NationStates Jolt Archive

while I can understand why many people disagree with the Us war against Iraq, when I read stuff like this I just want to tell the pacifists to F**K**F.


http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=540&e=3&u=/ap/20050416/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_mass_graves

"Iraq is a land of mass graves due to the genocide policy of Saddam Hussein," he said. "We have hundreds of thousands of people missing."

At a a site in Hatra, Amin said, "we went looking for one and we found 11. It's difficult to say. It could be more, it could be less. The number of missing is calculated to be about one million in Iraq," he said.



Yeah, the coalition of the willing was so much worse on the civillian population than Saddam was [/sarcasm]

God damn pacifists..how much blood needs to be spilt before you people can justify action?

God damn pacifists..how much blood needs to be spilt before you people can justify action?

you are aware that most people against this particular act of imperial dick waving are not pacifists, yes?

I wouldn't disagree with this bullshit war if we helped out some other countries previously with the same intensity and dedication as the president has applied to this situation. Besides, let's fix up the bullshit over here before we go and help someone else. You can't save a person from getting shot if your leg is broken. That's just how I see it.

while I can understand why many people disagree with the Us war against Iraq, when I read stuff like this I just want to tell the pacifists to F**K**F.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but this whole war on iraq thing was waged on the spurious pretext of the possession of WMDs, not the internal affairs of a foreign sovereign state, yes?

God damn pacifists..how much blood needs to be spilt before you people can justify action?

You are assuming that violent action is the only way forward.

you are aware that most people against this particular act of imperial dick waving are not pacifists, yes?

Political dick waving? what does that mean???? Shit happened, bad shit. maybe it needs to be cleaned up? Maybe that means salad, maybe that means steak.

Political dick waving? what does that mean???? Shit happened, bad shit. maybe it needs to be cleaned up? Maybe that means salad, maybe that means steak.

Dick waving ... bad shit ... steak ... salad ....

Nope. I'm lost here. Anyone got a map through this multiple mixed metaphor?

Dick waving ... bad shit ... steak ... salad ....

Nope. I'm lost here. Anyone got a map through this multiple mixed metaphor?

i believe i've seen pictures that might explain it, but they are sure to get me forum banned.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but this whole war on iraq thing was waged on the spurious pretext of the possession of WMDs, not the internal affairs of a foreign sovereign state, yes?

totally wrong. we have always been at war with eurasia, and it has always been about @@justificationofthemonth@@

while I can understand why many people disagree with the Us war against Iraq, when I read stuff like this I just want to tell the pacifists to F**K**F.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=540&e=3&u=/ap/20050416/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_mass_graves

Yeah, the coalition of the willing was so much worse on the civillian population than Saddam was [/sarcasm]

God damn pacifists..how much blood needs to be spilt before you people can justify action?

Come now. You know better.

First, if saving lives or improving human rights were this administrations goals why did we and are we sitting on our hands re Darfur?

Second, if you read the article you are aware of the dates listed in terms of these outrages -- mostly during the 1980s (when the US -- read Ronnie Raygun and George Bush the Elder) and around the Gulf War (George Bush the Elder). We were well aware that Saddam was an SOB, but he was our SOB. Even during the Gulf War, we did not want to actually get rid of Saddam.

Many "pacificists" that you rail against were outspoken in criticizing our support for Saddam and similar despots around the world. It is more than a little hypocritical to attack them now.

Being against George the Younger's diversionary war hardly means being an apologist for Saddam -- and you know it.

Remove the plank from thine own eye.

Come now. You know better.

First, if saving lives or improving human rights were this administrations goals why did we and are we sitting on our hands re Darfur?

Second, if you read the article you are aware of the dates listed in terms of these outrages -- mostly during the 1980s (when the US -- read Ronnie Raygun and George Bush the Elder) and around the Gulf War (George Bush the Elder). We were well aware that Saddam was an SOB, but he was our SOB. Even during the Gulf War, we did not want to actually get rid of Saddam.

Many "pacificists" that you rail against were outspoken in criticizing our support for Saddam and similar despots around the world. It is more than a little hypocritical to attack them now.

Being against George the Younger's diversionary war hardly means being an apologist for Saddam -- and you know it.

Remove the plank from thine own eye.

Because the UN is pissing around and not giving a damn about Darfur, and after the Iraq incident, the US is probably a little more hesitant to act without further UN ratification.

We did want rid of Saddam then. We failed to get rid of him because Bush snr. had no viable exit plan. On the other hand Bush jr. decided to take the plunge anyway.

And as to the question you asked; all of it. All of the blood there is to spill. Pacifism dictates that there are no circumstances in which violence is justified, not personal defense, not the defense of others, nothing. If someone is walking around killing every other person in your town, too bad. Unless you can talk them out of it, you've just got to accept it.

I wouldn't disagree with this bullshit war if we helped out some other countries previously with the same intensity and dedication as the president has applied to this situation. Besides, let's fix up the bullshit over here before we go and help someone else. You can't save a person from getting shot if your leg is broken. That's just how I see it.
I guss you missed the part about 9/11 changed everything. The old rules don't apply any more. The tin-pot dictators time is up and we clearly announced it and are enforcin our resolutions - with or without anyone elses help. After you get attacked you'll get it.

Meanwhile - Iraq was a country that was clearly out to har the US and her allies. WMD, no WMD, Saddam had the intent, the history and was pursuing the action. Every intelligence agency in the world concluded that WMDs would happen there sooner or later. Even without WMDs Saddam had terrorized his neighbors (rember Kuwait and the Kurds, not to mention millions of unlucky Shiites) without mercy.
That mess is nearly cleaned up, not other dictators will have to reconsider their posture with the US and their neighbors. The USA will no longer ignore, look the other way or remotely even tolerate terrorist regimes, nor should the rest of the civilized world.

There is a difference between being an 'apologist' and objecting to the War in Iraq.

I think most people who objected to the war did so in the context of legality, that is to say that they believed the war was illegal. This is certainly true of the majority of Europeans (including British, Spanish, Polish and Hungarian populations- All of whom contributed troops). One does not have to be on Saddam's side if one objects to America's activities in the middle east.

Bush's ultimatum "with us or without" is nothing more than a gesture of the upmost ignorance and over-simplification of international affairs. You're a part of the UN, stick to the bloody rules. Otherwise, how can you possibly criticise another country for indulging in illegal activities concerning human rights and the production of Weapons of Mass Dissapearance.

If bodycount alone was a reason for invading then the U.S. is due to be invaded. No WMD in Iraq unlike U.S. A whole lotta oil there too... :mp5: It is great not being held back by pacifism :sniper:

If bodycount alone was a reason for invading then the U.S. is due to be invaded. No WMD in Iraq unlike U.S. A whole lotta oil there too... :mp5: It is great not being held back by pacifism :sniper:

Good idea.

Why don't you hook up with Andorra and have a go?


I think most people who objected to the war did so in the context of legality, that is to say that they believed the war was illegal.

Whilst I appreciate someone who actually has a few brain cells to rub together voicing their opinion, I'd like to ask how one qualifies legal and illegal when we are talking about the very entities which decide what legal and illegal are.

Good idea.

Why don't you hook up with Andorra and have a go?



Whilst I appreciate someone who actually has a few brain cells to rub together voicing their opinion, I'd like to ask how one qualifies legal and illegal when we are talking about the very entities which decide what legal and illegal are.

Well, for a start the United States constitution does not decide what is Legal and Illegal in the global context. That is the role of the UN, which is flawed. However, the UN has certain laws which forbid and discourage those activities that Britain America and other coalition forces indulged in. A war that is not legitimate is not a war at all. In American eyes it may have been legitimate, but it was not in the eyes of the UN. In my view, the UN is the bastion of international law- therefore the USA by breaking international law fought an illegal war based around hypocrisy and paranoia.

while I can understand why many people disagree with the Us war against Iraq, when I read stuff like this I just want to tell the pacifists to F**K**F.
Why did he filter off? Whats wrong with off?! Shit does that mean I've been saying a fucking swear word all these years. Well I'll be damned.

while I can understand why many people disagree with the Us war against Iraq, when I read stuff like this I just want to tell the pacifists to F**K**F.


http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=540&e=3&u=/ap/20050416/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_mass_graves







Yeah, the coalition of the willing was so much worse on the civillian population than Saddam was [/sarcasm]

God damn pacifists..how much blood needs to be spilt before you people can justify action?

...That last line is deliciously ironic. I won't even bother if your stupid enough to write that. Haha

Well, for a start the United States constitution does not decide what is Legal and Illegal in the global context. That is the role of the UN, which is flawed. However, the UN has certain laws which forbid and discourage those activities that Britain America and other coalition forces indulged in. A war that is not legitimate is not a war at all. In American eyes it may have been legitimate, but it was not in the eyes of the UN. In my view, the UN is the bastion of international law- therefore the USA by breaking international law fought an illegal war based around hypocrisy and paranoia.

For the UN to be significant it needs to enforce its rules then. Not only enforce them when it concerns the US but everyone. The UN is a joke, as is most European Countries. Your militaries are as inept as the US was in the 1990's under Clinton. To decry the UN as the international law is laughable at best. The UN is best only when it does humanitarian aid, it should leave the real lifting to the true world powers. I would of course rather see the UN leave the shores of the US, all funding withdrawn and spent else where, like the homeless population. The building is big enough to turn into a decent size housing project to boot.

The biggest problem I see is that the UN had a great thing called the oil for food program. Now that Saddam is gone the US will not support such sanctions causing billions to be taken from an already corrupt organization such as the UN. So of course they are going to call this war illegal, they are going to loose billions upon billions a year. duh!

The US made the mess in the middle east, it needs to clean it up. As is the case normally the US democrats create the mess and the US republicans clean it up.

Well, for a start the United States constitution does not decide what is Legal and Illegal in the global context. That is the role of the UN, which is flawed. However, the UN has certain laws which forbid and discourage those activities that Britain America and other coalition forces indulged in. A war that is not legitimate is not a war at all. In American eyes it may have been legitimate, but it was not in the eyes of the UN. In my view, the UN is the bastion of international law- therefore the USA by breaking international law fought an illegal war based around hypocrisy and paranoia.

Mmm, a fair response. However, does the UN deserve that role, given the years of grandstanding with little or no action, given it's inability to declare numerous human rights abuses (And to take any action when it does declare them), given the corruption that seems, if not to be a part of the UN itself, to still have a great effect on it, and given that very few problems actually seem to be going away. Cure for Diabetes? Came from western corporations, being worked on and tuned into something practical and widely available by the same. Cancer and HIV cures/suppresion? Came and continue to come from western corporations. Hyper-efficient food production facilities and system? (In Britain about 600,000 people support a full 36,000,000 - 1% support 60% of the population.) Yep.

Failure to label Darfur a genocide? That'd be the UN. 12 years of sanctions against Saddam, which do prevent his acquiring WMDs but also starve his people? Well, to be fair, that was pretty much everyone, but the UN is certainly a major player there. Israel/Palestine situation? Seems like it's the US and UK who are making any effort to fix that up, not the UN. Ineffective climate change ideas which are A) harmful to many economies and B) almost entirely useless and C) Based on some fairly flakey science, rather than anything approaching fact? That'd be the UN again.

If a competent and reasonably free of corruption global body, who shows itself to be willing and capable to do good in the world arises, I will probably have a fair amount of support for it. (I am a globalist after all.) The UN however is not this body. The UN is a body which seems to revolve around grandiloquent pontification.

Look at the date at which this occured. Realized that none of them are recent. Realize that it was Republican who made the judgement call not to invade Iraq proper. You know what else?

"Amin said hundreds of thousands of Kurds in the north and Shiites in the south were killed and remained missing after rising up against Saddam's regime during the first Gulf War."

Why did he filter off? Whats wrong with off?! Shit does that mean I've been saying a fucking swear word all these years. Well I'll be damned.

He likes palindromes.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but this whole war on iraq thing was waged on the spurious pretext of the possession of WMDs, not the internal affairs of a foreign sovereign state, yes?



You are assuming that violent action is the only way forward.
Actually, that was only one of many reasons. Of course, people seem to conveniently forget this because of what the media concentrated on. Besides which, we have found traces of WMD, albeit in relatively small concentrations. However, some of it was stuff that if left over from '91 should have deteriorated already. It hadn't which meant that sometime he had been producing various chemicals. The question then becomes, did he just make small amounts? That's doubtful, especially the way it was scattered across the country. That leaves the question of where did it go. There are a couple possibilites. Number one is that it's buried somewhere in the desert, which means it'll probably never be found, at least not anytime soon. Number two is that he sold it to various bidders, some of whom would be terrorists. Unlikely, because some of it would have surfaced by now. That leaves number three. There was quite a bit of heavy truck traffic in between Syria and Iraq leading up to the war. We also know the Syrians are at the least hiding some of the higher ranking baathists and that they are continually supplying various weapons to the terrorists. Thus the question becomes just how high their involvement goes. It's quite possible most of it was shipped over to Syria, especially in light of the fact that a month or so after Saddam was completely toppled Syria announced it had a viable chem. weapons stockpile.





True, violence isn't always the answer. North Korea is most definitely a situation we want resolved without violence, given that if violence occurs, it's possible we'll end up with several million dead South Korean civilians, not to mention all the North Korean civvies.

*snip*
The US made the mess in the middle east, it needs to clean it up. As is the case normally the US democrats create the mess and the US republicans clean it up.

Pray tell, which US Democrats created the mess in Iraq?

Must be that Democrat Nixon who was in office during Saddam's early rise to power.

Must be that Democrat Reagan who actively supported Saddam in the 1980s along with then special envoy (and arch-Democrat Donald Rumsfeld).

Must be that Democrat Bush the Elder that continued to support Saddam until the Gulf War -- and deliberately decided not to topple Saddam during that war or provide support for attempts to topple Saddam immediately after the war.

Yep. All the Democrats fault. :rolleyes:

Actually, that was only one of many reasons. Of course, people seem to conveniently forget this because of what the media concentrated on.

That and the fact that it was the only way the war could most likely be legally waged according to the UN agreements following the first Gulf war...

That and the fact that it was the only way the war could most likely be legally waged according to the UN agreements following the first Gulf war...
True, of course, if Saddam had come clean there wouldn't have been a problem unless he still actually had stuff. For some reason, he chose to try and bluff, possibly to ward off any action on the part of Iran.

Pray tell, which US Democrats created the mess in Iraq?

Must be that Democrat Nixon who was in office during Saddam's early rise to power.

Must be that Democrat Reagan who actively supported Saddam in the 1980s along with then special envoy (and arch-Democrat Donald Rumsfeld).

Must be that Democrat Bush the Elder that continued to support Saddam until the Gulf War -- and deliberately decided not to topple Saddam during that war or provide support for attempts to topple Saddam immediately after the war.

Yep. All the Democrats fault. :rolleyes:

Must not forget also that if Bush the Elder had not pussied out on Desert Storm - and watch where the Busheviks justify this with the bullshit "We were complying with the UN" excuse- there would have been none of the Food for Oil program that the Busheviks like to screech, howl and dance about like the loyal little chimpanzees they are, not to mention Iraq would have been a democracy20 years earlier back when Al Qaeda was just a poker club.

The UN may seem useless but you can only blame its creators. The UN can only do what its members will let it do. Although action v. Iraq may not have been approved by the UN under any circumstances, I think most people of the World are more than a little swayed by the fact that so many traditional American allies wanted nothing to do with Iraq. It's one thing to have the French or Germans disagree with the American stand on a matter, but when a nation like Mexico won't even sell it's MORAL support for improved relations then I think we all need to reconsider our own positions.
This "Coalition of the Willing" is largely a farce. There are no substantial forces in Iraq other than those of America and the UK and most of the membership of the list of the willing offer little more than moral support. Even today in the process of cleaning up the mess years later, the middle powers of the world are reluctant to get involved.

Mexico has morals? I missed that newsbreak.

As far as the rest of the world, is it not apparent to anyone by now that they'd rather let the world go to hell than make a stand for anything? When was the last time any nation stepped up to the plate against any brutal dictator?

Oh, gee. That'd be, umm, none - except the US - on many occasions.

Amin said hundreds of thousands of Kurds in the north and Shiites in the south were killed and remained missing after rising up against Saddam's regime during the first Gulf War.
During the first Gulf War George Bush Sr. urged the Iraqi's to rise up against Saddam and assured them that they would be supported by U.S. troops. So they did, thinking that they had a shot in hell, and then we pulled the rug out from under them when we signed a treaty and withdrew. George Sr. made the decision to leave Saddam in power and to screw over those who had put their own necks on the line because of him.

And just for the record, pacifist != apologist.

while I can understand why many people disagree with the Us war against Iraq, when I read stuff like this I just want to tell the pacifists to F**K**F.


http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=540&e=3&u=/ap/20050416/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_mass_graves







Yeah, the coalition of the willing was so much worse on the civillian population than Saddam was [/sarcasm]

God damn pacifists..how much blood needs to be spilt before you people can justify action?


Hey right on dude, and I know one way you can support all of the hot air coming out of your craw, JOIN THE ARMY AND SHIP OFF FOR IRAQ! Put your money where your mouth is soldier. Arm chair generals never won a war, get out there and fight son! ( Just try to ignore the cuts in benefits, cuts in pay, and longer tours of duty that your lord Bush has in store for you. Be a good sheep, keep quiet, die for the cause)

'The US made the mess in the middle east, it needs to clean it up.'

I take it, then, that you would propose the closing of all prisons? After all, criminals make 'messes' by, for example, killing people. They should not, then, be locked away -- oh, sorry, executed over in the US -- but should be let out to apologise to people? To 'clean up' their messes?

Please. The fact that the US created the mess is a very good reason /not/ to let it back in. Until we see some evidence of /change/ in the United States' approach to this sort of thing, that shouldn't be allowed to go in there. Otherwise we might end up with things like a country on the brink of civil war, the prospect of long-term US/UK occupation to bring it back to stability, and a lot more death all 'round.

-- oh, wait, I remember, we've already got that.

And in answer to a certain other question...

'When was the last time any nation stepped up to the plate against any brutal dictator?'

What sort of timeframe are you looking for? How about the uprisings in Eastern Europe during the Cold War -- Prague, for example, is a mildly famous one. They all failed because no one -- no, not even your vaunted United States -- came to their aid. Where were you then? For that matter, where were we? No one went to help them. They broadcast a message for assistance on international radio, and no one answered.

-- yes, I'm rather bitter about that.

while I can understand why many people disagree with the Us war against Iraq, when I read stuff like this I just want to tell the pacifists to F**K**F.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=540&e=3&u=/ap/20050416/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_mass_graves

Hmmmm up until Iraq had invaded Kuwait, Saddam was backed by the US before, during, and after many atrocities were committed, including using gas against the Iranians. Your point?

Yeah, the coalition of the willing was so much worse on the civillian population than Saddam was [/sarcasm]
One could suggest that, if taken in conjunction with all the other deaths that the US government support under the Saddam regime?

God damn pacifists..how much blood needs to be spilt before you people can justify action?
Pacificists are "God damned"? The Bible says you are wrong.

Once you study history a bit more and see the complicity of the US, then you might have a better understanding?

Every nation has comitted atrocities, Iraq, Germany, even the U.S. What I don't get is why we picked Iraq and not, for example, the Sudan, why we did it when our forces were spread thin from the war in Afgahnistan, and why we never had a clear motivation.

WMDs? Why didn't we let the inspections continue? Bush seemed to grow impatient as they weren't going his way. We also had faulty information and knew it, according to the press. We witch-hunted them. Honestly, if we can't find any WMDs that clearly means that you indeed DO have them and we'll have to dipose you (even though the purpose of the war is to DISARM you) and take the nonexistant weapons by force.

Suspected ties with Al-Quaeda? Osama and Saddam... Saddam is too Western and Worldy. He also has comitted Blasphemy (Copy of the Koran written in Blood... Blood is "unclean").

Bush also seemed to pull the War out of his ass kinda randomly a couple months after 9/11. He decided all countries that disagree with him are "evil", and all countries that chose not to don their cowboy boots with him are "against him". Can we have such a black and white, simplified, dumbed-down view of global politics?

Also I hate that just because I don't support an unprovoked war (Ask me how did Iraq provoke it? Why didn't we have ANY kind of diplomacy or peace talk? Let's use words not buzukas, children) I am unpatriotic in Bush's mind! I support the troops, I want them to succeed, I just don't think we had any basis for the war, making me un-American. Disagreement is very patriotic, in my mind.

So I'm not labelled any more than I need to be, I'm not a pacifist. I just like a legitimate reason for war.

Dick waving ... bad shit ... steak ... salad ....

Nope. I'm lost here. Anyone got a map through this multiple mixed metaphor?
That's what happens when you go changing leopards in midstream.

Every nation has comitted atrocities, Iraq, Germany, even the U.S. What I don't get is why we picked Iraq and not, for example, the Sudan, why we did it when our forces were spread thin from the war in Afgahnistan, and why we never had a clear motivation.

WMDs? Why didn't we let the inspections continue? Bush seemed to grow impatient as they weren't going his way. We also had faulty information and knew it, according to the press. We witch-hunted them. Honestly, if we can't find any WMDs that clearly means that you indeed DO have them and we'll have to dipose you (even though the purpose of the war is to DISARM you) and take the nonexistant weapons by force.

Suspected ties with Al-Quaeda? Osama and Saddam... Saddam is too Western and Worldy. He also has comitted Blasphemy (Copy of the Koran written in Blood... Blood is "unclean").

Bush also seemed to pull the War out of his ass kinda randomly a couple months after 9/11. He decided all countries that disagree with him are "evil", and all countries that chose not to don their cowboy boots with him are "against him". Can we have such a black and white, simplified, dumbed-down view of global politics?

Also I hate that just because I don't support an unprovoked war (Ask me how did Iraq provoke it? Why didn't we have ANY kind of diplomacy or peace talk? Let's use words not buzukas, children) I am unpatriotic in Bush's mind! I support the troops, I want them to succeed, I just don't think we had any basis for the war, making me un-American. Disagreement is very patriotic, in my mind.

So I'm not labelled any more than I need to be, I'm not a pacifist. I just like a legitimate reason for war.

Hear hear! Smartest thing I've read on this post.

I hate how in America nowadays, if you disagree with the presidents opinions on things it makes you "un-american" although america is supposidly "The land of free speech". Fucking bullshit.

Originally Posted by The Eagle of Darkness

Please. The fact that the US created the mess is a very good reason /not/ to let it back in. Until we see some evidence of /change/ in the United States' approach to this sort of thing, that shouldn't be allowed to go in there. Otherwise we might end up with things like a country on the brink of civil war, the prospect of long-term US/UK occupation to bring it back to stability, and a lot more death all 'round.

-- oh, wait, I remember, we've already got that.

And in answer to a certain other question...

'When was the last time any nation stepped up to the plate against any brutal dictator?'

What sort of timeframe are you looking for? How about the uprisings in Eastern Europe during the Cold War -- Prague, for example, is a mildly famous one. They all failed because no one -- no, not even your vaunted United States -- came to their aid. Where were you then? For that matter, where were we? No one went to help them. They broadcast a message for assistance on international radio, and no one answered.

-- yes, I'm rather bitter about that.
I think this is rather interesting. Who would you suggest should handle it? I doubt any other nation, or even group of nations, has the necessary resources to try to stabilize Iraq. And believe me, Iraq would need stabilizing with or without the United States involvement. Once Saddam and his government were removed, a massive power vacuum developed. Nearly every neighboring government and ideological group wanted to fill it, and they still do. These so-called freedom fighters currently struggling against the occupation forces are pawns of the many political factions that seek to either dominate or completely overthrow the burgeoning democratic government. As for the "lot more death all around" comment; were the U.S. to leave, all those factions would turn on one another, plunging Iraq into a real civil war, one without a strong centralized military (e.g. the U.S. forces) to stop it.

You also cite the incident in Prague. I myself know of many, many, many occasions when the United States, or any nation for that matter, should have helped. However, I think you will notice that for the most part, the people of the free world do not want to get involved in any violent conflicts (and that includes the U.S.), regardless of how noble the intentions. Humans are a selfish species. However, this time in Iraq, we had a great opportunity. Where North Korea would have sparked a bloody war in jungle and mountain terrain that would have resulted in millions upon millions of civilian deaths, Iraq was a known quantity. We had excellent maps, info on force dispositions, guaranteed air superiority, and plenty of open terrain well-suited to armored vehicles, an American specialty. In a perfect world, no dictator or mass-murderer would stand a chance, but in reality, you can only hit the vulnerable ones.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but this whole war on iraq thing was waged on the spurious pretext of the possession of WMDs, not the internal affairs of a foreign sovereign state, yes?
Get with the program BWO! That was the reason 3 years ago! Now the reason was to remove Saddam. Sheesh, if you're not careful, the thought police will be dragging you off to Room 101 for re-education.

Originally Posted by Kalthorn
I hate how in America nowadays, if you disagree with the presidents opinions on things it makes you "un-american" although america is supposidly "The land of free speech". ####### bullshit.

I myself have never seen anything like that. I've heard many people say things like that on these forums, yet I have never seen anyone declare another person to be un-American for their political views (except of course when those views are actually against America...).

I wonder how much of that is just passed on from one person to another, like urban legends.

If you listen to Bush's speeches, occassionally he says things like "You can't say anything bad about the war, it demoralizes our troops," and I'm sure you can find several Bush quotes where he says or at least implies being against the war is "Unpatriotic" and "Unamerican".

while I can understand why many people disagree with the Us war against Iraq, when I read stuff like this I just want to tell the pacifists to F**K**F.

God damn pacifists..how much blood needs to be spilt before you people can justify action?
When you have finished reading up on the history of Iraq prior to the US invasion, you might want to consider the following before responding with more excuses:

The Massacre of Withdrawing Soldiers on "The Highway of Death" (http://deoxy.org/wc/wc-death.htm)

The Unseen Gulf War (http://www.digitaljournalist.org/issue0212/pt_intro.html) Plus gruesome pictures (http://www.digitaljournalist.org/issue0212/pt01.html).

WAR CRIMES (http://deoxy.org/wc/warcrime.htm)

"Highway of Death," north of Kuwait City. (http://www.fas.org/irp/imint/gwaps_04.htm)

The highway of death (http://ms.radio-canada.ca/archives/2003/en/wmv/gulfwar19910302et1.wmv)

On the Highway of Death (http://www.cornerstonemag.com/pages/show_page.asp?7)

When you have finished reading up on the history of Iraq prior to the US invasion, you might want to consider the following before responding with more excuses:

The Massacre of Withdrawing Soldiers on "The Highway of Death" (http://deoxy.org/wc/wc-death.htm)

The Unseen Gulf War (http://www.digitaljournalist.org/issue0212/pt_intro.html) Plus gruesome pictures (http://www.digitaljournalist.org/issue0212/pt01.html).

WAR CRIMES (http://deoxy.org/wc/warcrime.htm)

"Highway of Death," north of Kuwait City. (http://www.fas.org/irp/imint/gwaps_04.htm)

The highway of death (http://ms.radio-canada.ca/archives/2003/en/wmv/gulfwar19910302et1.wmv)

On the Highway of Death (http://www.cornerstonemag.com/pages/show_page.asp?7)

Yeah, aren't those A-10's something? Burp-buurp-burp and the armoured column bearing troops and loot turns into a multimile funerary pyre, and not one U.S. infantryman killed in the process. Efficiency!

Yeah, aren't those A-10's something? Burp-buurp-burp and the armoured column bearing troops and loot turns into a multimile funerary pyre, and not one U.S. infantryman killed in the process. Efficiency!
You call it efficiency? I call it equivalency in terms of this thread.

God damn pacifists..how much blood needs to be spilt before you people can justify action?
Just a point on this: pacifists believe that no blood should be spilt in the first place. It's sort of an ideal like communism, perfect in theory, but extremely hard to acheive without corruption due to as of current very unlikely yet necessary starting circumstances for it to proceed. No need to condemn a good theory, although I'm pretty sure that's not what you were intending as you sound reasonable enough about the situation.

We did want rid of Saddam then. We failed to get rid of him because Bush snr. had no viable exit plan. On the other hand Bush jr. decided to take the plunge anyway.
Of course, we always wanted to get rid of him. But you see, Bush senior had his smarts about him, from what I've read it sounds like he was expecting something like what has occured with Iraq to occur had he tried to remove Saddam when he had the chance, so he left him in power at the risk of creating a greater evil. Although I haven't heard of any dissent from him towards his son's actions, so no gaurantees on that statement.

On a final note, to me a war in Iraq had a point, but this was simply not the time or place. There were more important problems to be taken care of in the world at the time of us starting the war, and given the fact that our actions were justified by a fear for our own safety, I'd say it doesn't make any sense to be claiming now that it was in efforts of goodwill. If the government would just own up to the fact that it made a mistake instead of trying to constantly glorify itself, I'd be happier, and I'd feel like we can start getting back on track rather than continuing to create more problems in our hubirs. But I guess that goes against the rules of politics, eh?

Iraq's friendship ended I believe during the war with Iran. US switched sides making two enemies in one fell swoop. But the fact that Saddam was a friend of the United States remain.

The war is illegal. According to international law only wars of defence(if you are actually attacked) or UN sanctioned wars are legal. Thus an illegal war. Of course the UN cannot act because if someone brings it to the security council Bush pulls out a magic wand and simsalabim... a veto! The UN is impaired because it is ruled by countries, all with their own conflicting interests. Calling it corrupt is just stupid. It is inefficient because no matter where it wants to act someone uses their magic wand and produces a veto. Generally it has been the US and USSR/Russia. China, I am fairly sure, has only used a handfull.

Anyway, the UN would still be something without the US.T he US refuses to pay its membership fee, that's insulting! I think that if the US wants to give itself a nice face they can actually pay off its debts to the UN. Compared to the national debt it is nothing. Of course, the national debt is killing the US; but that's for another day.

I think Saddam was an awful dictator, but why pick him? Why didn't they try to stop the Anti-COMMUNIST military dicatorships in South America during the cold war? No, don't bring that shit about Saddam being special. He is a dictator, but that is no excuse to killing civilians. Would you care if your children were killed by mistake by bombs fighting for democracy or oppression? They are still dead. Doesn't matter who killed them.

i don't recall the us giving a fuck when the mass killing was actually happening, in fact we helped out, and we've still yet to give a flying fuck about all the Kurds that the Turks killed in the 90's(while recieving U.S. aid). And we clearly don't give a fuck about the murderous govt in Indonesia judging by our recenr restoration of military aid. I totally understand the pacifist logic that we could stop a lot of mass killing and state terrorism by not funding any mass killings or state terrorism instead of just using the atrocities we overlooked to formulate bullshit excuses for wars. We sure didn't give a rat shit about Iraqi lives when we armed both sides in the Iran-Iraq war that killed off one millon people, most of the soldier being conscripts. Whe sure as hell didn't give a rat crap about democracy when the CIA helped overthrow the democratically elected government of Iran in '53.

The biggest problem I see is that the UN had a great thing called the oil for food program. Now that Saddam is gone the US will not support such sanctions causing billions to be taken from an already corrupt organization such as the UN. So of course they are going to call this war illegal, they are going to loose billions upon billions a year. duh!
.

uhm... The UN marked seventy some suspicous oil for food contracts, but it was up to the members of the security council to veto the contracts and it would only have taken one nation(like maybee the U.S.) to do so. The U.N. did its job we(and the rest of the security council) did not. Try researching news yourself or atleast geting new from some place othert than standard U.S. press release reciters.

Mmm, a fair response. However, does the UN deserve that role, given the years of grandstanding with little or no action, given it's inability to declare numerous human rights abuses (And to take any action when it does declare them), given the corruption that seems, if not to be a part of the UN itself, to still have a great effect on it, and given that very few problems actually seem to be going away. Cure for Diabetes? Came from western corporations, being worked on and tuned into something practical and widely available by the same. Cancer and HIV cures/suppresion? Came and continue to come from western corporations. Hyper-efficient food production facilities and system? (In Britain about 600,000 people support a full 36,000,000 - 1% support 60% of the population.) Yep.

Failure to label Darfur a genocide? That'd be the UN. 12 years of sanctions against Saddam, which do prevent his acquiring WMDs but also starve his people? Well, to be fair, that was pretty much everyone, but the UN is certainly a major player there. Israel/Palestine situation? Seems like it's the US and UK who are making any effort to fix that up, not the UN. Ineffective climate change ideas which are A) harmful to many economies and B) almost entirely useless and C) Based on some fairly flakey science, rather than anything approaching fact? That'd be the UN again.

If a competent and reasonably free of corruption global body, who shows itself to be willing and capable to do good in the world arises, I will probably have a fair amount of support for it. (I am a globalist after all.) The UN however is not this body. The UN is a body which seems to revolve around grandiloquent pontification.

Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts, 8 June 1977.

"Preamble

The High Contracting Parties,

Proclaiming their earnest wish to see peace prevail among peoples,

Recalling that every State has the duty, in conformity with the Charter of the United Nations, to refrain in its international relations from the threat or use of force against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations,

Believing it necessary nevertheless to reaffirm and develop the provisions protecting the victims of armed conflicts and to supplement measures intended to reinforce their application,

Expressing their conviction that nothing in this Protocol or in the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 can be construed as legitimizing or authorizing any act of aggression or any other use of force inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations,..."
You domb fuck.

Good idea.

Why don't you hook up with Andorra and have a go?



Whilst I appreciate someone who actually has a few brain cells to rub together voicing their opinion, I'd like to ask how one qualifies legal and illegal when we are talking about the very entities which decide what legal and illegal are.

There is the framework of International Law.

while I can understand why many people disagree with the Us war against Iraq, when I read stuff like this I just want to tell the pacifists to F**K**F.


http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=540&e=3&u=/ap/20050416/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_mass_graves







Yeah, the coalition of the willing was so much worse on the civillian population than Saddam was [/sarcasm]

God damn pacifists..how much blood needs to be spilt before you people can justify action?

Then why didnt we invade Rwanda?

Some thoughts, in no particular order.

It's fairly clear the UN is impotent against the US, who host them and seem to be able to resist US control with difficulty. I read a quote recently that 'the UN should have one permanent Security Council member, the US'. Or something similar.

Whenever the US steps in to a conflict 'collateral damage' or the wholesale death of civilians tends to be a consequence. I do not assert that they are the only country to so react, nor am I saying that it is their only response, but it is often the case, that US military action leads to civilian head counts rising, and the death of 1 civilian should need justification, let alone tens, hundreds, thousands or more. As a principle, the application of violence should be targeted. You should kill or detain those whom you are acting against, and collateral damage should be regarded as terrorism. Surely the Iraqi population have been terrorised?

The invasion of Iraq was probably illegal, due to the lack of a second UN resolution. Legal opinions vary, but are only being tried in the press. Surely the time has come to try this issue formally under International Law. Unfortunately 'somewhere neutral that can stick 2 fingers up to US military or economic threats' does not exist. So would a possible solution to the uncertainty and debate be to try Blair and Bush as war criminals? Like Milosevic (or however you spell his name). I'm not saying they would be convicted, but surely the trial would require a definitive decision in public as to the legality of the war, and set a principle and precedent for the action of national leaders in the international arena. Personally I feel that such a trial would be a showcase and not resolve anything. But I would pay to see Blair's face when if he was arrested.

btw what ever did happen to Saddam? Surely he's due his day in court? Or can't they frame up any charges?

just some thoughts, like I said...

In case anyone thinks war crimes are wishy washy or subjective check this out.
The U.S. is still subject to international law regarding all treaties it has ratified, but its soldiers and nationals are also subject to U.S. law, specifically...
The War Crimes Act of 1996 (18 U.S.C. § 2441)

§ 2441. War crimes
Release date: 2004-08-06

"(a) Offense.— Whoever, whether inside or outside the United States, commits a war crime, in any of the circumstances described in subsection (b), shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for life or any term of years, or both, and <b>if death results to the victim, shall also be subject to the penalty of death. <//b>
(b) Circumstances.— The circumstances referred to in subsection (a) are that the person committing such war crime or the victim of such war crime is a member of the Armed Forces of the United States or a national of the United States (as defined in section 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act).
(c) Definition.— As used in this section the term “war crime” means any conduct—
(1) defined as a grave breach in any of the international conventions signed at Geneva 12 August 1949, or any protocol to such convention to which the United States is a party;
(2) prohibited by Article 23, 25, 27, or 28 of the Annex to the Hague Convention IV, Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, signed 18 October 1907;
(3) which constitutes a violation of common Article 3 of the international conventions signed at Geneva, 12 August 1949, or any protocol to such convention to which the United States is a party and which deals with non-international armed conflict; or
(4) of a person who, in relation to an armed conflict and contrary to the provisions of the Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices as amended at Geneva on 3 May 1996 (Protocol II as amended on 3 May 1996), when the United States is a party to such Protocol, willfully kills or causes serious injury to civilians."

From geneva 1949

"Article 146

The High Contracting Parties undertake to enact any legislation necessary to provide effective penal sanctions for persons committing, or ordering to be committed, any of the grave breaches of the present Convention defined in the following Article.

Each High Contracting Party shall be under the obligation to search for persons alleged to have committed, or to have ordered to be committed, such grave breaches, and shall bring such persons, regardless of their nationality, before its own courts. It may also, if it prefers, and in accordance with the provisions of its own legislation, hand such persons over for trial to another High Contracting Party concerned, provided such High Contracting Party has made out a prima facie case.

Each High Contracting Party shall take measures necessary for the suppression of all acts contrary to the provisions of the present Convention other than the grave breaches defined in the following Article.

In all circumstances, the accused persons shall benefit by safeguards of proper trial and defence, which shall not be less favourable than those provided by Article 105 and those following of the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War of 12 August 1949.
[edit]

Article 147

Grave breaches to which the preceding Article relates shall be those involving any of the following acts, if committed against persons or property protected by the present Convention: wilful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments, wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement of a protected person, compelling a protected person to serve in the forces of a hostile Power, or wilfully depriving a protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed in the present Convention, taking of hostages and extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly.
[edit]

Article 148

No High Contracting Party shall be allowed to absolve itself or any other High Contracting Party of any liability incurred by itself or by another High Contracting Party in respect of breaches referred to in the preceding Article."

Article 23, 25, 27, or 28 of the Annex to the Hague Convention IV, Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, signed 18 October 1907

"Art. 23.

In addition to the prohibitions provided by special Conventions, it is especially forbidden -

To employ poison or poisoned weapons;

To kill or wound treacherously individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army;

To kill or wound an enemy who, having laid down his arms, or having no longer means of defence, has surrendered at discretion;

To declare that no quarter will be given;

To employ arms, projectiles, or material calculated to cause unnecessary suffering;

To make improper use of a flag of truce, of the national flag or of the military insignia and uniform of the enemy, as well as the distinctive badges of the Geneva Convention;

To destroy or seize the enemy's property, unless such destruction or seizure be imperatively demanded by the necessities of war;

To declare abolished, suspended, or inadmissible in a court of law the rights and actions of the nationals of the hostile party. A belligerent is likewise forbidden to compel the nationals of the hostile party to take part in the operations of war directed against their own country, even if they were in the belligerent's service before the commencement of the war."

"Art. 25.

The attack or bombardment, by whatever means, of towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings which are undefended is prohibited."

"Art. 27.

In sieges and bombardments all necessary steps must be taken to spare, as far as possible, buildings dedicated to religion, art, science, or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals, and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not being used at the time for military purposes.

It is the duty of the besieged to indicate the presence of such buildings or places by distinctive and visible signs, which shall be notified to the enemy beforehand."

"Art. 28.

The pillage of a town or place, even when taken by assault, is prohibited."

"Article 3(geneva convention)

In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:
Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria. To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
taking of hostages;
outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;
the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.
The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.

An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.

The Parties to the conflict should further endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of the present Convention.

The application of the preceding provisions shall not affect the legal status of the Parties to the conflict."

Alberto Gonzales stating that the geneva convention doesn't matter, delaying the Red Crescents entrance into Fallujah, telling Baghdad hospitals not to treat Fallujahns because they might be insurgents, raiding a hopital, bombing a hospital, targeting ambulances, lots of capitol war crimes were commited.

Dick waving ... bad shit ... steak ... salad ....

Nope. I'm lost here. Anyone got a map through this multiple mixed metaphor?

I am looking at it(sober now) and I cant make heads or tails of it. I am sure I had a point, just cant figure out what it might have been. Ill look at it next time I am drunk, maybe it will make sense then.

Come now. You know better.

First, if saving lives or improving human rights were this administrations goals why did we and are we sitting on our hands re Darfur?

Second, if you read the article you are aware of the dates listed in terms of these outrages -- mostly during the 1980s (when the US -- read Ronnie Raygun and George Bush the Elder) and around the Gulf War (George Bush the Elder). We were well aware that Saddam was an SOB, but he was our SOB. Even during the Gulf War, we did not want to actually get rid of Saddam.

Many "pacificists" that you rail against were outspoken in criticizing our support for Saddam and similar despots around the world. It is more than a little hypocritical to attack them now.

Being against George the Younger's diversionary war hardly means being an apologist for Saddam -- and you know it.

Remove the plank from thine own eye.

The point I was making wasnt limitted to the Iraq war and/or Saddam. I understand that I did not make that clear. What I am trying to say is that sometimes violent action is needed. Sometimes, there isnt a non violent approach to a situation. People who are ALWAYS against violent action are wrong.

The ends do, sometimes, justify the means.

For the UN to be significant it needs to enforce its rules then. Not only enforce them when it concerns the US but everyone. The UN is a joke, as is most European Countries. Your militaries are as inept as the US was in the 1990's under Clinton. To decry the UN as the international law is laughable at best. The UN is best only when it does humanitarian aid, it should leave the real lifting to the true world powers. I would of course rather see the UN leave the shores of the US, all funding withdrawn and spent else where, like the homeless population. The building is big enough to turn into a decent size housing project to boot.

The biggest problem I see is that the UN had a great thing called the oil for food program. Now that Saddam is gone the US will not support such sanctions causing billions to be taken from an already corrupt organization such as the UN. So of course they are going to call this war illegal, they are going to loose billions upon billions a year. duh!

The US made the mess in the middle east, it needs to clean it up. As is the case normally the US democrats create the mess and the US republicans clean it up.

To call the British Military inept is actually pretty idiotic, as it is the best trained in the world. The French military is also better trained that it's american counterpart- so ineptness is immaterial and doesn't even come into it. The UN isn't a joke, no more than a Union of states that fought against one another and loath one another is ;) The US Republicans aren't clearing it up, they're simply washing 'problems' away with blood. It's atrocious, and that anyone could support the GOP with its attitudes to guns, God and gays is depressing.

Well, for a start the United States constitution does not decide what is Legal and Illegal in the global context. That is the role of the UN, which is flawed. However, the UN has certain laws which forbid and discourage those activities that Britain America and other coalition forces indulged in. A war that is not legitimate is not a war at all. In American eyes it may have been legitimate, but it was not in the eyes of the UN. In my view, the UN is the bastion of international law- therefore the USA by breaking international law fought an illegal war based around hypocrisy and paranoia.

While I really dont want to turn this into an Iraq war thread(guess I should have thought of that before I wrote the title), I would have to say that you are incorrect.

The US and Iraq were in a state of "ceasefire". The first Iraq war never ended(The one where the UN backed us fully). Since the inception of the ceasefire, Iraq and the US had fired upon each other. Iraq in terms of shooting at our planes and the US in terms of bomings and lobbing missiles. The Iraq "war" was just an escalation. We did not require any further UN sanction.

And the UN is not the bastion of international law. While the US constitution requires that we are bound by international treaties, politicians do not have the authority to barter away our sovereignty. This is vested with the people and cannot be given away despite elected officials having signed onto the UN charter.

While I really dont want to turn this into an Iraq war thread(guess I should have thought of that before I wrote the title), I would have to say that you are incorrect.

The US and Iraq were in a state of "ceasefire". The first Iraq war never ended(The one where the UN backed us fully). Since the inception of the ceasefire, Iraq and the US had fired upon each other. Iraq in terms of shooting at our planes and the US in terms of bomings and lobbing missiles. The Iraq "war" was just an escalation. We did not require any further UN sanction.

And the UN is not the bastion of international law. While the US constitution requires that we are bound by international treaties, politicians do not have the authority to barter away our sovereignty. This is vested with the people and cannot be given away despite elected officials having signed onto the UN charter.

Right. That's an interesting and invalid excuse, considering Bush senior made peace with Iraq. It was not a ceasefire, and to grasp at straws in this manner shows that you're really not sure the war was Legal in the first place.

During the first Gulf War George Bush Sr. urged the Iraqi's to rise up against Saddam and assured them that they would be supported by U.S. troops. So they did, thinking that they had a shot in hell, and then we pulled the rug out from under them when we signed a treaty and withdrew. George Sr. made the decision to leave Saddam in power and to screw over those who had put their own necks on the line because of him.

And just for the record, pacifist != apologist.

And Bush Sr. was WRONG

He was correct to not topple Saddam because that was a condition that the other middle east states demanded in return for their support(guess other dictators dont like the idea of a western power coming into their backyard and removing a bad regime..who knows who will be next)

He was dead wrong for encouraging the Kurds and then pulling his support, just like Kennedy was wrong for pulling air support in the bay of pigs.

Just like any number of Republican/Democratic politicians have been wrong for looking at the politics of a situation vs what needs to be done.

For nothing else, you have to admire GW II for doing something he believed in though it had zero political upside.

After Afganistan and the upswing in the economy, he must have known that he would have coasted into an easy re election without the Iraq war. The only way the Iraq war could have helped him is if there was active troop on troop conflict come election time. Given the state of our military vs the state of Iraqi military, there is no way he could have thought that it would have been a long drawn out fight(militarily not insurgent/terrorist)

Hey right on dude, and I know one way you can support all of the hot air coming out of your craw, JOIN THE ARMY AND SHIP OFF FOR IRAQ! Put your money where your mouth is soldier. Arm chair generals never won a war, get out there and fight son! ( Just try to ignore the cuts in benefits, cuts in pay, and longer tours of duty that your lord Bush has in store for you. Be a good sheep, keep quiet, die for the cause)

Im too old.

My first cousing went to West Point and is serving..I often think that I should have done something more meaningfull with my life such as serving my country. I grew up with all the anti Vietnam stuff, and I was too stupid/blinded when I was of the proper age.

Hmmmm up until Iraq had invaded Kuwait, Saddam was backed by the US before, during, and after many atrocities were committed, including using gas against the Iranians. Your point?

Enjoyed Us backing while he was at war with Iran. Lessor of two evils. This is the real world after all and choices arent good vs evil. Choices are bad and really F**king bad. Your point?


One could suggest that, if taken in conjunction with all the other deaths that the US government support under the Saddam regime?

Not sure what you are trying to imply, so I will leave it up to you to explain.


Pacificists are "God damned"? The Bible says you are wrong.


Im agnostic. besides which, it was just a phrase, stop nitpicking and deal with the underlying issue.


Once you study history a bit more and see the complicity of the US, then you might have a better understanding?


Better understanding of what? The US has done bad things and it has done good things. Overall I believe more good than bad(if you leave aside the colonization of the country)

Was there a point in the statement you made?

Im too old.

My first cousing went to West Point and is serving..I often think that I should have done something more meaningfull with my life such as serving my country. I grew up with all the anti Vietnam stuff, and I was too stupid/blinded when I was of the proper age.

Are you implying that the wisdom brought to you with age has made you realize that the war against Vietnam was a rightious endeavor? That's the funniest thing I've ever heard, considering every Vietnam Vet I've EVER met knows what a mistake it was.

PS. You CAN serve your country! Serve meals at a homeless shelter, participate in Big Brothers/Big Sisters after school programs, read to children, take part in a park beautification project. Why not find a way to volunteer your time and energy to the community?

Get with the program BWO! That was the reason 3 years ago! Now the reason was to remove Saddam. Sheesh, if you're not careful, the thought police will be dragging you off to Room 101 for re-education.

Room 101 is for remedial capitalism indoctrination.

re-education happens below ground, and the room number is a matter of national security.

Then why didnt we invade Rwanda?

one problem at a time... baby steps

Right. That's an interesting and invalid excuse, considering Bush senior made peace with Iraq. It was not a ceasefire, and to grasp at straws in this manner shows that you're really not sure the war was Legal in the first place.

There was no peace. It was a ceasefire contingent upon Iraq complying with certain regulations. If I am mistaken, please provide me with some links/info and I will adjust my stance.

Are you implying that the wisdom brought to you with age has made you realize that the war against Vietnam was a rightious endeavor? That's the funniest thing I've ever heard, considering every Vietnam Vet I've EVER met knows what a mistake it was.

I have no opinions as to whether Vietnam was right or wrong. I think we should have supported Ho Chi Mihn(sp) because he was pro western and popular amongst his people. As to the effects/results of the war.. well we all know about that. But it was not the fault of those who served.

My statement was in refferance to how military service was viewed when I was growing up.


PS. You CAN serve your country! Serve meals at a homeless shelter, participate in Big Brothers/Big Sisters after school programs, read to children, take part in a park beautification project. Why not find a way to volunteer your time and energy to the community?

When I was living in the States I dod volunteer in soup kitchens. At first because I was forced to and later because... well just because it felt good.

I also spent a year working in slums building toilets for the poor in Bangalore,India + organizing low/zero interest loans so that they wouldnt have to work all day and basically make just enough to afford food.

Was there a point you were trying to make TexasTexasTexas?

There was no peace. It was a ceasefire contingent upon Iraq complying with certain regulations. If I am mistaken, please provide me with some links/info and I will adjust my stance.

Provide me with some fucking evidence, so that I might adjust mine. You can't, though, because you ARE WRONG.

Must I reiterate that the US naver cared about atrocities and never will? We just do what we do and if we do it to conries run by dictators we pretend its a humanitarian intervention and when we do it to democracies whe pretend it never happened.


i don't recall the us giving a fuck when the mass killing was actually happening, in fact we helped out, and we've still yet to give a flying fuck about all the Kurds that the Turks killed in the 90's(while recieving U.S. aid). And we clearly don't give a fuck about the murderous govt in Indonesia judging by our recenr restoration of military aid. I totally understand the pacifist logic that we could stop a lot of mass killing and state terrorism by not funding any mass killings or state terrorism instead of just using the atrocities we overlooked to formulate bullshit excuses for wars. We sure didn't give a rat shit about Iraqi lives when we armed both sides in the Iran-Iraq war that killed off one millon people, most of the soldier being conscripts. Whe sure as hell didn't give a rat crap about democracy when the CIA helped overthrow the democratically elected government of Iran in '53.

Pacifists are the Parasites of Freedom

Was there a point you were trying to make TexasTexasTexas?

Just that community service is commendable and that there are more ways to serve your country than by taking up arms.

Pacifists are the Parasites of Freedom

Is that a bumpersticker handed out at pro-fascism rallies?

I wouldn't disagree with this bullshit war if we helped out some other countries previously with the same intensity and dedication as the president has applied to this situation. Besides, let's fix up the bullshit over here before we go and help someone else. You can't save a person from getting shot if your leg is broken. That's just how I see it.

Let's see...WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietman, Kuwait, Afghanistan, Bosnia....Yeah, we've never helped anyone with this intensity and dedication before. AND we did it whilst dealing with all these problems over here. Go figure. :rolleyes:

Pacifists are the Parasites of Freedom

Hmmm, does that make Ghandi a parasite then? Odd, I thought he was responsible for uniting the Indian populace to gain their independence.


And Boobeeland, weren't most of those conflicts you listed somehow involving the great "Red Threat" back then? If I'm not mistaken, the majority of these actions were simply driven by the need to match and combat their idealogical foes.

Just that community service is commendable and that there are more ways to serve your country than by taking up arms.

I completely agree

Pacifists are the Parasites of Freedom

Republicans are to freedom what lenny from of mice and men was to mice and farm girls. :D

Hmmm, does that make Ghandi a parasite then? Odd, I thought he was responsible for uniting the Indian populace to gain their independence.


And Boobeeland, weren't most of those conflicts you listed somehow involving the great "Red Threat" back then? If I'm not mistaken, the majority of these actions were simply driven by the need to match and combat their idealogical foes.

Ghandi wasnt a pacifist!!

Republicans are to freedom what lenny from of mice and men was to mice and farm girls. :D


That would be the book with the big retarded guy who squeezes mice to death while trying to pet them and unknowingly assaults a farm girl the kills her accidentally while trying to calm her down since I know republicans don't read.

Well, for a start the United States constitution does not decide what is Legal and Illegal in the global context. That is the role of the UN, which is flawed. However, the UN has certain laws which forbid and discourage those activities that Britain America and other coalition forces indulged in. A war that is not legitimate is not a war at all. In American eyes it may have been legitimate, but it was not in the eyes of the UN. In my view, the UN is the bastion of international law- therefore the USA by breaking international law fought an illegal war based around hypocrisy and paranoia.

The UN has become an ineffective, outdated, impotent world authority because of its inability or unwillingness to follow through on its own threats. It is on the verge of becoming irrelevant because of its own inacton, and to continue to wait on this massive buerocracy to act is to remain ignorant to the lessons of history. This is precisely why I support this action in Iraq...the UN had said serious consequences would result from Saddam's continued violation of the cease-fire agreement and the disarmament resolution. It was time to follow through, and if the UN isn't going to do it, someone needs to step up and bail the UN out of its own rhetorical mess.

While I really dont want to turn this into an Iraq war thread(guess I should have thought of that before I wrote the title), I would have to say that you are incorrect.

The US and Iraq were in a state of "ceasefire". The first Iraq war never ended(The one where the UN backed us fully). Since the inception of the ceasefire, Iraq and the US had fired upon each other. Iraq in terms of shooting at our planes and the US in terms of bomings and lobbing missiles. The Iraq "war" was just an escalation. We did not require any further UN sanction.
Ummm you are dead wrong. I suggest that you read the entire UN Security Council Resolution 1441.
And the UN is not the bastion of international law. While the US constitution requires that we are bound by international treaties, politicians do not have the authority to barter away our sovereignty. This is vested with the people and cannot be given away despite elected officials having signed onto the UN charter.
This has been over debated on these threads and the US Constitution incorporates any treaties signed, which includes the UN Charter. Bush and company violated the UN Charter and Resolution 1441.

BTW, did you read my original response (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8692568&postcount=32) to your thread topic?

And try reading post # 40 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8693038&postcount=40) if you want to learn about atrocities.

That would be the book with the big retarded guy who squeezes mice to death while trying to pet them and unknowingly assaults a farm girl the kills her accidentally while trying to calm her down since I know republicans don't read.

You know as well as I do that books and free expression are tools of SATAN! :rolleyes:

Right. That's an interesting and invalid excuse, considering Bush senior made peace with Iraq. It was not a ceasefire, and to grasp at straws in this manner shows that you're really not sure the war was Legal in the first place.

It was a cease-fire agreement between the UN and Iraq...not a peace treaty. Try reading "Resolution 687 (http://www.caabu.org/press/documents/unscr-resolution-687.html) (1991) of 3 April 1991, the cease-fire resolution, declared that the full trade embargo against Iraq would remain in place, pending periodic reviews every 60 days (para. 21) and every 120 days (para. 28) of Iraqi compliance with the obligations imposed under Resolution 687."

Pay close attention to section one which states "1. Affirms all thirteen resolutions noted above, except as expressly changed below to achieve the goals of this resolution, including a formal cease-fire;"

Research before posting ignorance.

Ghandi wasnt a pacifist!!

Really? I suppose that the entire nation of India was wrong, including a great many other people who hail him as not only a pacifist, but one of the only few who actually gained their nations independence through non violent means.

Then what was he if he was not a pacifist? A terrorist in disguise? A fascist leader? I sincerely hope that was you being sarcastic.

Let's see...WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietman, Kuwait, Afghanistan, Bosnia....Yeah, we've never helped anyone with this intensity and dedication before. AND we did it whilst dealing with all these problems over here. Go figure. :rolleyes:
wtf? WWI - land grab all around
WWI - we were prop fascist right until the bombs hit pearl harbour roosevelt had ahabit of refering to moussolini as "that honorable Itallian gentleman" and we loaned fascists mone ard blocaded the repulic during the spanish civil war. the policy before WWII was not containment it was cooperation.
Korea - The north invaded 1 point to the USA
Vietnam - thats got to be the dumbest thing ive ever heard. Those welcoming bonfires for wenie roasting in the middle of the streets those were buddhist monks lighting themselves on fire.
Kuwait - we protected our oil intrests nothing more
Afganistan - aside from the fact that the offered to turn binladen over if we showed some evidence, we fucked up the water and food supplies and a lot of people starved and shit shemselves to death. oh and we bombed at tv station.
Bosnia - I'm not familiar with our motivations, but our activites increased attrocites, we bombed, they took it out on civillians. and I think we armed a few croat mujahadeen while we were at it And we intentionally and admitedly bombed civillians at a tv station. Go USA!

So maybee you got two that werent our own fuckups and werent they UN interventions? Or was bosnia just NATO ?

It was a cease-fire agreement between the US and Iraq...not a peace treaty. Try reading "Resolution 687 (http://www.caabu.org/press/documents/unscr-resolution-687.html) (1991) of 3 April 1991, the cease-fire resolution, declared that the full trade embargo against Iraq would remain in place, pending periodic reviews every 60 days (para. 21) and every 120 days (para. 28) of Iraqi compliance with the obligations imposed under Resolution 687."

Pay close attention to section one which states "1. Affirms all thirteen resolutions noted above, except as expressly changed below to achieve the goals of this resolution, including a formal cease-fire;"

Research before posting ignorance.
Try reading Resolution 1441 which incorporates ALL UN Resolutions against Iraq.

Try reading Resolution 1441 which incorporates ALL UN Resolutions against Iraq.

We've had this discussion before, but you chose to stop responding. Don't start now unless you're going to have the respect to reply to my previous posts.

We've had this discussion before, but you chose to stop responding. Don't start now unless you're going to have the respect to reply to my previous posts.
I don't recall refusing to respond to you specifically, but all I can say is the obvious, and that is Resolution 1441 incorporated ALL previous UN Resolutions against Iraq and ironically, the US violated that Resolution by invading Iraq, and violated the UN Charter in the process.

Really? I suppose that the entire nation of India was wrong, including a great many other people who hail him as not only a pacifist, but one of the only few who actually gained their nations independence through non violent means.

Then what was he if he was not a pacifist? A terrorist in disguise? A fascist leader? I sincerely hope that was you being sarcastic.

He used the most effective means he had at his disposal.

1) I am Indian
2) I am living in India
3) Both my maternal grandparents fought with Ghandi and are official "freedom fighters"
4) that being said, it is only my grandmother that met Ghandi personally and spent time in jail with him. My maternal grandfather never knew him personally. I get my opinions from my grandparents who were there (and were invited into the parliment). Where do you get you opinions from?

First, if saving lives or improving human rights were this administrations goals why did we and are we sitting on our hands re Darfur?


IMHO, the war in Afghanistan and the war in Iraq were about cleaning up American messes from the Cold War.

We didn't create Sudan - that's an ex-Soviet problem, so they can go clean that one up.

So far, only France and the US seem to be in the business of unilateral, non-UN approved action in countries where they meddled before in a major way (the French by colonialism, the US by Cold War machinations).

You do know that leaves Iran.

He used the most effective means he had at his disposal.

1) I am Indian
2) I am living in India
3) Both my maternal grandparents fought with Ghandi and are official "freedom fighters"
4) that being said, it is only my grandmother that met Ghandi personally and spent time in jail with him. My maternal grandfather never knew him personally. I get my opinions from my grandparents who were there (and were invited into the parliment). Where do you get you opinions from?

1) I am not. But nationality is usually irrelevant in terms of opinions. Opinions are as varied as there are people.

2) Same reason as above. But I will freely admit you are more likely to come across more information than I am from personal sources.

3) Freedom fighters. But in what form did the fighting take place?

4) As your grandmother met Ghandi personally, that would most likely mean she would have formed a definite opinion of him. What was it?

As to where do I get my opinions from, their mostly history books. Possibly you could claim they are revisionist or biased, but I do not recall Ghandi ever being listed as having called for violence from those who followed him. Yes some of his views could be called anti-humanistic (he called for non-resistance against the Japanese invasion but noted that it would cause several million deaths, or so this article claims, http://www.george-orwell.org/Reflections_of_Ghandi/0.html), but he never once called for actual violence.

Isn't that what being pacifistic is?

http://www.saf.org/pub/rkba/general/MoreProGunQuotes.htm

"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest. If we want the Arms Act to be repealed, if we want to learn the use of arms, here is a golden opportunity. If the middle classes render voluntary help to Government in the hour of its trial, distrust will disappear, and the ban on possessing arms will be withdrawn." Mohandas K. Gandhi, Autobiography: The Story of My Experiments with Truth, Chapter XXVII, Recruiting Campaign, Page 403, Dover paperback edition, 1983. This book was originally published by Public Affairs Press in 1948.

He advocated peaceful revolution because there were few arms in India and because the nature of his opponent allowed him to.

IMHO, the war in Afghanistan and the war in Iraq were about cleaning up American messes from the Cold War.

We didn't create Sudan - that's an ex-Soviet problem, so they can go clean that one up.

So far, only France and the US seem to be in the business of unilateral, non-UN approved action in countries where they meddled before in a major way (the French by colonialism, the US by Cold War machinations).

You do know that leaves Iran.


The US government has squashe enough democratic uprisings arround the world that they should know that all you need to do to truly liberate a nation is to leave it alone for a while and let the people rise up, and they do know this. Liberation and fixing up old messes is just a lame excuse for invading contries so they can controll resousces, and if you think they give a fuck what you pay for gas you are wrong what they want ist to determine who gets oil and who doesn not, as oil becomes more and more scarce it will be of great pollitical value, and since it only gets scarcer with time they don't care that the pumps aren't running, only that nobody is burning the oil fields.
For those of you who are naive enough to think we can go arround liberating people i refer you to the 2500 year old wisdom oth the tao, a book written for heads of state, chapter 64 last line
"He(the wise man) could lhelp all things to be natural, yet he dare not do it"

Democratic uprising is a very natural and common occurance and 'liberation' is just code for changing regimes(actually thats a term we use! before the people reach the point of revolt and end up doing the unthinkable; governing themselves.

IMHO, the war in Afghanistan and the war in Iraq were about cleaning up American messes from the Cold War.

We didn't create Sudan - that's an ex-Soviet problem, so they can go clean that one up.

So far, only France and the US seem to be in the business of unilateral, non-UN approved action in countries where they meddled before in a major way (the French by colonialism, the US by Cold War machinations).

You do know that leaves Iran.


The US government has squashed enough democratic uprisings arround the world that they should know that all you need to do to truly liberate a nation is to leave it alone for a while and let the people rise up, and they do know this. Liberation and fixing up old messes is just a lame excuse for invading contries so they can controll resousces, and if you think they give a fuck what you pay for gas you are wrong what they want ist to determine who gets oil and who doesn not, as oil becomes more and more scarce it will be of great pollitical value, and since it only gets scarcer with time they don't care that the pumps aren't running, only that nobody is burning the oil fields.

For those of you who are naive enough to think we can go arround liberating people i refer you to the 2500 year old wisdom of the the tao te ching, a book written for heads of state, chapter 64 last line
"He(the wise man) could help all things to be natural, yet he dare not do it"

Democratic uprising is a very natural and common occurance and 'liberation' is just code for changing regimes(actually thats a term we use!) before the people reach the point of revolt and end up doing the unthinkable; governing themselves.

Armed Bookworms. Rather than argue the semantics of what if and the classification of Ghandi, allow me to propose a simpler solution. I said he was a pacifist. Some have said not. So, what would you classify him as then? That would allow me a point of reference to further this debate rather than to guess at what your view is.

I guss you missed the part about 9/11 changed everything. The old rules don't apply any more. The tin-pot dictators time is up and we clearly announced it and are enforcin our resolutions - with or without anyone elses help. After you get attacked you'll get it.

Meanwhile - Iraq was a country that was clearly out to har the US and her allies. WMD, no WMD, Saddam had the intent, the history and was pursuing the action. Every intelligence agency in the world concluded that WMDs would happen there sooner or later. Even without WMDs Saddam had terrorized his neighbors (rember Kuwait and the Kurds, not to mention millions of unlucky Shiites) without mercy.
That mess is nearly cleaned up, not other dictators will have to reconsider their posture with the US and their neighbors. The USA will no longer ignore, look the other way or remotely even tolerate terrorist regimes, nor should the rest of the civilized world.

I've got an ideia: How about you say something original instead of parroting the Dear Leader?

I've got an ideia: How about you say something original instead of parroting the Dear Leader?

That wasn't sarcasm? People really say things that stupid and mean it?! :D

Armed Bookworms. Rather than argue the semantics of what if and the classification of Ghandi, allow me to propose a simpler solution. I said he was a pacifist. Some have said not. So, what would you classify him as then? That would allow me a point of reference to further this debate rather than to guess at what your view is.
A master strategist. He looked at his objective which was the end of british rule over India. He looked at his resources which included a notable lack of weaponry with which to resist. He looked at his opponent, and found that they could be swayed with public opinion back in Britain. He set about changing that opinion without sacrificing a needless amount of his unarmed people on the altar of political expediency.

Given what you said, how does that statement of his regarding non-violence against Japanese invasion coincide with his acknowledgement that millions of deaths may occur?

Surely public opinion in Japan would not sway the current military administration that was running the invasion forces?

Or was it simply a political statement that you may charge had no real conviction if push came to shove?

I guss you missed the part about 9/11 changed everything. The old rules don't apply any more. The tin-pot dictators time is up and we clearly announced it and are enforcin our resolutions - with or without anyone elses help. After you get attacked you'll get it.

Meanwhile - Iraq was a country that was clearly out to har the US and her allies. WMD, no WMD, Saddam had the intent, the history and was pursuing the action. Every intelligence agency in the world concluded that WMDs would happen there sooner or later. Even without WMDs Saddam had terrorized his neighbors (rember Kuwait and the Kurds, not to mention millions of unlucky Shiites) without mercy.
That mess is nearly cleaned up, not other dictators will have to reconsider their posture with the US and their neighbors. The USA will no longer ignore, look the other way or remotely even tolerate terrorist regimes, nor should the rest of the civilized world.

Riiiiiight. I'll be sure to keep an eye peeled. Won't ignore, look the other way, or remotely even tolerate...riiiiiiight. Gotcha. Sure.

Yet another postcard from Gullibility Street.

"Mexico has morals? I missed that newsbreak.

As far as the rest of the world, is it not apparent to anyone by now that they'd rather let the world go to hell than make a stand for anything? When was the last time any nation stepped up to the plate against any brutal dictator?

Oh, gee. That'd be, umm, none - except the US - on many occasions. "

The US has put far more dictators in power than it has removed. IN fact, it even helped Saddam to power through the CIA.

Just to mention a few: Chile, Iraq, Iran, Argentina, South Korea, Taiwan, South Vietnam, Afghanistan (twice), Haiti, Greece.

The US/British decision to not remove Francisco Franco against the pleading of the Soviet Union and exiled Republican government following the fall of Hitler and Mussolini is another example of how you stand up to dictators. Did they not realise that Spanish soldiers actually fought on the Eastern front?

How much more evidence do you need? Not to mention the US is already controlled by a corporate, militarist, special interests dictatorship.
For example, on the domestic front, those who criticize are lionized as unpatriotic, traitors, even terrorists (according to Cheney) and foreign music artists are not allowed to visit because of their political views.
Dictatorships support one another, thats why you guys dont stand up to them.

The Iraqi invasion was a pre-text for controlling gaining a foothold in the ME, next is Iran, then Syria. It wants to build an Israeli superstate (encompassing Baghdad and Damascus) - that is how it evisions spreading freedom and democracy.

So why are you not more skeptical of US intentions is my question?

I've got an ideia: How about you say something original instead of parroting the Dear Leader?
Whoa, you call that an idea? I call that a lame excuse for a veiled insult. Really, if you want to insult me I can take it, but at least TRY to do it well. That was horrible. Hell, you could do better with a 'your momma is soo..' insult. Using a canned insult like that is just sad and desperate. It means you really have nothing. And you don't. If you did you could actually say something that had meaning to which I could respond. Your post falls as short as your momma, and your momma so short you can see her feet on her drivers lisence!

Riiiiiight. I'll be sure to keep an eye peeled. Won't ignore, look the other way, or remotely even tolerate...riiiiiiight. Gotcha. Sure.

Yet another postcard from Gullibility Street.

Go club a baby seal.

"Mexico has morals? I missed that newsbreak.

As far as the rest of the world, is it not apparent to anyone by now that they'd rather let the world go to hell than make a stand for anything? When was the last time any nation stepped up to the plate against any brutal dictator?

Oh, gee. That'd be, umm, none - except the US - on many occasions. "

The US has put far more dictators in power than it has removed. IN fact, it even helped Saddam to power through the CIA.

Just to mention a few: Chile, Iraq, Iran, Argentina, South Korea, Taiwan, South Vietnam, Afghanistan (twice), Haiti, Greece.

The US/British decision to not remove Francisco Franco against the pleading of the Soviet Union and exiled Republican government following the fall of Hitler and Mussolini is another example of how you stand up to dictators. Did they not realise that Spanish soldiers actually fought on the Eastern front?

How much more evidence do you need? Not to mention the US is already controlled by a corporate, militarist, special interests dictatorship.
For example, on the domestic front, those who criticize are lionized as unpatriotic, traitors, even terrorists (according to Cheney) and foreign music artists are not allowed to visit because of their political views.
Dictatorships support one another, thats why you guys dont stand up to them.

The Iraqi invasion was a pre-text for controlling gaining a foothold in the ME, next is Iran, then Syria. It wants to build an Israeli superstate (encompassing Baghdad and Damascus) - that is how it evisions spreading freedom and democracy.

So why are you not more skeptical of US intentions is my question?

I live here and I whole heartedly concur.
Keep in mind that as a, well its more of an oligarchy than a dictatorship, but whatever, as an oligarchy the united states has and has had for some time a public education system geared toward indoctrination. I belive it was paul simon who said "when i think back on all the crap i learned i highschool, it's a wonder that i can even think at all". We are trained from kidergaten on to trust and revere authority. We start our educations learning to stand in a line and thats about where we end up, so you have a lot of authoritarianism and respect for power to work through before you can speak with a rational human being. Americans love an ass kicker and it doesn't matter whose ass or why.

1) I am not. But nationality is usually irrelevant in terms of opinions. Opinions are as varied as there are people.

2) Same reason as above. But I will freely admit you are more likely to come across more information than I am from personal sources.


This is especially true given that I grew up in the US. My being Indian and currently living in India gives me ZERO insight into what Ghandi would or would not have done.


3) Freedom fighters. But in what form did the fighting take place?


Its true, they were non violent demonstrations.


4) As your grandmother met Ghandi personally, that would most likely mean she would have formed a definite opinion of him. What was it?


While I have never quizzed her on it, it is my understanding from her that they did what they felt was needed. Non violence is preferable to violence(and many advocated violence), but given the enemy and given the circumstances civil disobediance was the way to go. If the enemy was willing to escalate the situation, things would have changed. The British were not prepared for wholesale slaughter. Ghandi, along with the other leaders knew/gambled on this.


As to where do I get my opinions from, their mostly history books. Possibly you could claim they are revisionist or biased, but I do not recall Ghandi ever being listed as having called for violence from those who followed him. Yes some of his views could be called anti-humanistic (he called for non-resistance against the Japanese invasion but noted that it would cause several million deaths, or so this article claims, http://www.george-orwell.org/Reflections_of_Ghandi/0.html), but he never once called for actual violence.

Isn't that what being pacifistic is?

Pacifism is not using force regardless of the circumstance. I tell you that this was not the case in India's independance. If force was required, it would have been used. As things stand, it was a close thing that force wasnt used. But again, I havent studied the issue. My history is weak. I only have my grandparents opinion and basic history classes and 1 movie(Ghandi) to go on. My grandparents tell me that it was a close thing(violence vs nonviolence). They also tell me there were many violent incidents on both sides.

They also tell me that Ghandi was many things, the most important one being EFFECTIVE. Would he have used violence?? This is a difficult thing to answer. My grandmother believes that if violence was the only way to achieve Indian independance, he would have advocated it. But that is just her opinion.

That wasn't sarcasm? People really say things that stupid and mean it?! :D
wow, your skills are immense, your logic infallable. please no. stop. you're hurting me. ouch. no more. I can't take it. (yawn) go you wild stallion.

Go club a baby seal.

Go invade a tin-pot dictatorship.

The South Island -

Welcome to the forum. Please use {quote=whoever} and {/quote} - just replace {} with []. You can also click on the little 'quote' icon at the bottom right of each message for the same result. This will allow both for easier reading of who and what you are quoting as well as prevent long chain quotes.

If you need help or clarification of how that works I'll be glad to assist and there are many mods in the moderation forum who would be glad to help as well.

Meanwhile, I'm not going to shred your paranoid view of the US and the world because I find it much more entertaining to simply let it collapse on it's own complete lack of merits, sources, and substance.


The US has put far more dictators in power than it has removed. IN fact, it even helped Saddam to power through the CIA.

Just to mention a few: Chile, Iraq, Iran, Argentina, South Korea, Taiwan, South Vietnam, Afghanistan (twice), Haiti, Greece.

The US/British decision to not remove Francisco Franco against the pleading of the Soviet Union and exiled Republican government following the fall of Hitler and Mussolini is another example of how you stand up to dictators. Did they not realise that Spanish soldiers actually fought on the Eastern front?

How much more evidence do you need? Not to mention the US is already controlled by a corporate, militarist, special interests dictatorship.
For example, on the domestic front, those who criticize are lionized as unpatriotic, traitors, even terrorists (according to Cheney) and foreign music artists are not allowed to visit because of their political views.
Dictatorships support one another, thats why you guys dont stand up to them.

The Iraqi invasion was a pre-text for controlling gaining a foothold in the ME, next is Iran, then Syria. It wants to build an Israeli superstate (encompassing Baghdad and Damascus) - that is how it evisions spreading freedom and democracy.

So why are you not more skeptical of US intentions is my question?

Go invade a tin-pot dictatorship.
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=412867
at least my insult was clever. Practice up a bit.

at least my insult was clever. Practice up a bit.

*yawns*

Those long winter nights must just fly by around your place, Bozzy. Thank goodness it's spring.

OK I am just jumping into the conversation here without bothering reading all of the last hundred posts, but the topic seems to be: How can you oppose the war when there were all the mass graves? The fact of the matter is the bulk of the typically quoted number of 300,000-400,000 victims were killed BECAUSE of the first gulf war. After Sadams defeat by the Coalition, the Shi'ites living in the South and Kurds in the North revolted against the government, at the prodding of the United States.

The US however, refused to lift a finger in support of the rebellion, fearing that if Shi'ite revolutionaries came to power they would align themselves with the only country in the region we hate more that Iraq which of course is Iran. Thus the US forces did not shoot down Saddam's attack helicopters which killed the rebels in droves. Nor did they give them arms, refusing to give them even captured Iraqi arms. As a result the forces who rebelled against Saddam ended up in mass graves in the desert in a collasual Bay of Pigs style massacre.

wtf? WWI - land grab all around

Entry of the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_One#Entry_of_the_United_States)
A long stretch of American isolationism left the United States reluctant to involve itself with what was popularly conceived as a European dispute.

Early in 1917 Germany resumed its policy of unrestricted submarine warfare. This, combined with public indignation over the Zimmerman telegram, led to a final break of relations with the Central Powers. President Woodrow Wilson requested that the U.S. Congress declare war, which it did on April 6, 1917 (see: Woodrow Wilson declares war on Germany on Wikisource). The Senate approved the war resolution 82-6, the House with 373-50.

Although the American contribution to the war was important, particularly in terms of the threat posed by increased US presence in Europe, the United States was never formally a member of the Allies, but an "Associated Power".


WWI (sic)- we were prop fascist right until the bombs hit pearl harbour roosevelt had ahabit of refering to moussolini as "that honorable Itallian gentleman" and we loaned fascists mone ard blocaded the repulic during the spanish civil war. the policy before WWII was not containment it was cooperation.

We aided Britain with troops, equipment and supplies until Pearl Harbor and then we joined full-forces. We went to the aid of our European allies and to prevent Hitler's takover of Europe.

Korea - The north invaded 1 point to the USA

Thank you.
Vietnam - thats got to be the dumbest thing ive ever heard. Those welcoming bonfires for wenie roasting in the middle of the streets those were buddhist monks lighting themselves on fire.

Actually, we began aiding the South against threats from the North, we acted under a policy of containment of the North Vietnamese. Pesident Diem (SV) was the one who perpetrated violence on the monks which led to a coup by the SV military. The South wanted to escalate pressure on the North, and we aided by providing planning, equipment and training. Increasing troop numbers began about '64. This is really a very fascinating topic, and there's so much to read. You should start here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War#Increasing_US_involvement_to_1964) and explore the intricacies of the conflict.
Kuwait - we protected our oil intrests nothing more

We acted at the request of the UN to liberate the Kuwaiti people. Read UN Resolutions 660-62, 664-67, 669-70, 674, andz 677-78 to inform yourself as to why we went into Iraq. 678 specifically requests member states to "use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 and all subsequent...". In other words, the UN and its member sttates decided to keep Saddam from "alter(ing) the demographic composition of Kuwait". That's genocide, folks.

Afganistan - aside from the fact that the offered to turn binladen over if we showed some evidence, we fucked up the water and food supplies and a lot of people starved and shit shemselves to death. oh and we bombed at tv station.

Never mind the fact that the Taliban basically facilitated the training of terrorists on their soil, gave safe haven to bin Laden, and refused to turn bin Laden over to us. They have an elected government now, and they're not training terroists anymore. Hooray for the good guys!

Bosnia - I'm not familiar with our motivations, but our activites increased attrocites, we bombed, they took it out on civillians. and I think we armed a few croat mujahadeen while we were at it And we intentionally and admitedly bombed civillians at a tv station. Go USA!

So maybee you got two that werent our own fuckups and werent they UN interventions? Or was bosnia just NATO ?
Our motivations were to stop genocide (http://www.historyplace.com/worldhistory/genocide/bosnia.htm) perpetrated by Milosevic againt the Croats. The UN decided to move in their troops in to protect food supplies, but did not engage the Serbs, who continued their genocide against the Croats and the muslim minority. This ethnic cleansing continued, observed by the UN, but no action was taken by UN forces to stop it. NATO, led by the US finally took military action to end the genocide, bombing strategic Serb targets. So to answer your questions, these "UN interventions" as you call them were, in fact, US led bailouts of UN failures and impotence.

I don't recall refusing to respond to you specifically, but all I can say is the obvious, and that is Resolution 1441 incorporated ALL previous UN Resolutions against Iraq and ironically, the US violated that Resolution by invading Iraq, and violated the UN Charter in the process.

It did not supercede the previous resolutions, it merely references them so as to avoid repetition of their specifics. By incorporating the previous resolutions, it was simply saying 'as you can read from what we've said before' and 'add this to all that'.

It did not supercede the previous resolutions, it merely references them so as to avoid repetition of their specifics. By incorporating the previous resolutions, it was simply saying 'as you can read from what we've said before' and 'add this to all that'.
Did I say " supersede"? No I said "incorporated ALL previous UN Resolutions against Iraq" and there is a difference.

Did you read Resolution 1441? If you didn't then there would be no point in discussing the finer points of that Resolution, especially the following:

1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq’s failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991);

2. Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council; and accordingly decides to set up an enhanced inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent resolutions of the Council;

This is all straightforward stuff here, and is not loaded down with legalese. The Resolution then goes on to set out the necessary details for compliance.

You can argue til the cows come home, but the US simply did not adhere to the provisions of this Resolution. The US thwarted the will of the UN Security Council, and violated the UN Charter by invading Iraq. Why do you think that Blair was extremely reluctant to proceed without obtaining an affirmative vote of the Security Council?

The US has put far more dictators in power than it has removed. IN fact, it even helped Saddam to power through the CIA.

Just to mention a few: Chile, Iraq, Iran, Argentina, South Korea, Taiwan, South Vietnam, Afghanistan (twice), Haiti, Greece.
You were on a roll, but you forgot a few biggies, like Suharto in Indonesia, and Pol Pot in Cambodia.

You were on a roll, but you forgot a few biggies, like Suharto in Indonesia, and Pol Pot in Cambodia.
We helped Pol Pot?

We helped Pol Pot?
Yes indeed. Big time!! :(

At least according to John Kerry.

i believe i've seen pictures that might explain it, but they are sure to get me forum banned.
Perhaps something along the lines of an 'All Your Base Are Belong To Us' flash thingie? :D

Let's see...WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietman, Kuwait, Afghanistan, Bosnia....Yeah, we've never helped anyone with this intensity and dedication before. AND we did it whilst dealing with all these problems over here. Go figure. :rolleyes:

I'm talking about with THIS president. I just can't buy into his bullshit reasons for going over there. It's as if this is some dick measuring contest to complete the "Bush Legacy". If his father had fucked around with let's say Rwanda and failed, I bet he would be going there today with some shitty reason.

As a matter of fact, I bet he KNEW the intelligence was bad. He just was looking for any reason, any reason at all to get over there. Hey, that's just how I feel. Believe whatever you want to and I'll believe whatever I wish to.

while I can understand why many people disagree with the Us war against Iraq, when I read stuff like this I just want to tell the pacifists to F**K**F.


http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=540&e=3&u=/ap/20050416/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_mass_graves







Yeah, the coalition of the willing was so much worse on the civillian population than Saddam was [/sarcasm]

God damn pacifists..how much blood needs to be spilt before you people can justify action?

:upyours:

Right back at you pal. Right back at you.

wow, your skills are immense, your logic infallable. please no. stop. you're hurting me. ouch. no more. I can't take it. (yawn) go you wild stallion.
Yes actually giving a damn about human lives is such a wild rebel activity these days. I only care about other people because all the cool kids are doing it these days.

While I have never quizzed her on it, it is my understanding from her that they did what they felt was needed. Non violence is preferable to violence(and many advocated violence), but given the enemy and given the circumstances civil disobediance was the way to go. If the enemy was willing to escalate the situation, things would have changed. The British were not prepared for wholesale slaughter. Ghandi, along with the other leaders knew/gambled on this.

Given that the situation did not escalate, that leaves us with only speculation. His motive, as we can agree on I believe, was the independence of India, which he did achieve.

I am not surprised that there were those who advocated violence however. It is usually the first response anyone takes when faced with an adversary. In either case, the ones who led decided that civil disobedience would work. And it did.


Pacifism is not using force regardless of the circumstance. I tell you that this was not the case in India's independance. If force was required, it would have been used. As things stand, it was a close thing that force wasnt used. But again, I havent studied the issue. My history is weak. I only have my grandparents opinion and basic history classes and 1 movie(Ghandi) to go on. My grandparents tell me that it was a close thing(violence vs nonviolence). They also tell me there were many violent incidents on both sides.

They also tell me that Ghandi was many things, the most important one being EFFECTIVE. Would he have used violence?? This is a difficult thing to answer. My grandmother believes that if violence was the only way to achieve Indian independance, he would have advocated it. But that is just her opinion.

Ah, that means we are both left with opinions that are not too disimilar, and yet somewhat different. You are correct in that the matter is a difficult thing to answer. Neither of us truly knew Ghandi's mind at that point of time and cannot make definitive statements as to how he would react in different circumstances. Beyond the actual events in history, we can only speculate and theorise but cannot prove.

So shall we agree to reasonably disagree?

Did I say " supersede"? No I said "incorporated ALL previous UN Resolutions against Iraq" and there is a difference.

Did you read Resolution 1441? If you didn't then there would be no point in discussing the finer points of that Resolution, especially the following:

1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq’s failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991);

2. Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council; and accordingly decides to set up an enhanced inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent resolutions of the Council;

This is all straightforward stuff here, and is not loaded down with legalese. The Resolution then goes on to set out the necessary details for compliance.

You can argue til the cows come home, but the US simply did not adhere to the provisions of this Resolution. The US thwarted the will of the UN Security Council, and violated the UN Charter by invading Iraq. Why do you think that Blair was extremely reluctant to proceed without obtaining an affirmative vote of the Security Council?

I have read 1441 and just about every other resolution regarding Iraq that pertains to the first and second Gulf Wars. The UN also said in 1441

"13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;"

Having reconvened after it was seen that Saddam had no intention of following through on this new inspection regime, and having provided a false and incomplete accounting for said weapons, the world waited with baited breath to see if the UN would, once and for all follow through on said "serious consequences." When the proposed resolution was threatened to be vetoed by France, Great Britain, the US and several other countried determined to disarm Iraq by force, having found him in breach of the cease-fire agreement and resolution 1441. The UN is becomming increasingly irrelevant as it pontificates without action, and the world is becoming numb to its words.

Here (http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/pubs/fs/33355.htm) is an accurate and seemingly unbiased chronology leading up to and through the invasion.

Pol Pot was anti-Soviet. Why wouldn't the US have helped him ;) ?

The US has in recent years been the main veto user in the security council. The reason USSR/Russia has a higher record is because for a decade or so they vetoed everything, even new admissions! The UN cannot be blamed, rather the members can be. Would you blame Austria for the Holocaust or Hitler? Granted, there are differences. But really the UN is supposed to represent the world(read the big countries) so they are responsible for its actions.

The UN should move its seat to Switzerland, Austria, or some other small neutral country. Saddam is not claimed to be a nice guy by any rational person, but people claiming that the madness of Saddam was reason enough need to think once more. Pol Pot(let's get back to the nice fellow) was ousted by a VIETNAMESE invasion, not American marines in shining armour. Chile, Spain, Argentina, etc. were not "liberated' by the US. This proves that the goodness of America is very peculiar. Picking one dictatorship out of a bunch. Granted, these dictatorships have been ousted by now. But NOT by the United States.

The odd thing is that the hunt for WMD in Iraq seem to be making little progress. I thought he had tonnes of all kinds of nasty surprises in his basement. Of course, the Iranians took it! Let's invade Iran! Whoops! Not here. Must be in Syria...

If there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq when the coalition gained control, they would have found it. For a promise of immunity many Iraqis would gladly have given up all kinds of information.

Iraq had no reason to pick a fight when it was invaded. Saddam was hanging by a thread and another failure would be deadly. He would most likely have tried to keep the status quo, himself in power and the US at bay. This opens the subject for speculation once more. Was it oil? Was it imperialism? Was it because of Israel? The theories are endless. One thing we are sure of: It sure as hell wasn't to get rid of a nasty dictator, if that was true the Cold War was filled with oddities.

For nothing else, you have to admire GW II for doing something he believed in though it had zero political upside.
ZERO "political upside"?

http://i.cnn.net/cnn/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/28/mission.accomplished/vstory.bush.banner.afp.jpg

Nothing political at all huh?

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/images/1030-02.jpg

Surely this couldn't be termed as political upside?

http://www.joesautobody.com/lincoln19.jpg

Or this comment (http://www.buzzflash.com/analysis/03/10/ana03291.html):

The most elaborate — and criticized — White House event so far was Mr. Bush's speech aboard the Abraham Lincoln announcing the end of major combat in Iraq. White House officials say that a variety of people, including the president, came up with the idea, and that Mr. Sforza embedded himself on the carrier to make preparations days before Mr. Bush's landing in a flight suit and his early evening speech.

Media strategists noted afterward that Mr. Sforza and his aides had choreographed every aspect of the event, even down to the members of the Lincoln crew arrayed in coordinated shirt colors over Mr. Bush's right shoulder and the "Mission Accomplished" banner placed to perfectly capture the president and the celebratory two words in a single shot. The speech was specifically timed for what image makers call "magic hour light," which cast a golden glow on Mr. Bush.

"If you looked at the TV picture, you saw there was flattering light on his left cheek and slight shadowing on his right," Mr. King said. "It looked great."

you are aware that most people against this particular act of imperial dick waving are not pacifists, yes?
For once a Lefty is right. The majority of those against the War on Terror aren't pacifists, they are America-haters.

For once a Lefty is right. The majority of those against the War on Terror aren't pacifists, they are America-haters.

Do you have proof? Or is this just more Bushevik demonization and dismissal of any opposing viewpoints?

one problem at a time... baby steps


See now, the issue that I see is that entering what would amount to jungle warfare on behalf of a third world tribe in Agrica simply wasnt profitable to Haliburton, or Bush.

To say that the Invasion of Iraq was justified on the grounds that a genocide MAY have been taking place, isnt comparable to the one taking place in Africa, for certain.

Over one million people died, and Bush did nothing.

But..he WAS willing to invade an oil rich nation to search for WMD's that werent there, and topple an evil dictator, even though he presented no harm to our country.

To imply that invading Iraq was justified on these grounds but not helping to save millions of lives when a clear and present danger exisited to them, is the ultimate hypocrisy.

For once a Lefty is right. The majority of those against the War on Terror aren't pacifists, they are America-haters.



The dumbest thing I have ever heard.

fighting for peace is like f*cking for virginity

and I filtered as I dont like to swear :p

The dumbest thing I have ever heard.
You were somehow expecting words of wisdom from the Panhandler? :eek:

You were somehow expecting words of wisdom from the Panhandler? :eek:


What was I thinking, right?

ZERO "political upside"?



The most elaborate — and criticized — White House event so far was Mr. Bush's speech aboard the Abraham Lincoln announcing the end of major combat in Iraq. White House officials say that a variety of people, including the president, came up with the idea, and that Mr. Sforza embedded himself on the carrier to make preparations days before Mr. Bush's landing in a flight suit and his early evening speech.

Media strategists noted afterward that Mr. Sforza and his aides had choreographed every aspect of the event, even down to the members of the Lincoln crew arrayed in coordinated shirt colors over Mr. Bush's right shoulder and the "Mission Accomplished" banner placed to perfectly capture the president and the celebratory two words in a single shot. The speech was specifically timed for what image makers call "magic hour light," which cast a golden glow on Mr. Bush.

"If you looked at the TV picture, you saw there was flattering light on his left cheek and slight shadowing on his right," Mr. King said. "It looked great."


Given how well Afganistan went, and given that the economy had bottomed and was starting to rise, it did not make sense fo GW to have taken such a huge political risk by invading Iraq. He could have sat on his ass and coasted to an easy second term. Without the Iraq war, exactly what could his opponents have used against him?

Most likely environmental issues and possibly the more unpopular economic practices such as the reduction of funding to public services, or so I am told.

Given how well Afganistan went, and given that the economy had bottomed and was starting to rise, it did not make sense fo GW to have taken such a huge political risk by invading Iraq. He could have sat on his ass and coasted to an easy second term. Without the Iraq war, exactly what could his opponents have used against him?
Perhaps you forget, that Bush had been planning an invasion of Iraq before 9/11 and before Afghanistan? Also, after 9/11 Bush and company did a pretty good public relations job by trying to link Iraq to the attack on the WTC and Pentagon. By the time the US finally did invade Iraq, over 75% of Americans believed that Iraq was indeed linked to 9/11, and the "Mission Accomplished" banner came right after the "Shock and Awe Show"!! :eek:

Perhaps you forget, that Bush had been planning an invasion of Iraq before 9/11 and before Afghanistan? Also, after 9/11 Bush and company did a pretty good public relations job by trying to link Iraq to the attack on the WTC and Pentagon. By the time the US finally did invade Iraq, over 75% of Americans believed that Iraq was indeed linked to 9/11, and the "Mission Accomplished" banner came right after the "Shock and Awe Show"!! :eek:

And that has what bearing exactly on the point that we are disputing?

I am arguing that Bush's reasons for going into Iraq had nothing to do with politics. In fact, if he was only interested in politics he would not have gone in. This is the only point I am making. I realize that we will not agree about other aspects regarding Iraq.

Now, I believe he had very good reasons to go into Iraq(separate from how it was "sold" to the public). I am sure we will disagree on this. I think 9/11 made it very clear that the Middle East needs to be reformed and Bush saw Iraq as the perfect opportunity. I am guessing that you will atribute more nefarious reasons for him going in.

And that has what bearing exactly on the point that we are disputing?
Shall I remind you again of your statement?

Originally Posted by Isanyonehome
For nothing else, you have to admire GW II for doing something he believed in though it had zero political upside.
I am suggesting that it had everything to do with politics as well as a hidden agenda.

I am arguing that Bush's reasons for going into Iraq had nothing to do with politics. In fact, if he was only interested in politics he would not have gone in. This is the only point I am making. I realize that we will not agree about other aspects regarding Iraq.
After 9/11, Americans were fuming and wanted revenge. Bush took that pent up anger of Americans and flung it full force at Iraq. By the time the US invaded Iraq, and after a superlative sales job, the vast majority of Americans were convinced that Iraq not only had WMD, but were also convinced that Iraq was involved in 9/11, and had links to Al Queda.

This would explain the massive American interest in the "Shock and Awe Show".

Now, I believe he had very good reasons to go into Iraq(separate from how it was "sold" to the public).
Ahhh yes, the "hidden agenda"?


I am sure we will disagree on this. I think 9/11 made it very clear that the Middle East needs to be reformed and Bush saw Iraq as the perfect opportunity. I am guessing that you will atribute more nefarious reasons for him going in.
What gives the US the right to go around the world making regime changes? Clearly a majority of Bush supporters would not have backed a war against Iraq, without the presence of these mythical WMD.

The Bush administration went out of its way to demonstrate that Iraq indeed had WMD and was a threat to the US. So by the time the bombs started dropping on Baghdad, Americans were prepared to accept that the "Shock and Awe Show" was necessary to defend America.

It is only now that a majority of Americans are coming to their senses and stating that invading Iraq was a "mistake", except of course for hard core Bush apologists, such as yourself.

What gives the US the right to go around the world making regime changes? Clearly a majority of Bush supporters would not have backed a war against Iraq, without the presence of these mythical WMD.

The Bush administration went out of its way to demonstrate that Iraq indeed had WMD and was a threat to the US. So by the time the bombs started dropping on Baghdad, Americans were prepared to accept that the "Shock and Awe Show" was necessary to defend America.

It is only now that a majority of Americans are coming to their senses and stating that invading Iraq was a "mistake", except of course for hard core Bush apologists, such as yourself.

Do we really want to get into an Iraq war justification argument? Hasnt that been done enough already?

And as to what gives the US the "right" to make regime changes... The same things that give every other country the "right" to do as they please.

1) the ability to effect desired changes/policy
2) the ability to escape/weather the consequences of said actions.

I have read 1441 and just about every other resolution regarding Iraq that pertains to the first and second Gulf Wars. The UN also said in 1441

"13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;"

Having reconvened after it was seen that Saddam had no intention of following through on this new inspection regime, and having provided a false and incomplete accounting for said weapons, the world waited with baited breath to see if the UN would, once and for all follow through on said "serious consequences." When the proposed resolution was threatened to be vetoed by France, Great Britain, the US and several other countried determined to disarm Iraq by force, having found him in breach of the cease-fire agreement and resolution 1441. The UN is becomming increasingly irrelevant as it pontificates without action, and the world is becoming numb to its words.

Here (http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/pubs/fs/33355.htm) is an accurate and seemingly unbiased chronology leading up to and through the invasion.
I guess you have failed to read the part of both these resolutions where it says that the UN security council retains the right to call further consequences.

14. Decides to remain seized of the matter.

The US had no justification under any UN resolution to go into Irak without going first through the security council.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but this whole war on iraq thing was waged on the spurious pretext of the possession of WMDs, not the internal affairs of a foreign sovereign state, yes?

Yes... and no way has the entire country been scoured. You do realize the size of Iraq, yes?

But toss in the fact that even if we couldn't find where the WMDs were hidden,

a)Saddam was a brutal dictator worthy of deposing

and

b)Most of the Iraqi people (oh, around 80%) wanted him gone and wanted freedom

I'd say we had plenty of justification.


You are assuming that violent action is the only way forward.

With Saddam, yes. Diplomacy didn't get squat done. If you think he was going to listen to the UN, you're more gullible than you sound.

I guess you have failed to read the part of both these resolutions where it says that the UN security council retains the right to call further consequences.

14. Decides to remain seized of the matter.

The US had no justification under any UN resolution to go into Irak without going first through the security council.

we weren't willing to wait five years to free Iraq... which is probably as long as it would have taken the Security Council to agree on a course of action, as insolvent as the UN is.

the vast majority of Iraqis are sure happy we waged this "illegal war". LMAO. F8cking freedom haters.

we weren't willing to wait five years to free Iraq... which is probably as long as it would have taken the Security Council to agree on a course of action, as insolvent as the UN is.

the vast majority of Iraqis are sure happy we waged this "illegal war". LMAO. F8cking freedom haters.
Then don't try to justify this war based on previous UN resolution or "It was a cease-fire", then. That was yet another justification that was debunked.

The vast majority of Iraqis are in more danger now that they were under Saddam's regime because of your illegal war. ROFLMAO. F8cking freedom haters.

An interesting question. If the primary purpose was supposedly for the "freedom" and independence of the Iraqi people, why are permanent military bases being constructed there? A springboard for more attacks on other middle eastern nations or simply a means for making sure the local government will continue to tow the US approved course of action?

If the latter, will we see more attempts at justification to conduct "regime change" (although i call it invasion and occupation, same result). In the case of the latter, how can you call that independence? You are independent. Independent to follow what we say you can do that is.

And if not, what is the purpose of those bases then?

I have said it before, and I will say it again. If you want to conduct invasions, topple governments and whatnot, by all means go ahead. I certainly can't stop you. But if you're going to do so, at least have the honesty to admit the actions for what they are and be prepared to recieve negative feedback.

But who am I kidding? Humans, politicians in particular, of any stripe and shape have always made hypocrisy their finest weapon.

I don't really expect to change anyone's attitude here. But I would appreciate some honesty.

In the world, the motives do not matter. It is the actions that do.

I guess you have failed to read the part of both these resolutions where it says that the UN security council retains the right to call further consequences.

14. Decides to remain seized of the matter.

The US had no justification under any UN resolution to go into Irak without going first through the security council.

Nope, I read the whole thing, and the point is that the UN has failed over and over to follow through on their continued threats of consequences. They have "Decided to remain siezed of the matter" for every resolution they have ever passed. That dosen't equal "We determine to folllow through on what we've said." Quite the contrary, the UN is becoming marginalized precicely because they apper never to mean what they say. It's about time serious consideration be given to dismantling the UN, which has become nearly irrelevant. By the way, over 30 countries agreed with the United States that a military invasion was warranted, necessary, and justified. The loudest opponents were France, Germany, and Russia who, by the way, had a glaring of conflict of interest as they were profiting nicely on the status quo. To say their opposition lends credence to the argument of justification is ignorant and naieve.

Then don't try to justify this war based on previous UN resolution or "It was a cease-fire", then. That was yet another justification that was debunked.

The vast majority of Iraqis are in more danger now that they were under Saddam's regime because of your illegal war. ROFLMAO. F8cking freedom haters.

It was a cease-fire! Did you read it? See above post.

BTW I love freedom! :cool:

Nope, I read the whole thing, and the point is that the UN has failed over and over to follow through on their continued threats of consequences. They have "Decided to remain siezed of the matter" for every resolution they have ever passed. That dosen't equal "We determine to folllow through on what we've said." Quite the contrary, the UN is becoming marginalized precicely because they apper never to mean what they say. It's about time serious consideration be given to dismantling the UN, which has become nearly irrelevant. By the way, over 30 countries agreed with the United States that a military invasion was warranted, necessary, and justified. The loudest opponents were France, Germany, and Russia who, by the way, had a glaring of conflict of interest as they were profiting nicely on the status quo. To say their opposition lends credence to the argument of justification is ignorant and naieve.
Ok, so I guess your comments had nothing to do with the thread's subject and everything to do with bashing the UN.

An interesting question. If the primary purpose was supposedly for the "freedom" and independence of the Iraqi people, why are permanent military bases being constructed there? A springboard for more attacks on other middle eastern nations or simply a means for making sure the local government will continue to tow the US approved course of action?

If the latter, will we see more attempts at justification to conduct "regime change" (although i call it invasion and occupation, same result). In the case of the latter, how can you call that independence? You are independent. Independent to follow what we say you can do that is.

And if not, what is the purpose of those bases then?

I have said it before, and I will say it again. If you want to conduct invasions, topple governments and whatnot, by all means go ahead. I certainly can't stop you. But if you're going to do so, at least have the honesty to admit the actions for what they are and be prepared to recieve negative feedback.

But who am I kidding? Humans, politicians in particular, of any stripe and shape have always made hypocrisy their finest weapon.

I don't really expect to change anyone's attitude here. But I would appreciate some honesty.

In the world, the motives do not matter. It is the actions that do.

The semi-permanant componds constructed by the coalition are superior to the tents they had been using, and were necessary given the enduring insurgency. Most command and control functions are carried out utilizing existing structures, not newly built ones. Hardly permanant digs if you ask me.

The Iraqi people will get the government they want, whatever that might be. We are there at their request now...if they ask us to leave, we will. They are independant by every measure except militarily, and we're assisting them with that at their request.

*snip*

b)Most of the Iraqi people (oh, around 80%) wanted him gone and wanted freedom

I'd say we had plenty of justification.

So, if Bush's poll numbers dip too low - another country would be fully justified in "freeing" us from his rule?

And, pray tell, how do you know 80% of the Iraqi people wanted Saddam gone?

And, how many of those wanted a US invasion and occupation?

Saddam was an evil bastard. (He was our evil bastard.)

But you set a dangerous precedent in saying one nation can justify invading another on the grounds that (a) the invading nation doesn't like the other nation's leader or (b) according to the invading nation the other nation's leader is unpopular.

It was a cease-fire! Did you read it? See above post.
Even if it was a cease-fire, the only authority capable of determining whether or not it was breached and what actions to do was the UN security council. The Us cannot justify an invasion by declaring that it was doing the UN's work is patently false.


BTW I love freedom! :cool:
Me too. But I was merely using sarcasm on the other poster's comment. :cool:

Ok, so I guess your comments had nothing to do with the thread's subject and everything to do with bashing the UN.

Not at all, I'm simply saying that the action was justified precicely because of the UN's statements. Historically, the US and other military powers have provided the 'muscle' for the UN. This case was no different. We were following through on the UN words. Simple.

a)Saddam was a brutal dictator worthy of deposing

and

b)Most of the Iraqi people (oh, around 80%) wanted him gone and wanted freedom


Agreed.

Of course, I'm sure you, I *and* the Iraqi population defines "freedom" as "having your country invaded and then occupied for an indefinite period of time while the invaders impose their puppet political system on your government." I mean who wouldn't? ;)

*snip*

The Iraqi people will get the government they want, whatever that might be. We are there at their request now...if they ask us to leave, we will. They are independant by every measure except militarily, and we're assisting them with that at their request.

Bullshit.

What evidence do you have that our invasion was "at the[] request" of the Iraqi government?

You do realize that Iraqi leaders -- our hand-picked Iraqi leaders -- have sought our withdrawal?

I'm a pacifist and I'm not a Saddam apologist.
I don't understand your rant.
I know Saddam was a really really really bad man. It is not news.
I also know bringing Saddam to justice was not worth more than 100 000 lives.
I believe you are blood lusted and blinded by revenge feelings. Revenge feelings are dangerous.

Even if it was a cease-fire, the only authority capable of determining whether or not it was breached and what actions to do was the UN security council. The Us cannot justify an invasion by declaring that it was doing the UN's work is patently false.



Me too. But I was merely using sarcasm on the other poster's comment. :cool:

The security council was being hijacked by countries with a vested interest in seeing Saddam remain in power. That, to me, is an illigitimate use of a valuable world body to further their own ends. It was time, after 15 years, to follow through, and we did.

Bullshit.

What evidence do you have that our invasion was "at the[] request" of the Iraqi government?

You do realize that Iraqi leaders -- our hand-picked Iraqi leaders -- have sought our withdrawal?

Not bullshit.

I was speaking to our remaining in their country, not the invasion. If the legitimate authorities request our withdrawl, we withdraw. We are already planning large-scale reductions in troop strenght by the end of the year, precicely because the Iraqi forces are appraoching equilibrium.

The security council was being hijacked by countries with a vested interest in seeing Saddam remain in power. That, to me, is an illigitimate use of a valuable world body to further their own ends. It was time, after 15 years, to follow through, and we did.
Incorrect. It was time 15 years ago. What you did the last 2 years was wasting more blood in the name of revenge.

The USA will no longer ignore, look the other way or remotely even tolerate terrorist regimes
Like Saudi Arabia?

Not at all, I'm simply saying that the action was justified precicely because of the UN's statements. Historically, the US and other military powers have provided the 'muscle' for the UN. This case was no different. We were following through on the UN words. Simple.
That is not the place of the US to provide muscle where the UN doesn't want it. And even if the security council is toothless because of the veto power, you knew full well the fact when you used the UN resolutions to justify an attack.

You ignored the UN, plain and simple. Do not use it to justify the invasion after the fact.

That is not the place of the US to provide muscle where the UN doesn't want it. And even if the security council is toothless because of the veto power, you knew full well the fact when you used the UN resolutions to justify an attack.

You ignored the UN, plain and simple. Do not use it to justify the invasion after the fact.

The US retains sovereignty over the use of its military to protect its national security. The resolutions also stated for all member nations to "use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 and all subsequent..." in resolution 678. That means military force. It was justified by the UN's own words.

Must go to class....will return. :cool:

The US retains sovereignty over the use of its military to protect its national security. The resolutions also stated for all member nations to "use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 and all subsequent..." in resolution 678. That means military force. It was justified by the UN's own words.

Must go to class....will return. :cool:
No because nowhere in subsequent resolution was there a mechanism to use military force without the UN's consent as each and every resolution says clearly that the UN sec. council remains seized of the matter.

Besides, Saddam was complying with UN resolution 1441 as he was disarming and was allowing the weapon inspectors to visit at their leisure the different sites. Bush pulled the inspector because their findings was not corroborating his story.

The US retains sovereignty over the use of its military to protect its national security. The resolutions also stated for all member nations to "use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 and all subsequent..." in resolution 678. That means military force. It was justified by the UN's own words.

Must go to class....will return. :cool:
This resolution states that all necessary means can be used to make Iraq get out of Koweit. It is 14 years old.
Also the UN charter states that it is illegal to invade a sovereign country without security council approval. The US is a UN charter signatory member.
The UN charter also states that it is above local laws and constitutions.

The US made the mess in the middle east, it needs to clean it up. As is the case normally the US democrats create the mess and the US republicans clean it up.
Convinced of the infallibility of The Party, are you?

1980s - Reagan (R) assists Saddam by providing intelligence and weapons
1991 - Bush (R) attacks Iraq for invading Kuwait
1990s - Clinton (D) and others institute sanctions agaisnt Iraq, which kill over 600,000 children
1998 - Clinton (D) attacks Iraq by aerial bombing
2003 - Bush (R) invades Iraq under false pretences

Looks like neither party exactly has a clean sheet.

Like Saudi Arabia?

Damn straight!

On a second note, when fighting guerillias and freedom fighters there is no clear way to win when you have a country that doesn't want to go all out. This is why Korea failed and certainly why Vietnam failed. Nowadays when people will go all out in order to free their country from "tyranny" (insert Sadam, US occupation, Ho Chi Mihn) the opposing forces must battle with the same tenacity. I'm not a fan of all out war but in order to squash a resistance movement it is necessary. Either that or get the hell out and admit defeat, continuing a "war" that is un-winnable just sheds blood that isn't needed. I am against this war, not because I like the old regime of Sadam or because I can't stand Bush, it is because it was uneeded, many countries threaten the US everyday; many countries harbor terrorist everyday, yet not all have oil or grudges set against them from years back. As a historian I see this as one more straw adding to the back of US Superiority, sooner or later the back must break as it has done with all nations in power.
Please excuse the spelling, I have grown too dependent on the spell check system!
Let teh Anvils Ring!

My view on why we went invaded Iraq seems pretty obvious to me; it's about making money. But not simply about taking oil; that's too much of a short-term solution to what has been both a financially and politically expensive enterprise. Unfortunately, in my opinion, it means that if Wolfowitz has his way, Iraq certainly won't be the last middle eastern country to be forced to "embrace God's gift of freedom".

In Iraq you had, for the most part, a large and educated middle class. Lots of people who were able to perform high-skilled jobs, but weren't allowed to thrive (particularly if they were Kurdish) under such a barbaric regime. The tool were tools available for Iraq to prosper under the capitalist model, and in some cases they did (did you know that before the sanctions Iraq had one of the best health care systems in the world?) - but we couldn't do business with them! Only one McDonald's in Baghdad; not a Starbucks to speak of. And of course, they have all that oil yet they charge such a high price for it.

The new Iraq - not really by virtue of being a democracy - but by being a free-trading, consumerist democracy, allows US (and European; don't let Chirac fool you) corporations to include Iraq in their ever-growing list of countries to which our products can be exported. And if they can get away with it, the same thing will happen in Iran; yet another undemocratic Middle-Eastern state with a huge amount of resources waiting to be exploited.

Many would argue that, as a long-term strategy, there is nothing immoral about this (give or take a few hundred thousand people deaths, or the economic ruin suffered by thousands more); yet I wonder if it has really been considered how this is all going to play out. Can we really just impose democracy and free-trade capitalism on a country in which the system hasn't been allowed to evolve organically? What about all the other areas of civil society, which we take for granted, that Iraq has never had (e.g. a free press; freedom of political participation)?

I don't believe free market capitalism will benefit them. That didn't benefit latin America.

Do we really want to get into an Iraq war justification argument? Hasnt that been done enough already?
Need I remind you of your opening statement in this thread?

while I can understand why many people disagree with the Us war against Iraq, when I read stuff like this I just want to tell the pacifists to F**K**F.
You want to proclaim that the US actions were "justified" because of the attached link (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=540&e=3&u=/ap/20050416/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_mass_graves) you provided, but you don't want to discuss that US actions were NOT "justified"? You want to "justify" the bombing of Iraq into oblivion today because of what happened 15 years ago, and you don't want dissenters to your point of view? That would be a very one sided debate to say the least?

And as to what gives the US the "right" to make regime changes... The same things that give every other country the "right" to do as they please.

1) the ability to effect desired changes/policy
2) the ability to escape/weather the consequences of said actions.
Every other country does NOT have the "right" to make regime changes. Read the UN Charter and you will understand just how false your statement is.

Need I remind you of your opening statement in this thread?

You want to proclaim that the US actions were "justified" because of the attached link (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=540&e=3&u=/ap/20050416/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_mass_graves) you provided, but you don't want to discuss that US actions were NOT "justified"? You want to "justify" the bombing of Iraq into oblivion today because of what happened 15 years ago, and you don't want dissenters to your point of view? That would be a very one sided debate to say the least?



I admit to wording it poorly. I saw the link about mass graves and I ran with it. My intention was to discuss pacifism, and how there is sometimes a need for violence. As Far as Iraq goes, I think it was the right thing to do. I also understand that many people do not feel this way. Whatever, The Us took action and the only repercusion seams to be people saying bad things about the US on chat boards... Chalk one up for realpolitics I guess.


Every other country does NOT have the "right" to make regime changes. Read the UN Charter and you will understand just how false your statement is.

The UN Charter is just a piece of paper. You may think that this piece of paper has real world consequences, but it doesnt. Countries like Canada and Belgium might think that this piece of paper has some intrinsic ability to enforce itself, but countries like the USA, UK, France, Germany, China ect know that at best it is simply a framework to work around when convenient.

If you dont like your countries significance in the world... well tough, change it. But to think that France or Germany or the USA should be on the same footing as say Nigeria or Botswana is just laughable. If you think that all countries are equal and have an equal say you must be delusional.


The UN binds us(any country) only to the extent that a country feels that it gains more than it loses. I realize that for countries like Canada, the UN must be very important, but for countries with real global impact, the UN is just something that is there when it is convenient.

Like Saudi Arabia?

Well, in all fairness they were given a "get out of Jail free" card after they scared the shit out of us in the late 70s. However, god(in whom I do not believe) willing, fuel cell tech will advance to the point where we can tell the camel jockeys to go F**k themselves. Of course, this leads to another problem wherein we have a few 100 million people with no livelihood coupled with a religion that says the west is the devil and blowing yourself up is an acceptable means of going to heaven and getting laid.

Makes for interesting times.

Do they offer discounts on cold war era bomb shelters? I might be in the market. Then again, I am brown skinned so the first bullet is probably not aimed at me.

No because nowhere in subsequent resolution was there a mechanism to use military force without the UN's consent as each and every resolution says clearly that the UN sec. council remains seized of the matter.

Besides, Saddam was complying with UN resolution 1441 as he was disarming and was allowing the weapon inspectors to visit at their leisure the different sites. Bush pulled the inspector because their findings was not corroborating his story.

He wasn't complying with the resolution according to Hans Blix. This is really old news, and it is clear that Saddam was doing what he had been doing previously - stalling and blocking real inspections. In addition, prohibited weapons were found, and Saddam provided an incomplete accounting for weapons known to exist when inspectors were kicked out in 1998. He failed to convincingly show these weapons were destroyed, and he failed to produce the equipment and vehicles which were known to have existed. Seriously, when a government does something like destroy piles of chemicals, munitions, and equipment, they document it in a meaningful way. Like the large, blackened crater that was created when we blew up all those munitions. You can't tell me that failing to provide some evidence of that constitutes compliance!

I'm no longer concerned with their thoughts, feelings or opinions on this situation anymore. sadaam is no longer free to do whatever the hell he pleases. His two lunatic-monster sons are dead, as are many other assorted scum.
Its not likely the new government there will victimize its citizens or neighbors on such a grand scale as he did.That alone is enough. I'm even more optimistic-maybe,given the chance, these people will rise up out of the dust and improve their own standard of living-education,health care and a judicial system. Maybe the rest of the world will be buying high-tech electronics made in Iraq someday.

He wasn't complying with the resolution according to Hans Blix. This is really old news, and it is clear that Saddam was doing what he had been doing previously - stalling and blocking real inspections. In addition, prohibited weapons were found, and Saddam provided an incomplete accounting for weapons known to exist when inspectors were kicked out in 1998. He failed to convincingly show these weapons were destroyed, and he failed to produce the equipment and vehicles which were known to have existed. Seriously, when a government does something like destroy piles of chemicals, munitions, and equipment, they document it in a meaningful way. Like the large, blackened crater that was created when we blew up all those munitions. You can't tell me that failing to provide some evidence of that constitutes compliance!
And you can't tell me the absence of documents is evidence of of weapons. We have found no evidence at all in Irak that there were WMD other than those we knew were there and were slowly being destroyed.

I seem to recall a completely different version from Mr. Blix in 2002-2002. His latest report to the UN was that the US had it all wrong, that there were no WMD and that Saddam was complying with resolution 1441. And might I remind you that it was the US that removed the weapons inspectors.

This resolution states that all necessary means can be used to make Iraq get out of Koweit. It is 14 years old.
Also the UN charter states that it is illegal to invade a sovereign country without security council approval. The US is a UN charter signatory member.
The UN charter also states that it is above local laws and constitutions.

Honestly, have you even read it? It states (http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0678.htm):

"1. Demands that Iraq comply fully with resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions, and decides, while maintaining all its decisions, to allow Iraq one final opportunity, as a pause of goodwil, to do so;

2. Authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in paragraph 1 above, the above-mentioned resolutions, to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area;"

Clearly "all necessary means" can include military action. Additionally, it is not only referring to getting Saddam out of Kuwait. Resolution 687 (http://www.iraqwatch.org/un/unscresolutions/s-res-687.htm), which I meant to refer to, sets forth the terms of the cease-fire agreement. This is one of the subsequent relevant resolutions. I'll admit I was not clear on this point. If you read it, you will find that is states what must be undertaken by Iraq to fulfill its obligations under the cease-fire agreement.

Honestly, have you even read it? It states (http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0678.htm):

"1. Demands that Iraq comply fully with resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions, and decides, while maintaining all its decisions, to allow Iraq one final opportunity, as a pause of goodwil, to do so;

2. Authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in paragraph 1 above, the above-mentioned resolutions, to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area;"

Clearly "all necessary means" can include military action. Additionally, it is not only referring to getting Saddam out of Kuwait. Resolution 687 (http://www.iraqwatch.org/un/unscresolutions/s-res-687.htm), which I meant to refer to, sets forth the terms of the cease-fire agreement. This is one of the subsequent relevant resolutions. I'll admit I was not clear on this point. If you read it, you will find that is states what must be undertaken by Iraq to fulfill its obligations under the cease-fire agreement.
And UN resolution 1441, recognizing all that you said laid out a plan that Irak had to comply to. Irak was doing so, therefore the US invasion was not in accordance to UN resolution 660, 687, 1441 or any other according to the UN point of view.

And you can't tell me the absence of documents is evidence of of weapons. We have found no evidence at all in Irak that there were WMD other than those we knew were there and were slowly being destroyed.

I seem to recall a completely different version from Mr. Blix in 2002-2002. His latest report to the UN was that the US had it all wrong, that there were no WMD and that Saddam was complying with resolution 1441. And might I remind you that it was the US that removed the weapons inspectors.

In his statement to the security council in 1998, Mr. Blix stated "If they exist they must be presented for destruction. If they do not exist, credible evidence to that effect should be presented.”

In his statement in Feb. 2003 Mr. Blix stated "Another matter, and one of great significance, is that many proscribed weapons and items are not accounted for." And..."In the words of Resolution 1441, it requires immediate, unconditional and active efforts by Iraq to resolve existing questions of disarmament, either by presenting remaining proscribed items and programs for elimination or by presenting convincing evidence that they have been eliminated."

To be fair, Blix stated that "...Iraq had decided in principle to provide cooperation on process -- most importantly, prompt access to all sites and assistance to UNMOVIC in the establishment of the necessary infrastructure. "

The fact remains that this report was given fully three months after 1441 was passed, and the problems encountered during those three months of inspections beg the question - was Saddam complying with the spirit as well as the letter of the resolution. The lack of documentation of destruction of munitions is suspicious at best. Given the state of affairs in the world at that time, it is reasonable to be wary. Also given Saddam's record of cooperation in the past, and given the threat these materials, which were known to exist in 1998, it is reasonable to expect much more complete cooperation than was displayed.

I believe at that point in the inspection regime it was expected that more thorough cooperation was in order. The UN removed the inspectors when they were informed that invasion was going to proceed, but that amounts to the same thing.

And UN resolution 1441, recognizing all that you said laid out a plan that Irak had to comply to. Irak was doing so, therefore the US invasion was not in accordance to UN resolution 660, 687, 1441 or any other according to the UN point of view.

It all comes down to the credibility of the UN's words. 1441 said that Iraq would face serious consequences if it did not comply. It appeared that Saddam was doing the same thing he had done previously...complying just enough to satisfy the UN without actually obeying the spirit of the resolution.

As I said before

...after it was seen that Saddam had no intention of following through on this new inspection regime, and having provided a false and incomplete accounting for said weapons, the world waited with baited breath to see if the UN would, once and for all follow through on said "serious consequences." When the proposed resolution was threatened to be vetoed by France, Great Britain, the US and several other countried determined to disarm Iraq by force, having found him in breach of the cease-fire agreement and resolution 1441. The UN is becomming increasingly irrelevant as it pontificates without action, and the world is becoming numb to its words.

weapons, shmeapons

saddam was a bad guy who had to be taken out, for the sake of a free iraq.

he is, and now maybe iraq can build itself into a beacon of light in the Middle East. Maybe Afghanistan can be come a respectable republic as well. that's the hope at least.

I don't like violence but it still a intresting idea to see that would happen if for example the EU and Russia started to atacks USA allies like for example SaudArabia Uzbekistan and Pakistan, ecpecially who's with preciuos natural resource. Would be very intresting with SaudArabia because they don't have no real army and totally dependent on the american. So for example Russia could atack SaudArabia and the american forces could just watch it happens. Because Russia would just follow the American example of "liberating" the people from brutale dictatorship in a country that just happens to hava natural resource. And India could start a nuclear war against Pakistan, because India as a democratic country just want to follow the american way and liberate a people from a brutally dictatorship that it is very clear have nuclear weapon.

I admit to wording it poorly. I saw the link about mass graves and I ran with it. My intention was to discuss pacifism, and how there is sometimes a need for violence. As Far as Iraq goes, I think it was the right thing to do. I also understand that many people do not feel this way. Whatever, The Us took action and the only repercusion seams to be people saying bad things about the US on chat boards... Chalk one up for realpolitics I guess.
Most historians will tell you that violence begets violence. Your support for US actions in Iraq, is indeed amongst the minority even in the US. The US deserves the repercussions of their actions regarding Iraq because it was the wrong thing to do.

In regards to mass graves, I posted many links to the "Highway of Death", and it appears that you have chosen not to respond to that post. Are those atrocities any different than those committed by Saddam?

The UN Charter is just a piece of paper.
Which the US signed in good faith.
You may think that this piece of paper has real world consequences, but it doesnt.
It does have "real" consequences.

Countries like Canada and Belgium might think that this piece of paper has some intrinsic ability to enforce itself,
This is news to me, can you back up your statement?

but countries like the USA, UK, France, Germany, China ect know that at best it is simply a framework to work around when convenient.
The US has been the master at avoiding doing the right thing at the UN level, which causes the UN to be much weaker than it should be. Numerous US vetoes at the Security Council level have thwarted the good intentions and goodwill of the UN, which is truly a sad and abusive misuse of power.

If you dont like your countries significance in the world... well tough, change it.
Most Canadians enjoy Canada's significance in the world today, and when Bush proclaimed that "either you are with us or against us", when it came to an invasion of Iraq, Canada rightly said NO THANKS!!
But to think that France or Germany or the USA should be on the same footing as say Nigeria or Botswana is just laughable. If you think that all countries are equal and have an equal say you must be delusional.
The five permanent members of the UN Security Council are the US, UK, China, Russia, and France. The world acknowledges these countries as the most powerful in the world and look to them to make reasonable decisions on behalf of the remaining people of the world. However, you must not forget that an additional 10 members of the Security Council are rotated into that powerful position and are on an equal footing as the 5 permanent Council members, save and except for the use of Veto powers.

The UN binds us(any country) only to the extent that a country feels that it gains more than it loses. I realize that for countries like Canada, the UN must be very important, but for countries with real global impact, the UN is just something that is there when it is convenient.
I totally disagree with your statement and I firmly believe that if the UN was non existent, the world would be far worse off than it is.

Nope, I read the whole thing, and the point is that the UN has failed over and over to follow through on their continued threats of consequences. They have "Decided to remain siezed of the matter" for every resolution they have ever passed. That dosen't equal "We determine to folllow through on what we've said." Quite the contrary, the UN is becoming marginalized precicely because they apper never to mean what they say. It's about time serious consideration be given to dismantling the UN, which has become nearly irrelevant. By the way, over 30 countries agreed with the United States that a military invasion was warranted, necessary, and justified. The loudest opponents were France, Germany, and Russia who, by the way, had a glaring of conflict of interest as they were profiting nicely on the status quo. To say their opposition lends credence to the argument of justification is ignorant and naieve.
If indeed you have read ALL of UN Resolution 1441, then perhaps you are not understanding the text of the document?

Paragraph 10:

10. Requests all Member States to give full support to UNMOVIC and the IAEA in the discharge of their mandates, including by providing any information related to prohibited programmes or other aspects of their mandates, including on Iraqi attempts since 1998 to acquire prohibited items, and by recommending sites to be inspected, persons to be interviewed, conditions of such interviews, and data to be collected, the results of which shall be reported to the Council by UNMOVIC and the IAEA;

Why did the US FAIL to comply with this provision of the UN Resolution? By non compliance, the US was violating this Resolution, nevermind Iraq's responsibilities.

Again if you read all of Resolution 1441, what part of this text do you not understand?

11. Directs the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director-General of the IAEA to report immediately to the Council any interference by Iraq with inspection activities, as well as any failure by Iraq to comply with its disarmament obligations, including its obligations regarding inspections under this resolution;

This is where Blix reported that Iraq was providing access to necessary facilitities and in a prompt manner.

12. Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security;

This above ALL else, details that the Security Council will decide the "need for full compliance"!!

The Resolution does not give the US and others the right to invade Iraq, without Security Council approval. The US could not prove that Iraq posed an "imminent" threat to the US, and that is why countries such as France, Germany, Russia, and China balked at the insistence of an invasion of Iraq.

weapons, shmeapons

saddam was a bad guy who had to be taken out, for the sake of a free iraq.

he is, and now maybe iraq can build itself into a beacon of light in the Middle East. Maybe Afghanistan can be come a respectable republic as well. that's the hope at least.

Ah yes, Afghanistan, a place that has very little media coverage now that there is something new and exciting happening elsewhere. But if memory serves, it is now a prime exporter of opium, divided up by various warlords who are quite content to tear up the countryside some more along with the people in it and is generally a very bad place to live.

So, thanks to the minimal US support, if there still is any, Afghanistan is a 'respectable' republic? If you have the discourtesy of gatecrashing, at least stay long enough to clean up before you go to another party.

Although truth to be told, where does that actually happen in reality?

If indeed you have read ALL of UN Resolution 1441, then perhaps you are not understanding the text of the document?

Paragraph 10:

10. Requests all Member States to give full support to UNMOVIC and the IAEA in the discharge of their mandates, including by providing any information related to prohibited programmes or other aspects of their mandates, including on Iraqi attempts since 1998 to acquire prohibited items, and by recommending sites to be inspected, persons to be interviewed, conditions of such interviews, and data to be collected, the results of which shall be reported to the Council by UNMOVIC and the IAEA;

Why did the US FAIL to comply with this provision of the UN Resolution? By non compliance, the US was violating this Resolution, nevermind Iraq's responsibilities.

Again if you read all of Resolution 1441, what part of this text do you not understand?

11. Directs the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director-General of the IAEA to report immediately to the Council any interference by Iraq with inspection activities, as well as any failure by Iraq to comply with its disarmament obligations, including its obligations regarding inspections under this resolution;

This is where Blix reported that Iraq was providing access to necessary facilitities and in a prompt manner.

12. Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security;

This above ALL else, details that the Security Council will decide the "need for full compliance"!!

The Resolution does not give the US and others the right to invade Iraq, without Security Council approval. The US could not prove that Iraq posed an "imminent" threat to the US, and that is why countries such as France, Germany, Russia, and China balked at the insistence of an invasion of Iraq.

Here's (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8550032&postcount=225) a link to the thread and post where I responded to this. As I have said repeatedly, The US has the right to act in its own security interests, regardless of the UN's position. Signing the UN charter doesn't give that right away. We signed that charter with the belief that if our security was threatened - and the best intelligence in the world said that it was - we would be supported, as we would support others. The "serious consequences" promisd by 1441 were neutered by France in her endeavor to preserve the status quo they were profiting from. The post I linked to above, which was a reply to you, sums it up. There were over 30 countries who agreed with us enough to publicly support the action with finances, logistical support, and troops. That illustrates the view of much of the world that it was justified, even if a few countries who were benefitting from Saddam did not.

The UN Charter is just a piece of paper.

I assume you know that this is what the Imperial German Government said about the guaranteed neutrality of Belgium when they invaded it in world war 1. The Brits declared war on the Germans for violating "a piece of paper" they signed about 80 years earlier.

I think it is obvious that the US war on terror is losing momentum with the war in Iraq, the military loses men and the government confidence. As said before no one claims that Saddam was a good guy, at least no one around here. BUT, why not try to have the other Arab nations gather against Iraq? The reason I think there were no major repurcussions from that part of the world was because Saddam was disliked by Arabs. If Iran or Syria is invaded, I am sure many Arab nations will refuse to sell oil to the US or even side against them in war. Not even Blair could possibly side with Bush.

I feel sorry for all involved in the Iraq fighting, especially the average Iraqi. If you would have a poll about the war I am sure many would just want it all to go away, or never have been fought at all. Of course such a poll will not be seen, at least not the result. Face it, this is a war of propaganda.

That mess is nearly cleaned up, not other dictators will have to reconsider their posture with the US and their neighbors. The USA will no longer ignore, look the other way or remotely even tolerate terrorist regimes, nor should the rest of the civilized world.
Ha. Ha. Hahaha. Ha. My word, you've bought into the propaganda, haven't you? Hook, line and blood-soaked sinker.

Here's (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8550032&postcount=225) a link to the thread and post where I responded to this. As I have said repeatedly, The US has the right to act in its own security interests, regardless of the UN's position. Signing the UN charter doesn't give that right away. We signed that charter with the belief that if our security was threatened - and the best intelligence in the world said that it was - we would be supported, as we would support others.
The UN Charter provides exactly what you are suggesting. No one is denying that any country has the right to defend itself from attack or imminent attack. The big problem here is that the US could not prove that there was an "imminent threat" of an Iraqi attack, and that is why France, China and Russia were all balking at an invasion of Iraq, especially when considering that over 300 UN inspectors were in Iraq and they were finding ZERO WMD. That is ZERO as in nada, zip, ziltch, NONE!!


The "serious consequences" promisd by 1441 were neutered by France in her endeavor to preserve the status quo they were profiting from.
The constant blaming of France is a serious grasping at straws. France was quite prepared to back an invasion, if Iraq failed to comply with the inspection process. Blix asked for more time and more inspectors and that wouldn't suit Bush, because he knew that the UN was finding no WMD, and that would ruin the US's main plan.

The post I linked to above, which was a reply to you, sums it up. There were over 30 countries who agreed with us enough to publicly support the action with finances, logistical support, and troops. That illustrates the view of much of the world that it was justified, even if a few countries who were benefitting from Saddam did not.
Over 14 countries (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050315/D88RL27G0.html) have left the coalition:

Some 137 Ukrainian servicemen returned home Tuesday, part of a gradual pullout of a 1,650-strong contingent to be completed in October. Ukraine has lost 18 soldiers in Iraq, and its people overwhelmingly oppose the deployment.

The Netherlands formally ended its mission March 7, and the bulk of its 1,400 troops return home this month. The U.S. and British governments urged Dutch leaders to extend the mission, but they refused, saying they had met their commitments.

Poland, which has command responsibility for a large swath of central Iraq, plans to withdraw several hundred of its 1,700 soldiers in July and hopes to pull out completely by year's end or early in 2006.

Among the nations that withdrew last year were Spain, which pulled out 1,300 soldiers; Tonga, 44; New Zealand, 60; Thailand, 423; the Philippines, 51; Honduras, 370; the Dominican Republic, 302; Singapore, 160; Nicaragua, 115; and Hungary, 300. Norway withdrew 150 troops but left 16 liaison officers.

Last month, Portugal withdrew its 127 soldiers, and Moldova pulled out its 12.

Also Italy and Bulgaria are in the process of removing their troops.

They are realizing that Iraq was a bad idea, and even the majority of Americans now believe that the invasion of Iraq was a mistake. It is only hard core Bush apologists that continue to hold on to all the wrong arguments for supporting this travesty inflicted upon the people of Iraq.

They are realizing that Iraq was a bad idea, and even the majority of Americans now believe that the invasion of Iraq was a mistake. It is only hard core Bush apologists that continue to hold on to all the wrong arguments for supporting this travesty inflicted upon the people of Iraq.


You speculate that they "are realizing Iraq was a bad idea" to make yourself feel good. Yeah-years after sending them, all of a sudden they waffle and decide to pull back their support? You'll laud an glorify all these countries as if they suddenly saw the light and decided to pull their dozen troops here and 40 troops there. The US is seriously going to miss all this staunch support.
No-those numbers are no longer needed is the reality.
Maybe the US should try to make ammends by reversing the "travesty inflicted" on the people of Iraq. We'll give their loveable grandpa sadaam back after a nice bath and a shave.Pat him on the back and let him get back to the business of governing his peace loving, free and unmolested countrymen.

You speculate that they "are realizing Iraq was a bad idea" to make yourself feel good. Yeah-years after sending them, all of a sudden they waffle and decide to pull back their support? You'll laud an glorify all these countries as if they suddenly saw the light and decided to pull their dozen troops here and 40 troops there. The US is seriously going to miss all this staunch support.
No-those numbers are no longer needed is the reality.
Maybe the US should try to make ammends by reversing the "travesty inflicted" on the people of Iraq. We'll give their loveable grandpa sadaam back after a nice bath and a shave.Pat him on the back and let him get back to the business of governing his peace loving, free and unmolested countrymen.

:rolleyes:

Oh please. Saddam Hussein had been getting a pat on the back from America since Day One until he made the mistake of invading Kuwait (even though April Glaspie and the State Department suggested that it was none of America's Business.) Bush Junior only went after him to avenge Daddy's Honor and Wag the Dog the attention from the US economy and his inability to track down Bin Ladin.

:rolleyes:

Oh please. Saddam Hussein had been getting a pat on the back from America since Day One until he made the mistake of invading Kuwait (even though April Glaspie and the State Department suggested that it was none of America's Business.) Bush Junior only went after him to avenge Daddy's Honor and Wag the Dog the attention from the US economy and his inability to track down Bin Ladin.

Thats sounds good to any others simple enough to share your views-likely you were also upset President Bush Sr. didnt "take out" sadaam after Desert Storm. And when he does get bin laden, they'll be some other song and dance routine about how it took too long or cost too much or there's no concrete evidence he was behind 9/11.
Keep singing and dancing. Most of us dont care. And we're patient.

Thats sounds good to any others simple enough to share your views-likely you were also upset President Bush Sr. didnt "take out" sadaam after Desert Storm. And when he does get bin laden, they'll be some other song and dance routine about how it took too long or cost too much or there's no concrete evidence he was behind 9/11.
Keep singing and dancing. Most of us dont care. And we're patient.

Schwartzkopf himself said that Saddam was vulnerable to an execution and Daddy Bush pussied out. Hiding behind the "we were complying with UN resolutions" excuse is disingenuous when rest of the time the Busheviks have nothing but contempt and disregard for the United Nations.

Shrub, get around to catching Bin Ladin when he doesn't even think much of Osama nowadays? Psha. OBL knows that America is too much of a recruitment booster to bother targeting with a strike especially when there's much more ripe targets in the rest of the world, especially Iraq. And why so patient to catch Bin Ladin, unless you're waiting for him to mastermind a few more atrocities that the Bushevik Politburo can wave over the American public to keep them cowed and unquestioning?

You speculate that they "are realizing Iraq was a bad idea" to make yourself feel good. Yeah-years after sending them, all of a sudden they waffle and decide to pull back their support? You'll laud an glorify all these countries as if they suddenly saw the light and decided to pull their dozen troops here and 40 troops there. The US is seriously going to miss all this staunch support.
Now that they are leaving, I admire how you appreciate their initial support, by casting them in a bad light light and mocking them, now that they are leaving. Perhaps future "coalitions of the willing" will be even smaller, and less likely to participate due to comments such as yours, and other pro Bushies remarks that inundate these threads. You must keep in mind that many countries sent troops against the wishes of their constituents, and mostly to remain in good stead with the US.
Maybe the US should try to make ammends by reversing the "travesty inflicted" on the people of Iraq. We'll give their loveable grandpa sadaam back after a nice bath and a shave.Pat him on the back and let him get back to the business of governing his peace loving, free and unmolested countrymen.
Maybe the US should stop interfering with Middle East politics to the detriment of the region?

Schwartzkopf himself said that Saddam was vulnerable to an execution and Daddy Bush pussied out. Hiding behind the "we were complying with UN resolutions" excuse is disingenuous when rest of the time the Busheviks have nothing but contempt and disregard for the United Nations.

Shrub, get around to catching Bin Ladin when he doesn't even think much of Osama nowadays? Psha. OBL knows that America is too much of a recruitment booster to bother targeting with a strike especially when there's much more ripe targets in the rest of the world, especially Iraq. And why so patient to catch Bin Ladin, unless you're waiting for him to mastermind a few more atrocities that the Bushevik Politburo can wave over the American public to keep them cowed and unquestioning?

If sadaam had been killed in the 90s you'd be upset. Pres Bush Sr. didnt pussy out. The dreaded million man army and the rupublican guard were decimated in the blitzkreig to end all others. until the last one.. Sure-Schwartzkopf probably could have gotten him, but lets not make believe you like him now-or what he stood for.(MacArthur could have taken Russia too.) The US CAUGHT HIM. Alive. Who else has the skill and resources and determination to do that? He'll actually be tried in court. Andwe didnt even maim and torture him. I'd much rather see him dead and bloated, but the rest of the world holds the US to a much higher standard. And thats where most of the animosity towards us comes from-our abilty to attain and surpass it.

I'm sure no one in the administration has forgotten bin laden. He'll turn up, sooner or later. I could mirror your emotion and hysteria over the situation, but everything is going well. I do enjoy all the fancy names being spurt forth.and they are proabably so impressive when shared over cosmopolitans, but the American public isnt cowed and certainly not unquestioning. I dont know where you're view comes from, but I certainly feel for you as it certainly sounds like a bitter and hopeless place.

Now that they are leaving, I admire how you appreciate their initial support, by casting them in a bad light light and mocking them, now that they are leaving. Perhaps future "coalitions of the willing" will be even smaller, and less likely to participate due to comments such as yours, and other pro Bushies remarks that inundate these threads. You must keep in mind that many countries sent troops against the wishes of their constituents, and mostly to remain in good stead with the US.


No-I wasnt mocking them, just being sarcastic and not letting you have it both ways.
You can keep bashing Bush and Americans who support him. I'd be worried if you didnt-he'd be doing something unAmerican if other countries "liked" us.

Hey, lets go free Iraqis from Saddam by using Shock and Awe tactics, aka dropping thousands of bombs on a civilian population. :rolleyes:

Or how about we go after Iraq because it has a huge humanitarian crisis, but all the other problems like Rwanadan and Sudan Genocides don't matter. Because they don't have anything to give us in return!

Or, lets claim WMD information that we had to delude ourselves into believing!

Maybe we should make Saddam the bad guy, so that we don't look so bad when we never catch that other guy. Wait, who was he again? O...O..Osa..? Forget it! I've been brainwashed to forget!

How about we act like a police state that moniters every other nations activities and biasedly assigns bad deeds to nations! Lets be the international KGB!

Oh, I know! How about we never publish figures of Slaughter, Starvation, or other problems with the war that plague the Iraqi people! And for that matter, lets totally ignore that our Budget deficiet is bigger than the GDP of Alot of Countries. Thats alot of stealing we'll have to do to pay it off. Oh well! Thats why we went into Iraq. To Steal!

Maybe we should shatter alliances with people who don't agree with us, because we are like the Crack-Head teen, and the rest of the world are our sensible parents.

Maybe we should blame this on terrorism! Because Modern War and Terrorism are indistinguishable by definition, and only by sheer bias and blind zeal can we truly say we aren't being terrorists ourselves!

How about we stage meaningless elections in Iraq, claiming this is the first time Iraqis have experienced democracy, but we all know democracy is a facade, run by dictators that switch places! Not to mention we won't let them have a country run by Shariah, because thats wrong! Only US supporters and stooges are democratic. If we REALLY let them have a vote, they'd vote to behead every US soldier. Democracy is good when we say its good!

How about we war other nations so we can forget about our demostic problems, maybe even letting us ban the fillibuster, so we can not only screw the US and the World during Bush's reign, but we can set up further Republican Rape of the System. HOLD HER DOWN DICKI'M GONNA PENETRATE! Rape is a Republican passtime!

:headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:
No logical being can really be that blind...The US is heading down the path of blind ignorance and following. Lame for the US, Lamer for the rest of the World.

Oh well, we all won't have to worry about it when the policies force the US down the drain, and other countries that are more sensible take the US's place as Super Power.

If sadaam had been killed in the 90s you'd be upset. Pres Bush Sr. didnt pussy out. The dreaded million man army and the rupublican guard were decimated in the blitzkreig to end all others. until the last one.. Sure-Schwartzkopf probably could have gotten him, but lets not make believe you like him now-or what he stood for.(MacArthur could have taken Russia too.) The US CAUGHT HIM. Alive. Who else has the skill and resources and determination to do that? He'll actually be tried in court. Andwe didnt even maim and torture him. I'd much rather see him dead and bloated, but the rest of the world holds the US to a much higher standard. And thats where most of the animosity towards us comes from-our abilty to attain and surpass it.

Hussein's atrocities were no secret even before Shrub's dog-wagging party. If Daddy Bush had finished him off I wouldn't have been upset. Not as many people would have been upset as you'd like to believe, and the Iraqis sure wouldn't have been even miffed at getting their democratic government 20 years early when Al Qaeda was nowhere near its current membership and influence.

Catching Hussein alive when Iraq had been lingering in an anemic shadow of its former glory hardly comes across as impressive: it's Too Little Too Late for many Iraqis and Kurds. After all, Daddy Bush encouraged them to revolt against Hussein in the wake of Desert Storm and sold out their asses in what could be called Bay of Pigs Part Two when he pussied out.

If anything, Hussein's "apprehension" merely sends a lesson to all of America's past, present and future pet dictators that their interests are best served by not doing anything that would potentially offend America, even if it seems Americans have given a green light to your ideas.

I'm sure no one in the administration has forgotten bin laden. He'll turn up, sooner or later. I could mirror your emotion and hysteria over the situation, but everything is going well. I do enjoy all the fancy names being spurt forth.and they are proabably so impressive when shared over cosmopolitans, but the American public isnt cowed and certainly not unquestioning. I dont know where you're view comes from, but I certainly feel for you as it certainly sounds like a bitter and hopeless place.

Bin Ladin has not been caught, his franchisee Al Zarqawi is having a field day in Iraq, civilians and American troops are still dying and you call this going well? My view comes from a world that sees how Shrub took genuine world sympathy and ass-backing only to waste and alienate it on his pet project called Iraq.

No-I wasnt mocking them, just being sarcastic and not letting you have it both ways.
You can keep bashing Bush and Americans who support him. I'd be worried if you didnt-he'd be doing something unAmerican if other countries "liked" us.

Yep yep! Killing is the American way. We're like Klingons who throw B.S. about freedom in our war cries.

Yep yep! Killing is the American way. We're like Klingons who throw B.S. about freedom in our war cries.

Yeah, it's called the Qaplie'

:p

No-I wasnt mocking them, just being sarcastic and not letting you have it both ways.
Yeah, why give into logic huh? You were mocking them, and I sincerely hope that during the next Bush misadventure (Iran?) they say up front, thanks but no thanks.

You can keep bashing Bush and Americans who support him. I'd be worried if you didnt-he'd be doing something unAmerican if other countries "liked" us.
So the ultimate for being American is to be distrusted and unliked throughout the world? Many Americans on here disagree with your view and many wonder what happened to the original goals of the Republic.

Your false bravado rings hollow, and your nation's beacon glows less brightly as your government persues this new age of American imperialism. The majority of Americans now admit that Iraq was a "mistake." (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A14266-2004Dec20.html)

While a slight majority believe the Iraq war contributed to the long-term security of the United States, 70 percent of Americans think these gains have come at an "unacceptable" cost in military casualties. This led 56 percent to conclude that, given the cost, the conflict there was "not worth fighting" -- an eight-point increase from when the same question was asked this summer, and the first time a decisive majority of people have reached this conclusion.

Hopefully Iraq will be the last misadventure of Bush, but somehow I doubt that it will be.

My view comes from a world that sees how Shrub took genuine world sympathy and ass-backing only to waste and alienate it on his pet project called Iraq.
AMEN brother!!

Most historians will tell you that violence begets violence. Your support for US actions in Iraq, is indeed amongst the minority even in the US. The US deserves the repercussions of their actions regarding Iraq because it was the wrong thing to do.


Well, those repurcussions dont seem to be coming anytime soon. Exactly what action was taken against the US because of the war in Iraq. If it was illegal and the UN is as powerfull/usefull as you claim, then surely some action against the US must take place. Or maybe the UN is actually as worthless as other posters have pointed out.


In regards to mass graves, I posted many links to the "Highway of Death", and it appears that you have chosen not to respond to that post. Are those atrocities any different than those committed by Saddam?

1) Yes, of course they differant because the people involved in "the highway of death" were soldiers in a war while saddam's victims tended to be civilians.

2) The highway of death is much exaggerated. Most of the soldiers were given an opportunity to flee into the desert. I will consider drudging up some links. But really, what is the point? You will continue to think it was the most evil thing in the world and I will continue to think that it was justified given that they were soldiers in a war.


Which the US signed in good faith.

It does have "real" consequences.


Really? exactly what consequences beyond some people whining on chat boards?


This is news to me, can you back up your statement?


no


The US has been the master at avoiding doing the right thing at the UN level, which causes the UN to be much weaker than it should be. Numerous US vetoes at the Security Council level have thwarted the good intentions and goodwill of the UN, which is truly a sad and abusive misuse of power.


Oh please, every country with a veto uses the UN like their own personal bitch.


I totally disagree with your statement and I firmly believe that if the UN was non existent, the world would be far worse off than it is.

They do some decent humanitarian work. Other than that, they havent been able to do much. Only 2 of the wars in the 20th century had UN sanction. The other wars/attempted genocides still happened, and the UN couldnt do a damn thing about it. How can you claim that the UN is at all effective?

The UN Charter provides exactly what you are suggesting. No one is denying that any country has the right to defend itself from attack or imminent attack. The big problem here is that the US could not prove that there was an "imminent threat" of an Iraqi attack, and that is why France, China and Russia were all balking at an invasion of Iraq, especially when considering that over 300 UN inspectors were in Iraq and they were finding ZERO WMD. That is ZERO as in nada, zip, ziltch, NONE!!
There was an imminent threat of Saddam giving or selling those weapons to terrorists. Honestly, why do you keep defending these countries who had a vested interest i leaving Saddam in power? The intelligence at the time -not today- suggested he had the weapons. He had the weapons when he kicked out inspectors in 1998. Why didn't the UN act then? And the inspectors did find prohibited munitions in 2002-03. The reason we were dissatisfied by Saddam's level of cooperation is that he was supposed to make a full accounting for existing of destroyd munitions....and he didn't. Quit apologizing for a brutal, lying, obstinate dictator and look at the facts. He was obviously not cooperating in the spirit of the resolutions.

The constant blaming of France is a serious grasping at straws. France was quite prepared to back an invasion, if Iraq failed to comply with the inspection process. Blix asked for more time and more inspectors and that wouldn't suit Bush, because he knew that the UN was finding no WMD, and that would ruin the US's main plan.
France had an interest in keeping Saddam in power! I really don't understand how you can keep defending their threat of veto when it's obviously sinister and dishonest.

Over 14 countries (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050315/D88RL27G0.html) have left the coalition:

Some 137 Ukrainian servicemen returned home Tuesday, part of a gradual pullout of a 1,650-strong contingent to be completed in October. Ukraine has lost 18 soldiers in Iraq, and its people overwhelmingly oppose the deployment.

The Netherlands formally ended its mission March 7, and the bulk of its 1,400 troops return home this month. The U.S. and British governments urged Dutch leaders to extend the mission, but they refused, saying they had met their commitments.

Poland, which has command responsibility for a large swath of central Iraq, plans to withdraw several hundred of its 1,700 soldiers in July and hopes to pull out completely by year's end or early in 2006.

Among the nations that withdrew last year were Spain, which pulled out 1,300 soldiers; Tonga, 44; New Zealand, 60; Thailand, 423; the Philippines, 51; Honduras, 370; the Dominican Republic, 302; Singapore, 160; Nicaragua, 115; and Hungary, 300. Norway withdrew 150 troops but left 16 liaison officers.

Last month, Portugal withdrew its 127 soldiers, and Moldova pulled out its 12.

Also Italy and Bulgaria are in the process of removing their troops.

They are realizing that Iraq was a bad idea, and even the majority of Americans now believe that the invasion of Iraq was a mistake. It is only hard core Bush apologists that continue to hold on to all the wrong arguments for supporting this travesty inflicted upon the people of Iraq.

And 48 countries are currently members of the coalition, so what's your point? Oh, that members are joining and leaving of their own volition. That's the beauty of freedom, you can choose the method and time of your own action or inaction. I would point out that more countries are participating than have left the coalition. Nice try though.

God damn pacifists..how much blood needs to be spilt before you people can justify action?

the point of pacifism is, i think, something to do with no blood being spilt? maybe it could be formulated thus: the less blood spilt, the better.

the point of pacifism is, i think, something to do with no blood being spilt? maybe it could be formulated thus: the less blood spilt, the better.


That would be great.

But to me, it seems like pacifists arent interested in"the less blood the better". It seems like they are only against violent actions even if they would result in ultimately less blood being spilt.

That would be great.

But to me, it seems like pacifists arent interested in"the less blood the better". It seems like they are only against violent actions even if they would result in ultimately less blood being spilt.

the less blood the better.

so i don't attack you, even if you attack me.

because your blood is blood.

nobody knows what will ultimately happen, so the best, and indeed the only, way to ensure that less blood is spilt, is to not spill any yourself.

What if they held a war and nobody came?

Your false bravado rings hollow, and your nation's beacon glows less brightly as your government persues this new age of American imperialism. The majority of Americans now admit that Iraq was a "mistake." (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A14266-2004Dec20.html)

Hopefully Iraq will be the last misadventure of Bush, but somehow I doubt that it will be.

You really should use recent polls if you're going to use them. I say that because the most recent CNN/Gallup (http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm) polls say this:

"All in all, do you think it was worth going to war in Iraq, or not?"
4/1-2/05
Worth Going To War 45%
Not Worth Going To War 53%
Unsure 2%

"In view of the developments since we first sent our troops to Iraq, do you think the United States made a mistake in sending troops to Iraq, or not?" Form A (N=443, MoE ± 5)
3/18-20/05
Made aMistake 46%
Did NotMake a Mistake 51%
Unsure 3 %

"Do you favor or oppose the U.S. war with Iraq?" Form B (N=466, MoE ± 5)
3/18-20/05
Favor 47%
Oppose 47%
Unsure 6%

This suggests that although Americans don't think it was worth going to war, they don't think it was a mistake based on developments since the invasion, and their spit evenly on the favor or oppose question. What, this can't be right...wait, you mean Americans are evenly split on Iraq? Yes, it's true, Americans are pretty much evenly split on the war, much like the electorate in the last election.

It's a good thing our President dosen't make decisions based simply on polls. That would show lack of leadership, which is something we simply cannot afford when dealing with international terrorism.

BTW:
im·pe·ri·al·ism (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/imperialism) (m-pîr--lzm)
n.
1. The policy of extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations.
2. The system, policies, or practices of such a government.

he·gem·o·ny (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/hegemony) (h-jm-n, hj-mn)
n. pl. he·gem·o·nies
The predominant influence, as of a state, region, or group, over another or others.

In a world economy, it is highly improbable that any country could exert this type of influence. Especially given the strength of the Euro.

There was an imminent threat of Saddam giving or selling those weapons to terrorists.
And just how would he be able to pull that off with UN inspectors crawling all over the place, with all the worlds' eyes focused on Iraq, and a continued monitoring of Iraqi air space and satellite surveillance, not to mention the numerous intelligence operators that were involved.

Honestly, why do you keep defending these countries who had a vested interest i leaving Saddam in power? The intelligence at the time -not today- suggested he had the weapons. He had the weapons when he kicked out inspectors in 1998. Why didn't the UN act then?
Tens of thousands of Iraqi casualties are the result of the US decision to invade Iraq. These casualties were unnecessary in the eyes of the majority. Regardless of what happened in 1998, the UN did send inspectors back into Iraq in November of 2002, and they were not finding any of these smoking guns that the US intel was referring too. They should have been allowed to pursue their quest but the US resisted attempts to bolster that force and give them the time to complete their mandate. This is where the US logic breaks down and the Security Council was right in refusing to sanction an invasion of Iraq.

And the inspectors did find prohibited munitions in 2002-03.
What did the inspectors find (you have a listing?), and what were they doing about them?

The reason we were dissatisfied by Saddam's level of cooperation is that he was supposed to make a full accounting for existing of destroyd munitions....and he didn't.
The UN Security Council was satisfied with the inspections program, and so was the chief UN inspector, Hans Blix. Why did the US insist on acting over and above these people?

Quit apologizing for a brutal, lying, obstinate dictator and look at the facts.
I am not apologizing for Saddam in the least. You on the other hand are making excuses for Bush's decision to invade Iraq which resulted in the deaths and/or injuries to tens of thousands of innocent men, women, and children, and the shameless destruction of Iraqi infastructure, such as electrical plants, and water systems.

As much as I was shocked and dismayed by the acts of terrorists that crashed planes into the WTC and Pentagon, I was equally shocked by the US "Shock and Awe Show", that has resulted in unnecessary carnage, an increase of hatred towards the US, and an increase in terrorism. All in the name of defending the US from a country that didn't even have a viable air force. Quit apologizing for Bush.

Remember where those terrorists came from to fly airplanes into US buildings? Oh yeah they were from Saudi Arabia, or have you people forgotten that important fact?

He was obviously not cooperating in the spirit of the resolutions.
You do realize that even Blair was hoping to put off any invasion until the fall? Saddam was co-operating, and the process was moving forward. Read Blix's report. If anything, he was requesting more inspectors and more time.

France had an interest in keeping Saddam in power! I really don't understand how you can keep defending their threat of veto when it's obviously sinister and dishonest.
Russia and China were also involved in the process or have you forgotten that? I re-iterate that France WAS willing to support an invasion of Iraq, IF Saddam did not comply with the Resolution. Get your facts straightened out. Bush needed a whipping boy and chose France, and there were political reasons for him to not want to blame China or Russia.

And 48 countries are currently members of the coalition, so what's your point? Oh, that members are joining and leaving of their own volition. That's the beauty of freedom, you can choose the method and time of your own action or inaction. I would point out that more countries are participating than have left the coalition. Nice try though.
According to the official US web site, there is a list of 46 coalition members. That list was compiled in March of 2003. As of today, over a third of them have quit, unless you have a different list?

And just how would he be able to pull that off with UN inspectors crawling all over the place, with all the worlds' eyes focused on Iraq, and a continued monitoring of Iraqi air space and satellite surveillance, not to mention the numerous intelligence operators that were involved.


He obviously didn't have any trouble sending weapons to the Palestinian territories. Not just money, but weapons.

You can watch all you want from air and space, and you're not going to see the small things. The Palestinians received small rockets from Iraq this way - as well as small arms and RPGs.

As for intelligence operators, there is apparently a consensus at this time that the sources within Iraq prior to the war have turned out to be worthless.

The UN Inspectors had been thrown out - they weren't crawling all over the place, either.

In fact, even Saddam didn't know what was going on with his own WMD. According to Taha, the woman who ran his biological weapons program, she had 1800 gallons of undeclared anthrax, and she didn't want to get caught with it. So under cover of night, she and her co-workers dumped it in a hole near one of Saddam's palaces. Of course, she didn't tell Saddam (that might be fatal). So the UN inspectors continued to say, "where's the 1800 gallons?" and she said, "we don't have it". Saddam thought she was being cute - he thought they still had the anthrax - and she was telling the truth - they didn't have it.

Not even a dictator in charge of a police state knew what was going on in Iraq. Take your delusions about "intelligence" and reconsider your position.

In fact, even Saddam didn't know what was going on with his own WMD. According to Taha, the woman who ran his biological weapons program, she had 1800 gallons of undeclared anthrax, and she didn't want to get caught with it. So under cover of night, she and her co-workers dumped it in a hole near one of Saddam's palaces. Of course, she didn't tell Saddam (that might be fatal). So the UN inspectors continued to say, "where's the 1800 gallons?" and she said, "we don't have it". Saddam thought she was being cute - he thought they still had the anthrax - and she was telling the truth - they didn't have it.

Not even a dictator in charge of a police state knew what was going on in Iraq. Take your delusions about "intelligence" and reconsider your position.

Hmmm, since this person says that the anthrax was buried somewhere, and you know of it, US military intelligence would most likely have at least a good approximate location where it was buried. Trumpetting it around would certainly be a massive political/moral gain for the current admin. So.....where is it?

Or is it no longer newsworthy?

Hmmm, since this person says that the anthrax was buried somewhere, and you know of it, US military intelligence would most likely have at least a good approximate location where it was buried. Trumpetting it around would certainly be a massive political/moral gain for the current admin. So.....where is it?

Or is it no longer newsworthy?

This story quietly came and went this spring. It got good play in conservative papers, but was completely ignored in the rest of the American press. Can you say, "we don't want to give the US any credit for finding out where WMD went?"

ASSOCIATED PRESS

An Iraqi scientist has told U.S. interrogators that her team destroyed Iraq's stock of anthrax in 1991 by dumping it practically at the gates of one of Saddam's main palaces, but never told U.N. inspectors for fear of angering the dictator. Rihab Rashid Taha's decision in 2003 to remain silent stoked suspicions of those who contended Iraq still harbored biological weapons, contributing to the U.S. decision to invade Iraq two years ago this month. "Whether those involved understood the significance and disastrous consequences of their actions is unclear," the CIA-led Iraq Survey Group says of Mrs. Taha and colleagues in its final report on the search for Iraq weapons. "These efforts demonstrate the problems that existed on both sides in establishing the truth."

Two years after the U.S.-led invasion toppled Saddam Hussein, the coalition is unraveling (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050315/D88RL27G0.html) amid mounting casualties and kidnappings that have stoked anti-war sentiment and sapped leaders' resolve to keep troops in harm's way.

Coalition members as of March 20, 2003:

Afghanistan
Albania
Australia
Azerbaijan
Bulgaria
Colombia
Costa Rica
Czech Republic
Denmark
Dominican Republic
El Salvador
Eritrea
Estonia
Ethiopia
Georgia
Honduras
Hungary
Iceland
Italy
Japan
Kuwait
Latvia
Lithuania
Macedonia
Marshall Islands
Micronesia
Mongolia
Netherlands
Nicaragua
Palau
Panama
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Rwanda
Singapore
Slovakia
Solomon Islands
South Korea
Spain
Turkey
Uganda
United Kingdom
United States
Uzbekistan

In red, are those that have left or are withdrawing support. And no, I didn't forget Poland. :D

Countries that joined after and have since removed their troops or are preparing to do so:

New Zealand
Norway
Thailand
Tonga
Ukraine

While South Korea and the UK continue to have troops in Iraq, there is a high level of anti war sentiment. The somewhat formidible lineup is somwhat less formidible today?

Anthrax dumped near Saddam palace
By Charles J. Hanley
ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published March 29, 2005
An Iraqi scientist has told U.S. interrogators that her team destroyed Iraq's stock of anthrax in 1991 by dumping it practically at the gates of one of Saddam's main palaces, but never told U.N. inspectors for fear of angering the dictator.

Rihab Rashid Taha's decision in 2003 to remain silent stoked suspicions of those who contended Iraq still harbored biological weapons, contributing to the U.S. decision to invade Iraq two years ago this month.

"Whether those involved understood the significance and disastrous consequences of their actions is unclear," the CIA-led Iraq Survey Group says of Mrs. Taha and colleagues in its final report on the search for Iraq weapons. "These efforts demonstrate the problems that existed on both sides in establishing the truth."

The anthrax mystery had bedeviled U.N. inspectors since the 1990s, when Iraqis said that they had made 2,191 gallons of the bacterial substance before the 1991 Gulf War.

Anthrax is considered highly suited for biowarfare because its spores are easily produced, durable and deadly when inhaled.

The Iraqis said they destroyed all of the anthrax in mid-1991 at their bioweapons center at Hakam, 50 miles southwest of Baghdad.

The U.N. specialists, who scoured Iraq for banned arms from 1991 to 1998 and again in 2002 and 2003, confirmed anthrax had been dumped at Hakam. But they also found indications that Iraq had produced an additional, undeclared 1,800 gallons of anthrax.

In early 2003, chief inspector Hans Blix put the seeming discrepancy high on his list of Iraq's "unresolved disarmament issues," complaining that Iraqis must be withholding information. Secretary of State Colin L. Powell dwelled on an anthrax threat in his February 2003 speech seeking U.N. Security Council authority for war.

But the mystery of the missing anthrax appears to have been resolved in a little-noted section of the Iraq Survey Group report, a 350,000-word document issued Oct. 6.

The British-educated Mrs. Taha, who ran the Hakam complex in the 1980s, told interrogators her staff carted off anthrax from Hakam in April 1991 and stored it in a bungalow near the presidential palace at Radwaniyah, 20 miles west of Baghdad, the U.S. teams report.

Later that year, the crew dumped the chemically deactivated anthrax on grounds surrounded by a Special Republican Guard barracks near the palace, the report says.

Australian microbiologist Rod Barton, who took part in Iraq Survey Group interrogations, said in a recent Australian Broadcasting Corp. interview that the disposal was carried out in July 1991, when Iraqi orders were issued to destroy all bioweapons agents immediately.

Then, through the years, Mrs. Taha and other Iraqi officials denied the "missing" anthrax ever existed.

"The members of the program were too fearful to tell the regime that they had dumped deactivated anthrax within sight of one of the principal presidential palaces," the Iraq Survey Group says.

Buried or destroyed? Buried indicates that it was dumped in sealed containers, unless of course Mrs Taha and her colleagues went in wearing hazmat suits and possibly exposing the rest of the neighbourhood to the contagion.

If the latter, I really don't know what to say.

In the case of the former, that would mean at least some form of secure container was used to keep the anthrax within. Unearthing said containers alone with whatever trace amounts would at least provide the evidence to give some political gain. Unless the containers were biodegradable (stupid move if you wanted to keep pathogens inside), or the area so shelled to the point where it was turned into a big crater (thus releasing the pathogen), it should still be there.

So.....where is it?

He obviously didn't have any trouble sending weapons to the Palestinian territories. Not just money, but weapons.
Source?

You can watch all you want from air and space, and you're not going to see the small things. The Palestinians received small rockets from Iraq this way - as well as small arms and RPGs.
Source?

As for intelligence operators, there is apparently a consensus at this time that the sources within Iraq prior to the war have turned out to be worthless.
Somehow, I do not find that surprising. Will the world ever trust US intelligence in the future, since Bush did such a great hatchet job on them?

The UN Inspectors had been thrown out - they weren't crawling all over the place, either.
They were thrown out in 1998, but in 2003, they had no choice but to leave, because the US announced that Iraq was going to be invaded.

In fact, even Saddam didn't know what was going on with his own WMD. According to Taha, the woman who ran his biological weapons program, she had 1800 gallons of undeclared anthrax, and she didn't want to get caught with it. So under cover of night, she and her co-workers dumped it in a hole near one of Saddam's palaces. Of course, she didn't tell Saddam (that might be fatal). So the UN inspectors continued to say, "where's the 1800 gallons?" and she said, "we don't have it". Saddam thought she was being cute - he thought they still had the anthrax - and she was telling the truth - they didn't have it.
Source?

Not even a dictator in charge of a police state knew what was going on in Iraq. Take your delusions about "intelligence" and reconsider your position.
If anyone had "delusions about intelligence", it would have been Bush? How many Iraqis were involved in 9/11? Oh yeah...NONE!! How many Saudis? Oh yeah, 15 of the 19. You've got toothless tabby Saddam, where is Osama?

Originally Posted by Whispering Legs
He obviously didn't have any trouble sending weapons to the Palestinian territories. Not just money, but weapons.

Originally Posted by Whispering Legs
You can watch all you want from air and space, and you're not going to see the small things. The Palestinians received small rockets from Iraq this way - as well as small arms and RPGs.


Source? > To demonstrate how easy it is to bring things by ship to the Palestinian territories, use your google-fu and look the the Karine A. It's the standard method of bringing things into the territories. That shipment was Iranian, but many Arab nations sponsor this sort of thing - war by proxy. In addition, Saddam gave millions to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers - and no one is disputing that fact.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whispering Legs
In fact, even Saddam didn't know what was going on with his own WMD. According to Taha, the woman who ran his biological weapons program, she had 1800 gallons of undeclared anthrax, and she didn't want to get caught with it. So under cover of night, she and her co-workers dumped it in a hole near one of Saddam's palaces. Of course, she didn't tell Saddam (that might be fatal). So the UN inspectors continued to say, "where's the 1800 gallons?" and she said, "we don't have it". Saddam thought she was being cute - he thought they still had the anthrax - and she was telling the truth - they didn't have it.


Source? > I already posted the full article. Associated Press.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Whispering Legs
Not even a dictator in charge of a police state knew what was going on in Iraq. Take your delusions about "intelligence" and reconsider your position.


If anyone had "delusions about intelligence", it would have been Bush? How many Iraqis were involved in 9/11? Oh yeah...NONE!! How many Saudis? Oh yeah, 15 of the 19. You've got toothless tabby Saddam, where is Osama?

Iraq was not about 9-11. Stop saying it was.

If anyone had "delusions about intelligence", it would have been Bush? How many Iraqis were involved in 9/11? Oh yeah...NONE!! How many Saudis? Oh yeah, 15 of the 19. You've got toothless tabby Saddam, where is Osama?

Bush acted on "intelligence" that Iraq still had WMD. Something that the UN agreed with - the inspectors could not account for all of the anthrax, for instance. Something that Clinton agreed with (and still agrees with to this day).

Note that Bush and Clinton had the same intelligence officer - Tenet. The CIA was feeding BOTH of them wrong information. How were they to know it was wrong? That there were no WMD? Were they supposed to take Saddam's word for it?

I'll repeat something - even if you found Osama, nothing in the war on terror would change. There were over 100,000 al-Qaeda trainees who went through the camps in Afghanistan before the country fell to the US - and they are dispersed all over the globe. I know you want to be able to capture Osama and say, "we're done, let's stop the war on terror," but "they" aren't going to stop. Not until we're all dead.

I am one of the masses who disagreed (and still disagrre) with the war in Iraq.
This is not simply due to the fact that I am not a massive fan of violence or 'an eye for an eye' foreign policy, but also due to the fact that this was an undemocratic, illegal war which played on the fears of millions after September 11th and the beginning of the 'war on terror'.

[QUOTE=B0zzy]I guss you missed the part about 9/11 changed everything.
Yes, I agree with you, 9/11 did change everything. In our lifetime, we witnessed one of the most significant terrorits attacks in history; of course this changed things. September the 11th was a terrible tragedy.
However, as soon as those planes hit the twin towers, the rest of the world knew that it was only a matter of time before the US demonstrated her strength and agression. Saddam Hussain had nothing to do with september 11th, but the US government clearly needed to demonstrate that they were the biggest bully in the playground, so to speak.


[QUOTE B0zzy] After you get attacked you'll get it.

I believe that many Iraqis would agree with you.


[QUOTE B0zzy]Even without WMDs Saddam had terrorized his neighbors (rember Kuwait and the Kurds, not to mention millions of unlucky Shiites) without mercy.

I think that the point here is that if we face facts, America is really not that bothered about kuwaitis, kurds or shiites, this was about power, oil, displays of strength... ooh and did I mention that US economy is at its best when the US is at war.
Yes Saddam has committed some terrible atrocities, but if Bush was (or is) so bothered about levels of torture and violation of human rights, why is he not attempting to tackle the many murderous dictators we have on this planet, why is he not attempting to cancel third world debt, why is he not doing more to improve the environment... I guess that kindness isn't its own reward- oil is.

[QUOTE B0zzy] The USA will no longer ignore, look the other way or remotely even tolerate terrorist regimes, nor should the rest of the civilized world.

I do have a slight problem with the world civilised, especially when you pause to consider that the only country which has ever deployed nuclear weapons upon another country is, in fact, the US.

Bush acted on "intelligence" that Iraq still had WMD. Something that the UN agreed with - the inspectors could not account for all of the anthrax, for instance. Something that Clinton agreed with (and still agrees with to this day).

There are two sources cited as credible by Busheviks when it suits their purposes and then mocked and derided as irrelevant the rest of the time. One of these is the United Nations. The other is Bill Clinton. If you're not going to give him credit when he doesn't say something favorable to your viewpoint, why give him credit now?

Note that Bush and Clinton had the same intelligence officer - Tenet. The CIA was feeding BOTH of them wrong information. How were they to know it was wrong? That there were no WMD? Were they supposed to take Saddam's word for it?

And even then, Tenet was given the Medal of Freedom which has never been revoked despite the intelligence cockup that Iraq has turned out to be. The most glaring example of the Peter Principle in action.

I'll repeat something - even if you found Osama, nothing in the war on terror would change. There were over 100,000 al-Qaeda trainees who went through the camps in Afghanistan before the country fell to the US - and they are dispersed all over the globe. I know you want to be able to capture Osama and say, "we're done, let's stop the war on terror," but "they" aren't going to stop. Not until we're all dead.

And yet in the same breath, capturing Saddam Hussein long after Iraq was neutered militarily and millions of their population were murdered for political reasons is a major slam dunk for the War on Terrorism?

Still, why suggest ignoring Bin Ladin? Unless letting him mastermind a few more attacks would only give more material for the Bush Administration to distract the American public with, that is.

The Orwellian nature of the Iraqi regime prior to the US invasion is probably more to blame for the faulty intelligence about WMD.

The UN and everyone else (except the Iraqis) felt that Iraq had illicitly made about 1800 gallons of anthrax. The Iraqis denied having it, and everyone else was looking for it.

On the face of it, it looked like Saddam was lying.

But beneath all this, according to his head of bioweapons, Taha, the anthrax DID exist - but she didn't want Iraq to get caught with it. So she got rid of it - without telling Saddam. Dumped it right next to one of Saddam's palaces.

So they DID have 1800 gallons of anthrax - until she got rid of it without telling Saddam. Saddam continued to "lie" and she got to tell the "truth" when talking to inspectors. All so she wouldn't get shot.

1800 gallons of anthrax is more than enough to kill everyone in the world. And you don't need more than a few kilos thrown in the air over a major city to kill most of the people who live there. We're lucky that she was smart enough to deactivate it before dumping it.

Now, given the complete lack of "intelligence" on this until after we captured her, and even Saddam's complete ignorance of this, what bright-eyed person do you know who would be able to say what happened to 1800 gallons of anthrax? An amount the UN says was missing?

What if she hadn't gotten rid of it? How was anyone to know, given the regime in place? How hard do you think it would be to smuggle a kilo of anthrax spores to any place in the world?

Would you rather be wrong about invading Iraq, or wrong about someone later dispersing a few kilos of anthrax?

Just to note something - the existence of the 1800 gallons of illicit anthrax is NOT in dispute - not by Taha (the head of the Iraqi bioweapons program), nor by the UN, nor by the UK, nor by the Russians, nor by US intelligence.

Hey, lets go free Iraqis from Saddam by using Shock and Awe tactics, aka dropping thousands of bombs on a civilian population. :rolleyes:


Shock and awe worked. an army was quickly defeated-even faster than France rolled over for Nazi Germany. There was a minimum of civilian casualties and damage to the countries infrastructure, which is now being rebuilt-better than before. sadaam was removed. he now has to ask for permission to relieve himself.

Thousands of bombs were not dropped on a civilian population, but its probably pretty fun for you to fantasize about. Nice try.

Shock and awe worked. an army was quickly defeated-even faster than France rolled over for Nazi Germany. There was a minimum of civilian casualties and damage to the countries infrastructure, which is now being rebuilt-better than before. sadaam was removed. he now has to ask for permission to relieve himself.

Thousands of bombs were not dropped on a civilian population, but its probably pretty fun for you to fantasize about. Nice try.

I keep wondering where people get this idea that no Iraqi forces were bombed - that only civilians were indiscriminately bombed. It's rather difficult to use precision GPS guided weapons indiscriminately.

And yet in the same breath, capturing Saddam Hussein long after Iraq was neutered militarily and millions of their population were murdered for political reasons is a major slam dunk for the War on Terrorism?

Still, why suggest ignoring Bin Ladin? Unless letting him mastermind a few more attacks would only give more material for the Bush Administration to distract the American public with, that is.


Who do you suggest murdered millions of their population again?

The Bush administration doesnt need to "distract" the American public, They are there till the next election. Get used to it. Its nice to portray us as easily distracted, but thats not the case at all. We're more aware of the state of things and as a whole, have more balls than a majority of the nations out there who find it easier to turn a blind eye to a problem than grab it by the horns and deal with it. You wont confront something till its on fire in your lap and then you'll look for a reason to blame it on the US. And then we find you were in bed with the problem to begin with.
bin laden will be caught. dead or alive-then they'll be whining that he shouldnt have been killed or it took too long. We dont need to make you happy about it though, in case you didnt notice.

I keep wondering where people get this idea that no Iraqi forces were bombed - that only civilians were indiscriminately bombed. It's rather difficult to use precision GPS guided weapons indiscriminately.


its all the fashion to spout this crap. especially when you dont feel good about yourself or where you're from. maybe problems with mommy and daddy.

He obviously didn't have any trouble sending weapons to the Palestinian territories. Not just money, but weapons.
I just wanted to back up on this item. While Iraq may have been supplying weapons and money to Palestinians, what has the US been doing over the past decades? Sending billions upon billions of dollars towards Israeli defence. Who gave Israel nuclear technology? Why doesn't the US push for removal of WMD from Israel? BTW, what is the kill ratio of Israelis to Palestinians? Isn't it in the neighbourhood of 5 Palestinians die for every Israeli that is killed?

People on both sides can argue that the other side is wrong but it doesn't resolve the underlying problem, which is a lack of a peaceful resolution.

The US has thrown over a $100 Billion down the drain in Iraq. Imagine if only a fraction of that money had been spent on the squalid conditions in the Palestinian territory? Can you imagine using that money for peaceful purposes rather than creating more death and destruction in Iraq, and in the process, fueling more hatred and contempt towards America?

Can you imagine a benevolent America actual fostering peace and in a peaceful manner? No, it appears that the US agenda is to build more destructive weapons, and "smarter" bombs, at the behest of dare I say "dumber" politicians.

It appears that the US is quite happy in "enforcing" its' perceived leadership rather than providing leaders that can effect a positive, peaceful solution to the problems of the world.

its all the fashion to spout this crap. especially when you dont feel good about yourself or where you're from. maybe problems with mommy and daddy.
I think that some of it comes from a complete and utter ignorance of what weapon systems and capabilities the US has at this time.

We're not just a large military - we have the most technologically advanced forces on Earth.

The driving force behind the development of precision munitions (and they constitute nearly all munitions now) is to reduce civilian casualties while destroying military assets in as short a time as possible, for as little money as possible.

Things like the cruise missile are old tech. They cost 1.5 million per shot, and they had a tendency to occasionally land in the wrong place.

JDAM munitions and JSOW are the new tech. They cost 15,000 dollars to add to any bomb, and it lands in the wrong place only when the user puts in the wrong coordinates. Otherwise, it lands within 8 feet of the target.

Even our cluster bombs are smarter. Instead of a shower of hundreds of bomblets that bounce everywhere and kill indiscriminately, we have only 40 in the bomb - and each one homes in on an individual vehicle in a coordinated attack.

Even the close air support is better. The AC-130 can hit an individual running man with any of its weapons - pick him out of a crowd with a 25mm shell.

So when I hear "indiscriminate bombing", I'm thinking of the French Air Force. Not the US Air Force. We don't drop dumb bombs anymore.

I just wanted to back up on this item. While Iraq may have been supplying weapons and money to Palestinians, what has the US been doing over the past decades? Sending billions upon billions of dollars towards Israeli defence. Who gave Israel nuclear technology? Why doesn't the US push for removal of WMD from Israel? BTW, what is the kill ratio of Israelis to Palestinians? Isn't it in the neighbourhood of 5 Palestinians die for every Israeli that is killed?

People on both sides can argue that the other side is wrong but it doesn't resolve the underlying problem, which is a lack of a peaceful resolution.

The US has thrown over a $100 Billion down the drain in Iraq. Imagine if only a fraction of that money had been spent on the squalid conditions in the Palestinian territory? Can you imagine using that money for peaceful purposes rather than creating more death and destruction in Iraq, and in the process, fueling more hatred and contempt towards America?

Can you imagine a benevolent America actual fostering peace and in a peaceful manner? No, it appears that the US agenda is to build more destructive weapons, and "smarter" bombs, at the behest of dare I say "dumber" politicians.

It appears that the US is quite happy in "enforcing" its' perceived leadership rather than providing leaders that can effect a positive, peaceful solution to the problems of the world.


If we hadn't provided Israel with the money and weapons over the years, they wouldn't exist. As for peace process, every one of our Presidents has tried to dance with Arafat, but as you might have figured out, Arafat was not negotiating in good faith. To him, it was just an exercise to make money and engage in self-aggrandizement.

Now that Arafat is dead, things are progressing. Sorry, but the assholishness of Arafat was not the fault of the US, nor was it the result of giving weapons to Israel.

Or how about we go after Iraq because it has a huge humanitarian crisis, but , Starvation, or other problems with the war that plague the Iraqi people! And for that matter, lets totally ignore that our Budget deficiet is bigger than the GDP of Alot of Countries. Thats alot of stealing we'll have to do to pay it off. Oh well! Thats why we went into Iraq. To Steal!

How about we war other nations so we can forget about our demostic problems, maybe even letting us ban the fillibuster, so we can not only screw the US and the World during Bush's reign, but we can set up further Republican Rape of the System. HOLD HER DOWN DICKI'M GONNA PENETRATE! Rape is a Republican passtime!


Stealing? What is the US stealing, by the way? Are we looting the Iraqi treasury? Are we sneaking out oil tankers in the middle of the night to sell at an international flea market and then paying down our debt with the proceeds? are we hiding it in Switzerland? Surely someone must have heard of this happening-there must be some shred somewhere. Maybe our soldiers are all going to carry the loot home with them?

What system is being raped? Where? Its a Republican "passtime"?
Get back to class before the teacher notices you're gone. You wont get a smiley face on your paper today if that happens.

I think that some of it comes from a complete and utter ignorance of what weapon systems and capabilities the US has at this time.

We're not just a large military - we have the most technologically advanced forces on Earth.

The driving force behind the development of precision munitions (and they constitute nearly all munitions now) is to reduce civilian casualties while destroying military assets in as short a time as possible, for as little money as possible.

Things like the cruise missile are old tech. They cost 1.5 million per shot, and they had a tendency to occasionally land in the wrong place.

JDAM munitions and JSOW are the new tech. They cost 15,000 dollars to add to any bomb, and it lands in the wrong place only when the user puts in the wrong coordinates. Otherwise, it lands within 8 feet of the target.

Even our cluster bombs are smarter. Instead of a shower of hundreds of bomblets that bounce everywhere and kill indiscriminately, we have only 40 in the bomb - and each one homes in on an individual vehicle in a coordinated attack.

Even the close air support is better. The AC-130 can hit an individual running man with any of its weapons - pick him out of a crowd with a 25mm shell.

So when I hear "indiscriminate bombing", I'm thinking of the French Air Force. Not the US Air Force. We don't drop dumb bombs anymore.

I'm well aware of all of this. And its a direct reflection of a society that doesnt want to bomb indiscriminately. We dont want to kill civilians or damage their property. No other nation on the planet would invest the time, cash and resources the US has into improving this technology.

I'm well aware of all of this. And its a direct reflection of a society that doesnt want to bomb indiscriminately. We dont want to kill civilians or damage their property. No other nation on the planet would invest the time, cash and resources the US has into improving this technology.

So true. If we just wanted to bomb indiscriminately, we could roll unguided bombs out the back door of a regular airliner once the pilot told us we were over Iraq. Probably cheaper than all that stealth and GPS and all those fancy super-precise weapons.

Then we could go house to house with flamethrowers.

So true. If we just wanted to bomb indiscriminately, we could roll unguided bombs out the back door of a regular airliner once the pilot told us we were over Iraq. Probably cheaper than all that stealth and GPS and all those fancy super-precise weapons.

Then we could go house to house with flamethrowers.


I think we could make it even cheaper- there are surplus stockpiles of old munitions from WWII, Korea and Vietnam. Load them all onto bombers and drop all of it on them-just anywhere within Iraq's borders. We would be freeing up a lot of US real-estate to make room for all the new better "death dealing equipment we mass produce and sell to whomever has the cash,and the weapons we drop wouldnt even need to detonate-we could just bury them in old iron. And we could fuel the planes with all the oil we are stealing and pay the pilots with all the jewels, gold bullion and priceless works of art we're carting out. We could wind up making money by killing "millions" of innocent civilans. (this is total sarcasm, by the way.)

I think we could make it even cheaper- there are surplus stockpiles of old munitions from WWII, Korea and Vietnam. Load them all onto bombers and drop all of it on them-just anywhere within Iraq's borders. We would be freeing up a lot of US real-estate to make room for all the new better "death dealing equipment we mass produce and sell to whomever has the cash,and the weapons we drop wouldnt even need to detonate-we could just bury them in old iron. And we could fuel the planes with all the oil we are stealing and pay the pilots with all the jewels, gold bullion and priceless works of art we're carting out. We could wind up making money by killing "millions" of innocent civilans. (this is total sarcasm, by the way.)

And we don't even have to train our soldiers - just grab any young kid off the street without warning and hand them a gun and drop them into Baghdad.

And we don't even have to train our soldiers - just grab any young kid off the street without warning and hand them a gun and drop them into Baghdad.


I wouldnt just grab "any" kid though- you'd have to have the really mean "trigger happy" ones- we need soldiers that will "spray and pray" at anything that moves to keep earning our reputation. And fill their packs with women's panties so if they happen to take a live prisoner, they can torture them by pulling panties over their heads.

I wouldnt just grab "any" kid though- you'd have to have the really mean "trigger happy" ones- we need soldiers that will "spray and pray" at anything that moves to keep earning our reputation. And fill their packs with women's panties so if they happen to take a live prisoner, they can torture them by pulling panties over their heads.

Don't forget to select for men who like to take homoerotic pictures, and give them all digital cameras.

Don't forget to select for men who like to take homoerotic pictures, and give them all digital cameras.


Yeah. The US military loves a puppy pile of naked stinky bearded guys. think of the money that could be made selling memberships to the site on the internet.

Bush acted on "intelligence" that Iraq still had WMD. Something that the UN agreed with - the inspectors could not account for all of the anthrax, for instance. Something that Clinton agreed with (and still agrees with to this day).

Note that Bush and Clinton had the same intelligence officer - Tenet. The CIA was feeding BOTH of them wrong information. How were they to know it was wrong? That there were no WMD? Were they supposed to take Saddam's word for it?

I'll repeat something - even if you found Osama, nothing in the war on terror would change. There were over 100,000 al-Qaeda trainees who went through the camps in Afghanistan before the country fell to the US - and they are dispersed all over the globe. I know you want to be able to capture Osama and say, "we're done, let's stop the war on terror," but "they" aren't going to stop. Not until we're all dead.


WL, why do you bother, CH is a loon, He has repeatedly shown himself to ignore facts.

Who do you suggest murdered millions of their population again?

The Bush administration doesnt need to "distract" the American public, They are there till the next election. Get used to it. Its nice to portray us as easily distracted, but thats not the case at all. We're more aware of the state of things and as a whole, have more balls than a majority of the nations out there who find it easier to turn a blind eye to a problem than grab it by the horns and deal with it. You wont confront something till its on fire in your lap and then you'll look for a reason to blame it on the US. And then we find you were in bed with the problem to begin with.
bin laden will be caught. dead or alive-then they'll be whining that he shouldnt have been killed or it took too long. We dont need to make you happy about it though, in case you didnt notice.

Hussein had been killing Iraqis since he came into power, but the American populace was at best apathetic about it until Iraq invaded Kuwait... then all of a sudden he became the Mid East Stalin (which is funny since Hussein modeled his own political career after him.)

Bush is on his last term so he really doesn't need to distract the American public any more, unless a major (read "cannot be ignored") cock-up under his watch becomes public news and there's suddenly a much more unified and denser cry for impeachment.

The 2004 election is a big demonstration of how easily the American public is distracted: The vast majority of people voting Bush who were polled said they did it on "Moral Values" (ie dehumanizing homosexuals) than were actually worried about terrorist strikes in the CONUS. And as if it hasn't been pointed out before, the choicest terrorists targets are mostly large metropolitan areas that tended to be in Blue States, as opposed to the rural sections of the Red States; the Red Staters were duped into believing Al Qaeda would hit their region.

Confronting the problem when it is undeniably active instead of being potential, while not a comfortable option, is a lot less politically volatile than pre-emptive strike AKA the Uncle Jimbo Doctrine ("IT'S COMIN' RIGHT FOR US!!" BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM...).

Aside from being less than kosher (not that Busheviks care what's kosher for the rest of the world until one of their interests gets compromised then they start crying about how the rest of the world is evil for not abiding by it) Pre-Emptive Strike opens up a can of worm that every rogue nation can fall upon as an excuse to invade their neighbors.

If one of these nations happen to invade American interests, the US is not going to have much moral leverage to say "Hey that's not right" when the aggressor simply says "We're defending ourselves with a pre-emptive strike."

And if the US responds with a pre-emptive strike in turn, well, it just devolves closer and closer to World War 3.

So far the American military efforts have all been focused on handling Iraqnam. No mention of any major Al Qaeda hunting parties anywhere else in the world. Bin Ladin is still loose, probably in the wild backwaters of Pakistan where even Bush's pet dictator Musharraf is afraid to send in the troops.

Don't forget to select for men who like to take homoerotic pictures, and give them all digital cameras.

And once those pictures are taken you can court-martial them for violating the Don't Ask Don't Tell Policy.

:rolleyes:

If we hadn't provided Israel with the money and weapons over the years, they wouldn't exist. As for peace process, every one of our Presidents has tried to dance with Arafat, but as you might have figured out, Arafat was not negotiating in good faith. To him, it was just an exercise to make money and engage in self-aggrandizement.

Now that Arafat is dead, things are progressing. Sorry, but the assholishness of Arafat was not the fault of the US, nor was it the result of giving weapons to Israel.

Giving Israel money and weapons is like giving Bill Gates the Mega Millions jackpot; both are so goddamn self-sufficient it borders on welfare.

After all, Israel brags about being the most militarily prepared and equipped nation in the world so why would America resort to political welfare with them? Besides, Israel has nukes which the United States will never invade the country over so any of the Mid East powers trying to invade or destroy it will go down with them.

Theoretically things should progress with Arafat dead, but so far Israel is keeping the policy with Abbas the same, namely undermining his authority, credibility and capability to deal with terrorists in his ranks and then blaming him for the problems which results.

Hussein had been killing Iraqis since he came into power, but the American populace was at best apathetic about it until Iraq invaded Kuwait... then all of a sudden he became the Mid East Stalin (which is funny since Hussein modeled his own political career after him.)


I'm sorry we dont react as quickly as you like, or for the right reasons-as deemed by you. But we did react-quite effectively both times. With relatively little support from anyone else-including our so called allies. I dont care what any one claims, but no one put anywhere near the rersources into this that the US did.
So, it looks like we wont make you happy. We should have either taken out sadaam on the day he comitted his first murder (I think he was 10 or twelve) or never touch him. or something in between that you cant specify. Maybe we could have left the job to the good people of Europe. You talk about apathy? We all know how they loathe mass murder and genocide and how quickly they make a resolution and then carry it out. These types of crimes just wont be tolerated, huh?
Maybe you have a point. Maybe the US shouldnt worry about anything beyond our borders. With power comes responsibilty? Nahh-We could let the rest of the planet fester and choke each other to death.

The 2004 election is a big demonstration of how easily the American public is distracted: The vast majority of people voting Bush who were polled said they did it on "Moral Values" (ie dehumanizing homosexuals) than were actually worried about terrorist strikes in the CONUS. And as if it hasn't been pointed out before, the choicest terrorists targets are mostly large metropolitan areas that tended to be in Blue States, as opposed to the rural sections of the Red States; the Red Staters were duped into believing Al Qaeda would hit their region.



The American public is not distracted. They voted decisively. Dont try to make your biased and uninformed opinion sound like its a fact-you'll only fool your own liberal, American bashing types. And their small screechy voices have become so tire some.
We like the idea that terrorists are being chased wherever they hide. No one is or was panicking that there would be a terrosist attack. No one was duped, my friend. Exept, perhaps you. And its an odd set of values when you feel Bush is somehow "dehumanizing homosexuals" and yet you have an underlying animosity towards Israel.I guess these are consistant with that intellectual european aura.
Your opinions are cock-eyed and irrelevant. Tell the mirror.

The American public is not distracted. They voted decisively.

LOL. Sorry, that was just hilarious and had to be quoted.

I'm sorry we dont react as quickly as you like, or for the right reasons-as deemed by you. But we did react-quite effectively both times. With relatively little support from anyone else-including our so called allies. I dont care what any one claims, but no one put anywhere near the rersources into this that the US did.

Since when is lemming-grade obedience the definition of being an ally? Everyone else except the US knew that Iraq's NBC capabilities had been neutered since Desert Storm and yet Bush pushed for the invasion to avenge Daddy's pussying out and to wag the dog over his piss-poor domestic policies. And even Britain only went along to keep up the traditional alliance but the deal is still going to cost Blair a lot of political points if not the Prime Ministry.

So, it looks like we wont make you happy. We should have either taken out sadaam on the day he comitted his first murder (I think he was 10 or twelve) or never touch him. or something in between that you cant specify. Maybe we could have left the job to the good people of Europe. You talk about apathy? We all know how they loathe mass murder and genocide and how quickly they make a resolution and then carry it out. These types of crimes just wont be tolerated, huh?

And here you fall back on the typical Bushevik tactic of blaming and deriding the United Nations for the lack of progress. The UN's resolutions are if anything stalled due to the veto spree of the Permanent Security Council Members... the foremost of which is America.

Maybe you have a point. Maybe the US shouldnt worry about anything beyond our borders. With power comes responsibilty? Nahh-We could let the rest of the planet fester and choke each other to death.

And then when you realize too late that America has globalized too much to be a self-sufficient superpower, it'll be something to induce more laughter when the rest of the planets chokes to death and the United States suffocates with it shortly thereafter.

I think that some of it comes from a complete and utter ignorance of what weapon systems and capabilities the US has at this time.

We're not just a large military - we have the most technologically advanced forces on Earth.

The driving force behind the development of precision munitions (and they constitute nearly all munitions now) is to reduce civilian casualties while destroying military assets in as short a time as possible, for as little money as possible.

Things like the cruise missile are old tech. They cost 1.5 million per shot, and they had a tendency to occasionally land in the wrong place.

JDAM munitions and JSOW are the new tech. They cost 15,000 dollars to add to any bomb, and it lands in the wrong place only when the user puts in the wrong coordinates. Otherwise, it lands within 8 feet of the target.

Even our cluster bombs are smarter. Instead of a shower of hundreds of bomblets that bounce everywhere and kill indiscriminately, we have only 40 in the bomb - and each one homes in on an individual vehicle in a coordinated attack.

Even the close air support is better. The AC-130 can hit an individual running man with any of its weapons - pick him out of a crowd with a 25mm shell.

So when I hear "indiscriminate bombing", I'm thinking of the French Air Force. Not the US Air Force. We don't drop dumb bombs anymore.
And yet you're the unchallenged kings of 'friendly fire'. How odd.

And yet you're the unchallenged kings of 'friendly fire'. How odd.

The only reason our friendly fire rates are so high is because the UN is constantly begging for US miliatry intervention somewhere. I've got an idea, why don't we save a whole lot of money, pack up our baseball bats, and bring the players home? Eject the U.N. from it's valuable property in New York, and send it packing back to whatever European hellhole co-authored it.

The only thing that's different about Iraq 2 is that someone (Bush) finally got tired enough of the UN's bullshit to do something, and that anti-war demonstrators (who are predominantly Democrats and thus biased against the President) dislike Bush and need to breath hot air on someone.

Personally, I don't like war. Don't like death, or killing, in real life, but I wish people would stop bandying about pathetic lies about this war simply to make a case against Bush. Because it just isn't there.

Whoever claims that Bush is home free because he doesn't need to be elected again is wrong.

They Empire of Evil Republicans want to take over forever!


Anyways, to a more serious note. I hope the US loses all of its allies so that it can sink into a doom. The populace forgets that empires fall. And the US hasn't always been worth anything. 50 years.

The only reason our friendly fire rates are so high is because the UN is constantly begging for US miliatry intervention somewhere. I've got an idea, why don't we save a whole lot of money, pack up our baseball bats, and bring the players home? Eject the U.N. from it's valuable property in New York, and send it packing back to whatever European hellhole co-authored it.

Places that are not in American (read Bushevik) interests and thus are ignored by the United States anyways (read Sudan, Saudi Arabia, etc etc.)

And please, feel free to pull America out of the UN and eject it from New York. The UN can simply eject America from its governing body and without the Veto addiction America currently has as Permanent Security Council Member a lot more would get done.

The only thing that's different about Iraq 2 is that someone (Bush) finally got tired enough of the UN's bullshit to do something, and that anti-war demonstrators (who are predominantly Democrats and thus biased against the President) dislike Bush and need to breath hot air on someone.

Shrub's desire to invade Iraq had nothing to do with the United Nation's stance. He's quoted as having to wanted to go after Hussein to avenge Daddy's honor since 2000, even before 9-11 took place under his nose.

Personally, I don't like war. Don't like death, or killing, in real life, but I wish people would stop bandying about pathetic lies about this war simply to make a case against Bush. Because it just isn't there.

Bush has a lot of cases against him, and Iraq is just one not to mention the most visible.

Dear god, where to start?

The only reason our friendly fire rates are so high is because the UN is constantly begging for US miliatry intervention somewhere.
The US only goes on the interventions it wants to. No one is begging anyone else. Regardless, seems like the US is the one pushing for interventions here.

I've got an idea, why don't we save a whole lot of money, pack up our baseball bats, and bring the players home?
Perhaps because this would be political suicide?

Eject the U.N. from it's valuable property in New York, and send it packing back to whatever European hellhole co-authored it.
First might I add that the US was the driving force behind creating the UN. Secondly, I might take note that most Western European nations have a much higher standard of living than the US and are certainly cleaner than New York City. European hellhole, my ass.

The only thing that's different about Iraq 2 is that someone (Bush) finally got tired enough of the UN's bullshit to do something, and that anti-war demonstrators (who are predominantly Democrats and thus biased against the President) dislike Bush and need to breath hot air on someone.
What is different is: a) Iraq wasn't doing anything hostile this go around. b) the US did not exhaust all peaceful means, a requisite part to any legitimate intervention. c) the US went on faulty premises that most nations and the UN did not accept precisely because they were so unsubstantial. d) your irrational attitude seems to hint that you are the one biased here. Regardless, people around the world from various walks of life protested Bush's action, of virtually every political leaning.

Personally, I don't like war.
Good for you.

Don't like death, or killing, in real life, but I wish people would stop bandying about pathetic lies about this war simply to make a case against Bush.
WHat pathetic lies? THat there were no WMDs, which was the reason Bush invaded? That US intelligence was highly flawed, there was no plan drawn up for a post-war IRaq, that Iraq had nothing to do with this war on terror, etc? Because those become given truths by now.

Because it just isn't there.
I just gave a very brief outline above which has been colored in time and time again. I've yet to hear you make one line of defense.

Dear god, where to start?


The US only goes on the interventions it wants to. No one is begging anyone else. Regardless, seems like the US is the one pushing for interventions here.

So have another country invest the money in a decent army, so they can be the ones that lose their family members in some European/Middle Eastern country's war. We do it because we're the only ones who can (or are willing.)


Perhaps because this would be political suicide?


Our internal politics don't depend on world satisfaction, fortunately. Since Bush can't be re-elected anyway, he might as well ask Congress to make some radical foreign policy decisions.


First might I add that the US was the driving force behind creating the UN. Secondly, I might take note that most Western European nations have a much higher standard of living than the US and are certainly cleaner than New York City. European hellhole, my ass.

You are unfortunately correct on your first statement. As to you second statement, I shouldn't even dignify it with a response...but...

$6 a gallon for gas?
No religious freedom?
Inflationary economies?
Mean spirited people? (not everyone, mind you, but a lot of your fellow citizens)
Forced to pay exorbitant taxes to pay for useless social reforms (i.e. VAT and Swedish socialism)?
Higher standard of living?
I don't think so.

Besides, it was a metaphor.



What is different is: a) Iraq wasn't doing anything hostile this go around.


Iraq wasn't doing anything hostile to you, maybe. They were funding terrorism abroad in Israel, the U.S., Palestine, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, and Turkey by way of the Kurdish genocide. They were killing their OWN citizens by the thousands. Shall I go on? We know they were developing bio weapons, had previously used chemical weapons, and had tried to get nuclear weapons; they had a functioning reactor until Israel succesfully neutralized it in a precision strike that put even the U.S. to shame. Where did the weapons go? I can't answer that, but they didn't disappear. Maybe they became nonviable but the point is that they were there.

b) the US did not exhaust all peaceful means, a requisite part to any legitimate intervention.


Possibly. But the U.N. _was_ stalling, maybe we could have tried more options in a quicker amount of time if the U.N. had actually thought about the ideas we gave them.


c) the US went on faulty premises that most nations and the UN did not accept precisely because they were so unsubstantial.


Not really.


d) your irrational attitude seems to hint that you are the one biased here. Regardless, people around the world from various walks of life protested Bush's action, of virtually every political leaning.


The only reason you say I'm biased is because if you can't discount what I say, you feel the need to undermine my "credentials." However, the only credential I claim is that I am a product of a truly democratic society (lowercase d), and I can use my formidable reason to determine that the President of the U.S. is innocent of the crimes that European citizens constantly accuse him of. It is, simply put, libeling a man because you don't like the color of the house he lives in (White.)

Why some Europeans don't like Bush, I can't say, I can't really think of any logical mindset you could approach this with that would urge you to conjure up falsity to advance an irrational hatred for one man.

Personally, I think you're overplaying the "you're so biased because you don't agree with me" strategy.


Good for you.


WHat pathetic lies? THat there were no WMDs, which was the reason Bush invaded? That US intelligence was highly flawed, there was no plan drawn up for a post-war IRaq, that Iraq had nothing to do with this war on terror, etc? Because those become given truths by now.


I just gave a very brief outline above which has been colored in time and time again. I've yet to hear you make one line of defense.

Actually, I wasn't even referring to the WMDs, which I won't even touch with a ten foot pole (save the small factoid I pointed out above.)
I was referring to the people making wild claims about U.S. desire to steal oil, kill civilians, flaunt the UN, and force Muslims to commit gay acts on camera.
I was hoping you weren't one of them until I read the above line.

Quite frankly, I shouldn't have to single-handedly defend an entire war when I don't agree with parts of it. You should simply respect me enough to objectively evaluate my claim that the President is innocent of the baseless charges brought against him by extremist media-mongers.

So have another country invest the money in a decent army, so they can be the ones that lose their family members in some European/Middle Eastern country's war. We do it because we're the only ones who can (or are willing.)
THe US is not the only one willing to do interventions. Several African nations (who, mind you, are dirt poor) banded together to stop the civil war in Sierra Leone (I believe. It might have been Liberia.) Australia and UN peacekeeping forces stopped the warfare in East Timor. Even many US led efforts like the Gulf War and Somalia had strong backing from other nations. Relying on US to fight every battle, the world is not.

Our internal politics don't depend on world satisfaction, fortunately.
You are foolish if you believe autarky has any sort of sucess behind it. Internal politics are often sharply inflicted by foreign relations, as with the nation's economy.

Since Bush can't be re-elected anyway, he might as well ask Congress to make some radical foreign policy decisions.
He can do so if he likes. Still, I would note to you that Bush is currently (the recent nomination of Bolton not withstanding) trying to fix relations with allies and coming back to the UN. There is a reason, and it is because he needs foreign support for several initiatives. The US is powerful, but contrary to popular belief it cannot "go it alone".

$6 a gallon for gas? Inflationary economies?Mean spirited people? (not everyone, mind you, but a lot of your fellow citizens) Forced to pay exorbitant taxes to pay for useless social reforms (i.e. VAT and Swedish socialism)?
Higher standard of living?
I don't think so.
http://www.tekes.fi/eng/news/uutis_tiedot.asp?id=1978&paluu=

The Swedish system you knock also happens to have a higher standard of living.



Iraq wasn't doing anything hostile to you, maybe. They were funding terrorism abroad in Israel, the U.S., Palestine, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, and Turkey by way of the Kurdish genocide. They were killing their OWN citizens by the thousands. Shall I go on? We know they were developing bio weapons, had previously used chemical weapons, and had tried to get nuclear weapons; they had a functioning reactor until Israel succesfully neutralized it in a precision strike that put even the U.S. to shame. Where did the weapons go? I can't answer that, but they didn't disappear. Maybe they became nonviable but the point is that they were there. you are using past arguments to apply to a present conflict. The issue is that the US did not prove there was any current reason to invade. Inspectors were doing their jobs, the supposed weapons and infrastructure weren't there, the evidence presented at the UN by Colin Powell has now widely been acknowledged as faulty, etc. There was little to legitimate invading Iraq at that point, especially in lieu of the fact that Saddam was cooperating with inspectors.

Possibly. But the U.N. _was_ stalling, maybe we could have tried more options in a quicker amount of time if the U.N. had actually thought about the ideas we gave them.
All of the US backed ideas called for immediate war if any of the clauses were not met, thus not meeting the qualification to exhaust all peaceful methods.

The only reason you say I'm biased is because if you can't discount what I say, you feel the need to undermine my "credentials." No actually the reason i said that is because you accused those who protested the war of likewise. Interesting, conscidering what you just said here, eh?

However, the only credential I claim is that I am a product of a truly democratic society (lowercase d), and I can use my formidable reason to determine that the President of the U.S. is innocent of the crimes that European citizens constantly accuse him of. It is, simply put, libeling a man because you don't like the color of the house he lives in (White.) European citizens didn't just start hating Bush. Hell, they actually gave him a fair chance, especially after the airplane crashes. You back Bush because you believe he did the right thing and you have reasons for your stance. I realize that, but don't belittle the opposing side. The Europeans you knock have just as valid reasons why they believe Bush is a monster. I'm not going to pitch a tent in either camp, though I didn't support the war and will make that clear. World's never black and white, you know? But the point is, no one is hating Bush for the sake of hating him. There are a plethora of reasons, and I hope you can at least acknowledge that some of them may be valid.
Why some Europeans don't like Bush, I can't say, I can't really think of any logical mindset you could approach this with that would urge you to conjure up falsity to advance an irrational hatred for one man. *sigh* I just went over this. Approach it with a different mindset is the best advice I can give. Right now it seems like you are looking at it from a single viewpoint and that never gives any sort of perspective or understanding of other people's views.

Personally, I think you're overplaying the "you're so biased because you don't agree with me" strategy.
Really now? I thought the exact same of you.

I was referring to the people making wild claims about U.S. desire to steal oil, kill civilians, flaunt the UN, and force Muslims to commit gay acts on camera.
I was hoping you weren't one of them until I read the above line. Since when did I claim any of these?

Quite frankly, I shouldn't have to single-handedly defend an entire war when I don't agree with parts of it. You should simply respect me enough to objectively evaluate my claim that the President is innocent of the baseless charges brought against him by extremist media-mongers.

I am, however you have not actually argued why he is innocent. You have argued why you think the other side is irrational, but you've yet to substantiate why you think Bush did the right thing.

The only reason our friendly fire rates are so high is because the UN is constantly begging for US miliatry intervention somewhere.
You miss the point. I was commenting on the adulation bestowed on the US's seemingly perfect technological prowess in the military arena. Specifically, I was pointing out that all that tech doesn't seem to stop triggerhappy fuckwits from killing their allies in battle.

Mean spirited people? (not everyone, mind you, but a lot of your fellow citizens)
Astonishing. An entire continent tarred with the same brush. It's bad enough when people pander to national stereotypes, but insubstantiated and - wouldn't ya know - mean-spirited comments like this are beyond the pale.

I am a product of a truly democratic society
Where the hell do you live?

You miss the point. I was commenting on the adulation bestowed on the US's seemingly perfect technological prowess in the military arena. Specifically, I was pointing out that all that tech doesn't seem to stop triggerhappy fuckwits from killing their allies in battle.


Astonishing. An entire continent tarred with the same brush. It's bad enough when people pander to national stereotypes, but insubstantiated and - wouldn't ya know - mean-spirited comments like this are beyond the pale.


Where the hell do you live?

Well, in all fairness to the average European, the only discourse I have with people from Europe is on NationStates, most of us probably live in a sociopolitical bubble anyways.

After all, why wouldn't a website about governments attract the most extreme (mean-spirited) people of a continent?

Ha! A fine answer.

God bless the countries that are fighting for the freedom of others. Anyone who protests should be ashamed of themselves for not going over to Iraq when Saddam was in power and protesting some of his actions. Oh yeah! hah, he would have just had you shot. I won't mention what his kids would have done to your daughter if you took her with you.

God bless the countries that are fighting for the freedom of others. Anyone who protests should be ashamed of themselves for not going over to Iraq when Saddam was in power and protesting some of his actions. Oh yeah! hah, he would have just had you shot. I won't mention what his kids would have done to your daughter if you took her with you.

So you advocate that we should all actively attempt to subvert the national sovereignty of foreign states then?

And just how would he be able to pull that off with UN inspectors crawling all over the place, with all the worlds' eyes focused on Iraq, and a continued monitoring of Iraqi air space and satellite surveillance, not to mention the numerous intelligence operators that were involved.

WL did a pretty good job of replying to this.

Tens of thousands of Iraqi casualties are the result of the US decision to invade Iraq. These casualties were unnecessary in the eyes of the majority. Regardless of what happened in 1998, the UN did send inspectors back into Iraq in November of 2002, and they were not finding any of these smoking guns that the US intel was referring too. They should have been allowed to pursue their quest but the US resisted attempts to bolster that force and give them the time to complete their mandate. This is where the US logic breaks down and the Security Council was right in refusing to sanction an invasion of Iraq.

What did the inspectors find (you have a listing?), and what were they doing about them?

Here's (http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/Bx27.htm) what Mr Blix reported to the UN in Jan. 2003:

On chemical weapons:
The document indicates that 13,000 chemical bombs were dropped by the Iraqi Air Force between 1983 and 1988, while Iraq has declared that 19,500 bombs were consumed during this period. Thus, there is a discrepancy of 6,500 bombs. The amount of chemical agent in these bombs would be in the order of about 1,000 tonnes. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we must assume that these quantities are now unaccounted for.

The discovery of a number of 122 mm chemical rocket warheads in a bunker at a storage depot 170 km southwest of Baghdad was much publicized. This was a relatively new bunker and therefore the rockets must have been moved there in the past few years, at a time when Iraq should not have had such munitions.

The investigation of these rockets is still proceeding. Iraq states that they were overlooked from 1991 from a batch of some 2,000 that were stored there during the Gulf War. This could be the case. They could also be the tip of a submerged iceberg. The discovery of a few rockets does not resolve but rather points to the issue of several thousands of chemical rockets that are unaccounted for.

The finding of the rockets shows that Iraq needs to make more effort to ensure that its declaration is currently accurate. During my recent discussions in Baghdad, Iraq declared that it would make new efforts in this regard and had set up a committee of investigation. Since then it has reported that it has found a further 4 chemical rockets at a storage depot in Al Taji.

I might further mention that inspectors have found at another site a laboratory quantity of thiodiglycol, a mustard gas precursor.

On biological weapons:
I have mentioned the issue of anthrax to the Council on previous occasions and I come back to it as it is an important one.

Iraq has declared that it produced about 8,500 litres of this biological warfare agent, which it states it unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991. Iraq has provided little evidence for this production and no convincing evidence for its destruction.

There are strong indications that Iraq produced more anthrax than it declared, and that at least some of this was retained after the declared destruction date. It might still exist. Either it should be found and be destroyed under UNMOVIC supervision or else convincing evidence should be produced to show that it was, indeed, destroyed in 1991.

As I reported to the Council on 19 December last year, Iraq did not declare a significant quantity, some 650 kg, of bacterial growth media, which was acknowledged as imported in Iraq’s submission to the Amorim panel in February 1999. As part of its 7 December 2002 declaration, Iraq resubmitted the Amorim panel document, but the table showing this particular import of media was not included. The absence of this table would appear to be deliberate as the pages of the resubmitted document were renumbered.

In the letter of 24 January to the President of the Council, Iraq’s Foreign Minister stated that “all imported quantities of growth media were declared”. This is not evidence. I note that the quantity of media involved would suffice to produce, for example, about 5,000 litres of concentrated anthrax.

Now, for a moment, put yourself in the shoes of an American President who has witnessed the larges case of terrorism perpetrated on his country's soil. Forget about all that has happened since then, because you don't know it yet. Iraq has produced, and used chemical and biological weapons in the past. He had them in considerable quantities in 1998 when the inspectors were kicked out. He insisted he did not have any of the prohibited munitions - including chemical and biological weapons - in 2002 when the UN requested inspections to continue. Saddam provided 12,000 pages of what the UN demanded be a "full and complete accounting" of any existing weapons, and evidence of destruction of weapons Saddam claimed were destroyed. Two months after inspections resumed, the head inspector reports there were, in fact, prohibited munitions, and insufficient evidence to prove the destruction of others. It has been a long, arduous process of maintaining this inspection regime while inspectors were being harassed and blocked for years (1991-1998). I think given this scenario, when the "last chance for inspections" turns up more undeclared munitions, some of which were moved recently; and given the desire and previous record to aid terrorists (I'm not talking about 9-11) of Saddam, that it just *might* seem like Saddam really dosen't take this UN 'thing' seriously. This was the straw that broke the camel's back, and I find it laughable that anyone would suggest that the US 'rushed in' without giving the inspections a chance to work. Be honest, now....

The UN Security Council was satisfied with the inspections program, and so was the chief UN inspector, Hans Blix. Why did the US insist on acting over and above these people?

See above.

I am not apologizing for Saddam in the least. You on the other hand are making excuses for Bush's decision to invade Iraq which resulted in the deaths and/or injuries to tens of thousands of innocent men, women, and children, and the shameless destruction of Iraqi infastructure, such as electrical plants, and water systems.

I'm not making excuses, I really have looked at this objectively. I think it was a good idea, and would have supported it no matter who was president.

As much as I was shocked and dismayed by the acts of terrorists that crashed planes into the WTC and Pentagon, I was equally shocked by the US "Shock and Awe Show", that has resulted in unnecessary carnage, an increase of hatred towards the US, and an increase in terrorism. All in the name of defending the US from a country that didn't even have a viable air force. Quit apologizing for Bush.

Quit assuming you know my mind. There are other ways to attack a country than conventional means. I'm not apologizing for Bush.

Remember where those terrorists came from to fly airplanes into US buildings? Oh yeah they were from Saudi Arabia, or have you people forgotten that important fact?

That is irrelevant when it comes to the Iraq issue. I have never, nor will I ever attempt to link the two issues.

You do realize that even Blair was hoping to put off any invasion until the fall? Saddam was co-operating, and the process was moving forward. Read Blix's report. If anything, he was requesting more inspectors and more time.

More time was simply not on the table. This was to be the last chance for inspections and Saddam blew it by lying and attempting to circumvent the resolutions.

Russia and China were also involved in the process or have you forgotten that? I re-iterate that France WAS willing to support an invasion of Iraq, IF Saddam did not comply with the Resolution. Get your facts straightened out. Bush needed a whipping boy and chose France, and there were political reasons for him to not want to blame China or Russia.

Russia was also, if you'll recall, benefiting from Saddam remaining in power. China is trying to be a superpower and opposing the US was a political move. Get your head out of the sand.

According to the official US web site, there is a list of 46 coalition members. That list was compiled in March of 2003. As of today, over a third of them have quit, unless you have a different list?

It was 48 last I looked. I'll have to research that more. Later. Got to get to class.

WL, why do you bother, CH is a loon, He has repeatedly shown himself to ignore facts.

I really don't care whether you think I am a loon or not, that is irrelevant to this thread. However, what is relevant is your hypocrisy, which you clearly demonstrate within this thread.

You started this thread as though you have some deep concern for the people of Iraq, and that Bush had come to save these people from the terrible scourge of Saddam:

while I can understand why many people disagree with the Us war against Iraq, when I read stuff like this I just want to tell the pacifists to F**K**F.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=540&e=3&u=/ap/20050416/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_mass_graves

Yeah, the coalition of the willing was so much worse on the civillian population than Saddam was [/sarcasm]

God damn pacifists..how much blood needs to be spilt before you people can justify action?

Much later in the thread, you display your true emotions regarding these people:

Well, in all fairness they were given a "get out of Jail free" card after they scared the shit out of us in the late 70s. However, god(in whom I do not believe) willing, fuel cell tech will advance to the point where we can tell the camel jockeys to go F**k themselves. Of course, this leads to another problem wherein we have a few 100 million people with no livelihood coupled with a religion that says the west is the devil and blowing yourself up is an acceptable means of going to heaven and getting laid.

Makes for interesting times.

Do they offer discounts on cold war era bomb shelters? I might be in the market. Then again, I am brown skinned so the first bullet is probably not aimed at me.

After reading this, it appears that not only do you not care about these people, but you actually hate them, and their religion.

Now that your credibility on the state of Iraq has been laid to waste by your own words, what exactly did you hope to accomplish by starting this thread?

I am sure that your response will be most informative. :eek: