartedly a war against Iraq:

- it is morally unacceptable to me;
- it is against international law;
- inspections have been shown to work far better than bombing;
- I believe it will lead to massive civilian casualties;
- I doubt Mr. Bush's motives for starting it;
- I believe it could lead to political instability in this country;
- in terms of protests, it is more unpopular than even the later years of Vietnam;
- I do not believe it can be won quickly and cleanly;
- I do not believe Saddam Hussein would refrain from using any biological weapons he has, if he felt his deposal was imminent;
- I believe money spent on the war would be better spent on schools, hospitals, firefighters, public transport, international development and any number of other peaceful initiatives;
- I believe any intervention in Iraq will further destabilise the situation in Israel and Palestine;
- replacing regimes you find unpalatable sets an incredibly dangerous precedent;
- I believe an attack on Iraq would increase anti-US feeling and increase, not reduce, the risk of further terrorist attacks.

This is the last I'm going to say on the subject.

[Al]

There is no point continuing this "debate". You have your view and I have mine.

[hr]"Happiness is a time, a place...a chemical imbalance"

[Prophet Tenebrae]

That's what usually happens - people don't often change their views on these sort of things in debates, both sides merely reiterating their points until the Sun expands to swallow Earth.

[Al]

"...both sides merely reiterating their points until the Sun expands to swallow Earth."

Then there is still time for a few more rounds before next Tuesday.

[hr]"Happiness is a time, a place...a chemical imbalance"

[splittter]

just to say I'm still reading this thread, unregistered user's posts are too entertaining to miss ... although his continued insistence I am Stalin-like did vex me ... but then this morning I woke up, and realised that in the night I'd inadvertantly killed 6 million Kulaks ... imagine my embarrasment.

[Guest]

-“I refuse to argue with someone who refuses to listen to my arguments. “
-“This is the last I'm going to say on the subject”

You finally list the reasons why you are opposed to the war, comment about me refusing to listen to your arguments, but refuse to answer my questions, then end by saying this is the last you will say about this issue. I’m sorry Kensson you have it reversed, apparently you are the one that refuses to listen to arguments.

“- it is morally unacceptable to me”
No one looks forward to a war and it should be avoided at all costs. But at the same time, how can you just sit there and let Saddam develop weapons of mass destruction when you know what he is fully capable of doing.

“it is against international law”
So were Saddam’s attacks on Israel, Iran, and Kuwait. Not to mention the development of weapons of mass destruction.

”- inspections have been shown to work far better than bombing”
What inspections? The same ones that Saddam cut off in “1998”?

”- I believe it will lead to massive civilian casualties”
I’m not going to claim I know how many civilian casualties there will be. However, as bad as it might sound, I would rather have thousands of civilian Iraqi casualties then hundreds of thousands of casualties on our side because a nuclear device went off in our back yard.

”- I doubt Mr. Bush's motives for starting it”
What about Hans Blix motives who shares Bush’s? He is the chief weapons inspector, and believes that inspectors need more access, when they want it, and believes Saddam needs to be held accountable if he doesn’t cooperate.

”- I believe it could lead to political instability in this country”
Of course, but don’t you think it would be better suited with a government other than a tyrant for a dictator?

”- I believe money spent on the war would be better spent on schools, hospitals, firefighters, public transport, international development and any number of other peaceful initiatives”
Sure, doesn’t everyone, but does that justify allowing Saddam having nuclear capabilities?

”- I believe any intervention in Iraq will further destabilise the situation in Israel and Palestine”
This may be true, and once again I agree special attention would need to be focused in this area if a war was to take place.

”- replacing regimes you find unpalatable sets an incredibly dangerous precedent”
Allowing Saddam nuclear capabilities sets an incredibly dangerous precedent.

”- I believe an attack on Iraq would increase anti-US feeling and increase, not reduce, the risk of further terrorist attacks.”
And how much worse can it get? 9/11 happened way before any action against Saddam was ever publicized. These terrorist groups have their own agenda, look at the recent bombings in Bali.

Again, I pose 5 simple questions. Can anyone who shares your opinion answer these? Probably not, Reason being: Although you people bring up many good points, you fail to look at the bigger picture. The only reason this war will start is if Saddam refuses to cooperate with these new weapons inspections. Why will he refuse? Because he is fully aware that he has a weapons program and is trying to develop weapons of mass destruction and plans to continue it. Blair, Bush, Blix and others recognize the dangers this poses, are fully aware of his elusive and destructive nature, and are determined to put an end to it. First trying diplomatic means, and if necessary by force. You can argue all you want about how diplomatic the US is being or political motives, but at the end of the day, this conflict could easily be resolved by Saddam agreeing to the terms.

-Do you think weapons inspectors should be allowed to all facilities in Iraq?

-Do you think inspectors should have full access when they deem necessary?

-Do you think high-ranking Iraqi officials should be given the opportunity to take their entire families to other countries to answer questions about Iraq’s weapons program if they choose to do so?

-Do you think Saddam’s regime should be held accountable if they do not cooperate or choose in the future not to cooperate with the weapons inspections?

-Do you think Saddam would use or secretly share weapons of mass destruction with terrorist groups, knowing what he has done in the past 20 years?

[Conglomerate]

One thing that does puzzle me is the arguement that we should only go to war if the UN sanction it. Why is everyone so in awe of the UN? Democratic nations barely make up half of its total membership, the security council has china on it - a country well known for its respect for individual freedom and a pillar of democracy. Yet even the C of E bishops are saying we must have the blessing of such fetid regimes prior to trying to liberate the Iraqi people. Yes people will die in a war, but if ever there was a war that will be short and one-sided it would be the GW2. The left howl that this is a war about oil - so what? If iraq is liberated oil will probably sink to $10 a barrel making it less necessary to drill in alaska, the gulf of mexixo et al. and the iraqi people will actually be able to benefit from their natural wealth rather than the elite. As for what happens afterwards, democracy will bring prosperity and with it 'corrupt' western culture which, if supplied in enough quantity, has proved to be the most efficient way of calming the plebs.

[Guest]

Well guys don't get too upset.

Those are typical liberal views. They dodge the main issues and don't offer a viable solution.