War With Iraq

[kensson]

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define. ... &dict=CALD
http://www.peevish.co.uk/slang/a.htm

You notice the '.co.uk' at the top of this page? 'Arse' is the correct spelling here. An ass is an animal. "Arsehole", if you prefer. My point stands.

[kensson]

[s]Al wrote on 14:10, 17th Mar 2003:
You mean we'll all look like you? Oh cruel fate!

[kensson]

[s]Al wrote on 14:10, 17th Mar 2003:
You mean we'll all look like you? Oh cruel fate!

[Guest]

If I’m not mistaken Saddam was put in power during the Carter administration. Jimmy Carter was a liberal, so wouldn't it be a correct statement to blame the liberals for putting him in power in the first place?


Kensson,

I respect your view to preserve human life. Unfortunately, I think you've leaded your privileged life too long and have lost touch with reality. I’ve seen most of you liberals agree that he's hiding weapons, he's a notoriously evil dictator, has lead unprovoked attacks against neighboring countries, and has caused atrocities against hundreds of thousands of his own people. If you think for one second that Saddam wont hesitate to use his weapons of mass destruction once he develops them only makes you look naive or the "ass" you seem to be so fond of talking about.

[Person who knows how to spell ass]

my the clever insults! I know you are but what am I?


On a serious note I thought of something. If hitler was only killing Jews in his own country would we have still had the same moral obligation to stop him?

[Brianstevz]

I admire Tony Blair. The man has convictions and the guts to stay with what he feels is the right thing to do. The world needs more leaders like him. The people of Great Britian are lucky to have him.

Brian

http://www.pro-american.com

[washdc20036@hotmail.com]

[On a serious note I thought of something. If hitler was only killing Jews in his own country would we have still had the same moral obligation to stop him?
[/i]

This was the main justification we used for going into Yugoslavia, wasn't it? That genocide was being waged against Kosovo? I ma not sure. A part of me wants to say yes, of course we have a moral obligation to stop that. On the other hand, does that moral obligation imply a de facto obligation - in other words- though the moral obligation remains, does that mean we have to act on it if there it would only be to the detriment of own people? I'm thiking about Africa and all the stuff that goes on there- if we get involved it would resu;t in the deaths of our own people at no benefit to our own society. So does moral obligation "kick in" always, or only when one's own way of life is at stake?

[Pilmour Boy]

One of the many recent failures of the UN was the slaughter in Rwanda. This is one of the many incidents where a permanent member of the UNSC floated their veto and stopped any action being taken, just because they believed it was happening in their sphere of influence.
As the intervention in Sierra Leone showed, the UK is now willing to do a lot of work to ensure we treat all people equally- doing what we can, where we can.
Since the 1997 general election, the UK's overseas aid budget has doubled in real terms, and now stands at four times that for the FCO.

This is one of the reasons why Clare Short is still in the cabinet. She is really good at what she does. When the time comes for the rebuilding of Iraq, she is certainly the best person in the cabinet, and possibly the best person in the world to ensure that everything that is done is truly for the benefit of the Iraqi people.

[glad to see im not the only conservative]

Its true the reason we went into yugoslavia was genocide. And I agree we dont always get involved when we should.

Now my real question. Saddam hussien is committing genocide he is personally responsible for the killing of 1 million Iraqis and 1.5 million Iraqis that were killed in war, he is estimated to be worth 100-200 billion dollars while the gdp of the country is 60 billion, to feed his people alls he would have needed to do is disarm but he chose to let sanctions stay, Saddam is without a doubt evil he uses brutal tactics like torturing children. So do we as countries who lead the free world have the moral obligation to liberate these people?


Hint-when answering this question don't use moral equvilency by focusing on the past(example like the US supporting Iraq in the 70s and 80s so there for its ok to let the Iraqis die) , and dont say we should do no good in the world because there human rights abuses in other parts of the world(example-the palistineans are being occupied if we wont help them why are we helping the Iraqis It must be oil).

[Jeff Redfern]

And consider this, too... What 'war'? How can this possibly be called a 'war' when Iraq has had almost all its weapons confiscated/destroyed? Certainly NOT a level playing field here. Iraq will be trying to defend its country with the equivalent of sticks & stones against two superpowers invading its territory... all over Bush's greed for oil. Bush is a meglomanical Broken Arrow - and the UN (including Hans Blix) knows it. What the UN does from hereon in (regarding Bush & Blair's lunacy... including brown-nosing Johnny Howard of Australia) determines whether the other member countries of the United Nations consider it a 'Toothless Tiger' or not. As to what ordinary people can do to thwart a world war though - bombard your members of parliament/congress with emails & letters... And God help us all.

[washdc20036@hotmail.com]

[s]Unregisted User Jeff Redfern wrote on 16:16, 18th Mar 2003:
And consider this, too... What 'war'? How can this possibly be called a 'war' when Iraq has had almost all its weapons confiscated/destroyed?]

We don't know that for sure- alot of people out there believe he DOES have WMD.

[Certainly NOT a level playing field here. Iraq will be trying to defend its country with the equivalent of sticks & stones against two superpowers invading its territory...]

Most Iraqis won't be defending their country at all, but will welcome their liberators just as in the 1991 Gulf War. Saddam is not exactly a popular leader amongst his coutrymen. Those that will be "defending" it are members of Saddam's regime who have tortured and oppressed their fellow countrymen for decades.

[l over Bush's greed for oil.]

I recommend you do your research. This is such a gross mistatement it is laughable. This is about far more than oil- it is about making right in a country taht has been wronged for so many years. It is about toppoling a tyrant with Hitler-like potential. It is about securing freedom and prosperity for the peopleof Iraq. It is about ensuring the safety and wel lbeing of people around the world. Bush already has plenty of oil and plenty of money. Wvwn if one ultimately disagrees with the policy or the results, even if one dislikes the man himself, i think Bush is acting in what honestly nelieves is in the best interest of the nation and the world and the iraqi people.

[ Bush is a meglomanical Broken Arrow - and the UN (including Hans Blix) knows it. What the UN does from hereon in (regarding Bush & Blair's lunacy... including brown-nosing Johnny Howard of Australia) determines whether the other member countries of the United Nations consider it a 'Toothless Tiger' or not. ]

And why shoud the UN, which is coprised of voting members representing dictators who suppress the freedoms of their people around the world be considered alegitimate body capable of action? The US, the UK, and their allies are the true heores in this situation. IT is indeed a sad day for the UN, and for the French who care more about their own self-interests than the suffering of the Iraqi people.

[ As to what ordinary people can do to thwart a world war though - bombard your members of parliament/congress with emails & letters... And God help us all.]

I have a better idea- bombard Saddam Hussein with emails an letters begging him to stop this madness and leave his country so that thousands of his own countrymen acan get on with living better lives free from fear.

[Arogance is Alright]

And consider this, too... What 'war'? How can this possibly be called a 'war' when Iraq has had almost all its weapons confiscated/destroyed? Certainly NOT a level playing field here. Iraq will be trying to defend its country with the equivalent of sticks & stones against two superpowers invading its territory...

Good I wouldnt call it a war either, I call it a liberation. You sound like your wanting more people to die by what your saying

all over Bush's greed for oil.

three questions
1.Are you aware that saddams oil is already being sold on the black market, and saddam has even offered us Oil companies to come into Iraq if we lift the sanctions?

2. Why didnt we take over the oil fields in 91?

3.Why are people like you so ignorant?

Bush is a meglomanical Broken Arrow -
a what ?

and the UN (including Hans Blix) knows it. What the UN does from hereon in (regarding Bush & Blair's lunacy... including brown-nosing Johnny Howard of Australia) determines whether the other member countries of the United Nations consider it a 'Toothless Tiger' or not.

couldnt agree more (once i deciphered what your saying) are we going to stand up to evil dictators or allow 3rd world countries to run the world?


As to what ordinary people can do to thwart a world war though - bombard your members of parliament/congress with emails & letters... And God help us all.

Thwart a world war? 30 countries have supported this war with materials, troops, airspace, and use of bases including Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Germany(yes germany have offered us support and even have bio-emergancy teams in kuwait). What kind of world war would that be.

I felt like picking on a liberal today and you had the unfortionate luck of posting something very stupid, sorry it had to be you .

[concerned citizen]

If Sadaam was coopoerating, and if the inspections were working, then how can this possibly be true?
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/ ... .chemical/

My bet is we will soon see that the UN process was a waste of time and that the Americans have been right all along.

[The_Farwall]

[s]Unregisted User concerned citizen wrote on 08:43, 19th Mar 2003:
If Sadaam was coopoerating, and if the inspections were working, then how can this possibly be true?
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/ ... .chemical/

You're asking how the statement "Iraqi forces may have mustard, VX gases" can possibly be true? Well, it's a perfectly valid statement mainly because it's based on nothing but speculation. The same way that "Iraq may have weapons of mass destruction" is true, whether they do or not, the fact that they may have then cannot be contested.
So, VX and mustard gas exists, people are capable of owning it, Iraqi forces are people therefor Iraqi forces may have VX and mustard gas.
It's perfectly true in the same way that statements like "Iraqi troops may be commanded by Lord Lucan", "Sadam Hussain may have had his arm replaced by a cleverly disguised nuclear device" and "Tony Blair may wear girls pants" are true. Completely baseless in fact but still possible.
[hr][s]This is the bed that I have made,
this is the grave where I will lay,
these are the hands where I will
bury my face.[/s]

[Starla]

Disclaimer: I am not trying to insult the US or its occupants generally, I have nothing against any of you...just the "men" in charge
Quick point: The US has weapons of mass destruction...and used to fund terrorists until it got attacked...
And it's no good saying "Don't look to the past" - how many mistakes in history could have been avoided by people taking heed of what had gone before.
OK, so Saddam Hussein's a bit of a maniac (well a psychopath would be a better word actually), and I really don't have enough information to know whether this war is justified or not (I wish someone would just tell us the whole, unbiased truth) - but I do know that it's come about the completely wrong way. What gives the US the right to ignore the UN?? What's to stop any of the other countries now coming out and saying "Oh, well, if they can ignore the UN, so can we!"?
Realistically, all that's going to be achieved is the creation of more resentment that we'll reap in a few decades; an excuse for extremist groups to increase attacks (a Muslim nation is going to be attacked - I don't care if Al-Quaeda and Iraq aren't linked, it could still be used as justification); and all the deaths that could have been avoided.

On a final note, I don't agree with war at all. The idea of nuclear/big weapons scares me so much, I don't care who has them. BUT I don't know what I'd do if I was in the politicians shoes. I don't have any quick fix way to deal with "problem countries". I don't know all the details. Good luck to them. I just hope they can justify their actions with their consciences.

[hr]"We all live in our Fantasy and only endure our Reality..." - R.A.Wilson

[Sailyn56]

Where were the bleeding heart left liberals when Clinton bombed Iraq without U.N. approval in 1998. We didn't hear from Hollywood then, How come??? Now a Republican is in office and all the Dems come out? I wish these people in Hollywood would pick up a book instead of a script and know what they are talking about. Remember Martin Sheen your not a President you only play one on TV. Boycot West Wing!!!!

[immunodiffusion]

People were against the 1998 bombings of Iraq too. I was against them, for one. But the governments took just as much notice of their people then as they are now.

[concerned citizen]

You're asking how the statement "Iraqi forces may have mustard, VX gases" can possibly be true? Well, it's a perfectly valid statement mainly because it's based on nothing but speculation. The same way that "Iraq may have weapons of mass destruction" is true, whether they do or not, the fact that they may have then cannot be contested.
So, VX and mustard gas exists, people are capable of owning it, Iraqi forces are people therefor Iraqi forces may have VX and mustard gas.
It's perfectly true in the same way that statements like "Iraqi troops may be commanded by Lord Lucan", "Sadam Hussain may have had his arm replaced by a cleverly disguised nuclear device" and "Tony Blair may wear girls pants" are true. Completely baseless in fact but still possible.


Well, we'll see, won't wwe? And if it tutrns out tht they do have them (as I suspect) I expect you to eat your words.

[9 hours and 40 minutes till liberation]

I have nothing against any of you...just the "men" in charge

I work and vote for the men in charge

Quick point: The US has weapons of mass destruction...and used to fund terrorists until it got attacked...

its all about intent we wont sell a nuke to terrorists our weapons are for detterance, saddam has shown he can't be detterred. As far as funding terrorists we've funded freedom fighters, maybe some turned out bad but our intentions were always good.

And it's no good saying "Don't look to the past" - how many mistakes in history could have been avoided by people taking heed of what had gone before.

Its a good idea to look to the past but you cant get hung up on it because you cant change it. So if you say President Johnson put Saddam in power in 68, thats fine but how do you propose to get rid of them?

OK, so Saddam Hussein's a bit of a maniac (well a psychopath would be a better word actually), and I really don't have enough information to know whether this war is justified or not (I wish someone would just tell us the whole, unbiased truth)

heres the bottom line since you asked saddam will kill more of his own people than we will. Dont listen to UN estmates we spend billions to avoid civilian casualties. In afghanist we had about 4000 which dont get me wrong is a sad thing but saddam has killed more than that in a day, actually hes killed 500,000 in a day.
And more allied soldiers could die five years from now. I say could die because there is odds he would sell his Weapons to terrorists.

- but I do know that it's come about the completely wrong way. What gives the US the right to ignore the UN?? What's to stop any of the other countries now coming out and saying "Oh, well, if they can ignore the UN, so can we!"?

That is a real problem luckily the US is the worlds sole super power and police officer, so we wont allow Russia to go into chechnia and georgia, or allow China to go into Taiwan.


Realistically, all that's going to be achieved is the creation of more resentment that we'll reap in a few decades; an excuse for extremist groups to increase attacks (a Muslim nation is going to be attacked - I don't care if Al-Quaeda and Iraq aren't linked, it could still be used as justification); and all the deaths that could have been avoided.

People said that about afghanistan. There was a huge party in the streets the day kabul was liberated. Men shaved thier beards off and woman took their burcas off. The people of afghanistan love the soldiers in Afghanistan. I dont see why it will be different in Iraq infact i think the party will be bigger, because people dont like being oppressed(surprise!!)

[concerned citizen]

For all those who say there is no link between Iraq and Al Qaeda- therea re plenty of people who disagree.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/artic ... E_ID=31597