NationStates Jolt Archive

Would you call the blanket bombing of cities (I'm stressing here that cities are clearly civilian targets here) in Japan and Germany, a moral ethical thing to do (assuming that we both agree that the intentional killing of an innocent is wrong). Lets not even bother with going into atomic weapons here...
Actually yes, I would call it ethical.
War is the last option for any government; the last card to be drawn, but when it is you must go forward without reservations. It is the military's duty to pacify and kill the enemy by any means necessary. To do any less is to risk the lives of the people you've sworn to protect to the enemy. If that means going head to head in battles, you do it. If it means destroying the farms that feed the enemy soldiers, you do it. If it means killing the engineers that fix the enemy war machines, you do it. If it means pacifying the enemy population to press for peace, you do it.
War is the last option available, but if it becomes necessary you must go towards any lengths to eliminate your enemy. It would be criminal to do otherwise.

Looking at the pole...
Even if there are WMDs and terrorist connections 38.71% still say the war isn't just?
We're purely in a hypothetical mode since large amounts of WMDs are unlikely to be found, but why wouldn't the war be just if both WMDs and terrorists are found? If there are terrorist connections, Iraq is complicit with an attack on US soil. If WMDs are found, Iraq is proven to be a threat to the US. What more would be needed to make the war justified in the eyes of this
38.71%?If there had been proof positive that Iraq had a hand in the planning and execution of the 9/11 attacks, as the government of Afghanistan did, then I think the US would have been justified in invading Iraq. Short of that, there was no justification.

For the record, I haven't voted in the poll.

This thread is biased, as there ARE no weapons of mass destruction, and no ties from Hussein to Al-Qeada.
Iraq posed no threat to American interests, or America itself.
The war is not justified.

We entertained the Taliban in Texas - we have WMD
You also trained and harboured terrorists.

His names escapes me at the moment...


Perhaps it will come to me....


I know that he is an Arab...


A tall guy.....


Ummm.....


Oh yeah that guy....


Osama Bin Laden

So you would have given no help to the Afghan people when the Soviets were invading them?
We also helped Saddam Hussein during the 80s. Would you rather have let Iraq lose in it's war against Iran?
Oh, and let's not forget how we helped Stalin against Hitler. That was a horrible thing to do.

So you would have given no help to the Afghan people when the Soviets were invading them?
We also helped Saddam Hussein during the 80s. Would you rather have let Iraq lose in it's war against Iran?
Oh, and let's not forget how we helped Stalin against Hitler. That was a horrible thing to do.

The only reason we helped the Afghans during the soviet invasion was to stop the spread of communism, though.

While we are at it... Iraq started that war with Iran, so, surely we SHOULD have let them lose. We were not involved directly, we should not have got involved at all.

Oh, and on the Stalin v's Hitler thing, that's another case of self interest. The Russians won the Second World War for us, by absorbing the mass of the German army in a ground-war that was impossible to supply, and by eventually 'conquering' Berlin. Remember that when the other Allies turned up in Berlin, they found a defeated city and Russian soldiers.

So you would have given no help to the Afghan people when the Soviets were invading them?
We also helped Saddam Hussein during the 80s. Would you rather have let Iraq lose in it's war against Iran?
Oh, and let's not forget how we helped Stalin against Hitler. That was a horrible thing to do.
I don't know if you're asking me directly or the group in general, but regardless, here's my answer.

Afghanistan in the 80s? Yes, but I would have done it openly, and even more importantly, once the Soviets were gone, would have offered the Afghanis whatever help they needed to restore order and stability. We let the place go to hell and we paid the price for it later.

Hussein in the 80s? Not on your life. We knew then that Hussein was a monster, but we wanted someone to attack Iran--remember that point. Iraq was fighting a proxy war for us when they attacked Iran. We figured that Hussein was better than the Ayatollah, but that's a shitty deal all the way around.

Helping Stalin against Hitler? We got into WWII first by helping Britain through lend-lease and then because of the Japanese attack in Pearl Harbor. Helping Stalin was secondary at best, and once the war was over, there were plenty in the US military who wanted to nuke his ass. Thank god cooler heads prevailed.

Iran...Iraq...
The U.S. sold weapons to both countries anyway. Arms dealers didn.t care about who the winner was going to be. As long as they're fighting. As for Afghanistan, everyone knows why they went there. Bin Laden? Give me a break! They just wanted to get their pipelines from the Caspian sea gaz reserves to cross Afghanistan, and that wasn't going to happen under the taliban regime. Days before 9/11, the U.S. and talibans were buddies. Who's the prez of Afghanistan now? Hamid Karzai, who just happened to be on the director's board of the company building that pipeline.
Isn't that a coincidence??? Everything is about money. Like every war. That's not gonna change. Just stop dreaming about Iraq having WMD's. The best they ever got were scuds that could reach Israel at best. The US has NEVER been threatened by Iraq in any way.

Looking at the pole...
Even if there are WMDs and terrorist connections 38.71% still say the war isn't just?
We're purely in a hypothetical mode since large amounts of WMDs are unlikely to be found, but why wouldn't the war be just if both WMDs and terrorists are found? If there are terrorist connections, Iraq is complicit with an attack on US soil. If WMDs are found, Iraq is proven to be a threat to the US. What more would be needed to make the war justified in the eyes of this
38.71%?
This poll was skewed from the beginning. The War on Iraq was not about WMD, and terrorists, it was about getting Saddam, and control of the country:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/09/60minutes/main592330.shtml

And what happened at President Bush's very first National Security Council meeting is one of O'Neill's most startling revelations.

“From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go,” says O’Neill, who adds that going after Saddam was topic "A" 10 days after the inauguration - eight months before Sept. 11.

“From the very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we can do to change this regime,” says Suskind. “Day one, these things were laid and sealed.”

As treasury secretary, O'Neill was a permanent member of the National Security Council. He says in the book he was surprised at the meeting that questions such as "Why Saddam?" and "Why now?" were never asked.

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this,’" says O’Neill. “For me, the notion of pre-emption, that the U.S. has the unilateral right to do whatever we decide to do, is a really huge leap.”

And that came up at this first meeting, says O’Neill, who adds that the discussion of Iraq continued at the next National Security Council meeting two days later.

He got briefing materials under this cover sheet. “There are memos. One of them marked, secret, says, ‘Plan for post-Saddam Iraq,’" adds Suskind, who says that they discussed an occupation of Iraq in January and February of 2001.

This is BEFORE the Sept. 11 attack on the WTC. I hate to say this but the attack on the WTC played into Bush's agenda......after 911, all Bush had to do was say.....

WMD.....

Terrorists....

Saddam....

Threat....

and the war was on!!

Doesn't matter. Germany couldn't touch Great Britian.


No, the most lenient of standards said that Gore won. Along with quite a few other standards.

Sorry! Four major papers went down there and counted up the votes. What they found was that Bush won Florida no matter what. Don't know where your saying he didn't but CNN, NY Times, LA Times, Washington Post, and several others, all stated that Bush Won Florida.

Fine-but we didn't vote for him, smartass. He didn't get the majority of votes, then we didn't vote for him.

True, Bush didn't win the Popular Vote but under the 12th amendment of the US Constitution, Bush won under the guidelines specified for the Electoral College! 270 Votes were needed and he got 271

True, Bush didn't win the Popular Vote but under the 12th amendment of the US Constitution, Bush won under the guidelines specified for the Electoral College! 270 Votes were needed and he got 271
So, it is okay that he is in power not because we elected him but because the constitution says so? I wonder how hard it would be to tell Iraqis that the guy they pick for president doesn't have to win the popular vote...

This thread is biased, as there ARE no weapons of mass destruction, and no ties from Hussein to Al-Qeada.
Iraq posed no threat to American interests, or America itself.
The war is not justified.

According to the Senate intel report, the Senate said that the ties to al-Qaeada and Iraq, were reasonable and well founded as was the attempted Uranium Sale!

So, it is okay that he is in power not because we elected him but because the constitution says so? I wonder how hard it would be to tell Iraqis that the guy they pick for president doesn't have to win the popular vote...

That is how America works my friend. The Constitution was clear on this issue! Thus Bush is the elected leader of the USA wether people on the left like it or not!

This is my last post for a week! Take care all!

I wouldn't say that.
In Vietnam, the UN lost to North Vietnam. They invaded and took over their southern neighbor. In the aftermath, that communist government killed non-combatants in Vietnam and Cambodia. Over one million died. Are you going to call the South Vietnamese, the losers, criminals?

First, the UN did not lose to North Vietnam, the UN was not involved except in attempts to broker peace treaties. The French and the US, however, did get their fannies smacked.

And you make it sound like there were two diferent countries. There never really was. The French took over colonial rule of Vietnam from China in 1861, and they found - hopefully to nobody's suprise - that people don't like to be occupied or ruled from afar. The Vietnamese were no happier under them than they had been under China. That state of affairs, however, continued until '49 when France finally at least granted autonomy to Vietnam within the French Empire. For decades up to then, however, the Chinese had been funding insurgents and indoctrinating them into communism because - well they kinda missed owning it and enjoyed sticking it to the French. OK, that is a fatuous generalization, but there WERE groups yearning to be free of foreign rule, and the Chinese were happy to help them out.

Like most turnovers, however, it was done precipitously and without proper support, and so it devolved into a civil war between the old insurgent groups and the old empire loyalists. Indeed, it got ugly very quickly. It was only in '54 that an agreement to split the country was signed at Geneva as part of a move to full independance from France - who was tired of losing men there, but neither side stuck to it. The treaty also included the foundation for re-unification through an electoral process slated for 1956, and so cannot be construed as definitive split of the country.

And things just snowballed from border skirmishes to all out war in a very short order of time.

And that was part of why no involvement by the US was ever going to change things. They looked on it as a battle against communism. What they were really doing was involving themselves in somebody elses civil war. The Paris treaty of '73 tried to address that, stop the fighting and formalize the borders between two Vietnam's, but the Vietnamese really weren't interested. Even had the US occupied the whole of both countries, the civil war would likely have continued under their noses as both groups continued their personal battles.

If you want to read a more complete synopsis, try: http://www.vwam.com/vets/anticolonial.html

You can put the blame entirely on the North if you like, but that is an incorrect assessment of the events of the war. There were two willing partners who decided to dance together in this case.

-Z-

So, it is okay that he is in power not because we elected him but because the constitution says so? I wonder how hard it would be to tell Iraqis that the guy they pick for president doesn't have to win the popular vote...


You know, while I decry several procedureal irregularities that occured in Florida, and think that they should have been investigated further - especially those that related to the determination of eligibility - you cannot argue the fact that almost NO representational democracy choses it's leader by direct popular vote. So that fact is an irrelevant one to b*tch about.


That is true in Canada as well where the leadership is based on seats won in the house. If you had a fictional version that comprised three ridings of ten voters, and candidate A wins two ridings by a 6-4 vote, and loses the last 10-0, he still becomes leader despite only getting 12 of 30 votes by virtue of winning 2 out of three seats.

Wining despite losing the popular vote doesn't happen often, but it CAN happen in either country (and most others) due to issues of vote distribution.

-Z-

in conclusion, I couldn't care less if there are or are not any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq

All right... very good!

Thank you! And good night!