Newly revised! Top 10 reasons WMD not found

[DrChinese]

Newly revised: Top 10 reasons WMD have not been found in Iraq:

10. Four months is not long enough to find them - give them until after the election.
9. They were moved to Syria/Iran/the countryside/buried (this was done at night so we couldn't see it).
8. They have been returned to the French manufacturer for credit.
7. Did Bush say weapons? He meant weapons "programs".
6. According to the former Iraqi Information Minister, they were used to successfully defend against the infidel invaders.
5. Saddam destroyed them right before the war started, just to embarass Bush.
4. We did find them, you must not have read the news that day.
3. We found Chemical Ali, top scientists & many VIPs instead, and any day now they're gonna break - er - talk.
2. Who cares?

But the number 1 reason still is:

1. There weren't any!

Thanks to everyone who commented in the previous thread and help me to refine the list. Please forward this to Bush, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz for future spin control sessions.

[Dancing David]

0. Silly rabbit , only the evil left and democrats care that the president said we were going to war over WMD, the real reason is Chocolate!

[subgenius]

The lack of finding them shows that the war was justified, because if a whole army can't find them (yet), the UN weapons inspectors never would have.

(This spin is offered free of charge to the administration. Let's see if we hear it pretty soon, or have they used it already?)

[Crossbow]

It does not matter if Iraq had WMDs or not because no one was actually under oath when they made their claims about Iraqi WMDs and what Saddam's intentions were.

What does matter (according to several JREF posters) is that:
Saddam was very bad,
The USA is a major power so it can do what it wants,
That is OK for the President to lie in the interests of national security, and
That the lives of Americans are worth more than the lives of others.

Go figure!

[Mr Manifesto]

Exactly. The war was nothing to do with a threat to the West, WMD's or anything like that. We wanted to free the cute little people of Iraq of Saddam's tyranny.

Oh, and besides, we had no way of knowing whether or not Saddam was going to get weapons in the future.

Maybe Atheist.net should add a new logical fallacy: Argumentum ad futurus (pardon the doggerel latin)- arguing that, although something hasn't happened yet, it still could happen.

[fhios]

Originally posted by Crossbow
...the lives of Americans are worth more than the lives of others.

Not to our president, apparently! Have you noticed who's been dying on his orders? Our own countrymen!

[headscratcher4]

Reason 10A -- the Invisability Cloak! We went to war because we were afraid that Saddam had created an invisability cloak to hide his WMDs. Saddly, because of liberal dithering (which forced the Administration to delay and look like it was engaging in a UN process), Saddam had time to invent the invisability cloak and deploy it...saddly again (for Uday and Qusay -- which makes one wonder why, in Arabic, it isn't AddamSay [pig latin joke there]), Saddam also kept the last remaining invisability cloak for himself.

[UnrepentantSinner]

In light of our new "preemptive strick" policy against potentially hostile aggression against the U.S. proper or it's interests world wide it was decided that Iraq's potential WMDs served as reason enough to warrent an attack.

[subgenius]

(Idea shamelessly stolen from another thread): New logical fallacy: argument ad invisibilium (the evidence is there we just can't see it)

[Mr Manifesto]

Meanwhile, the Aussies were lied to as well (http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s929821.htm).

Here's an interesting comment from Richard Butler, critic of Scott Ritter:

Former United Nations chief weapons inspector Richard Butler has questioned why the United States has not revealed what it has learnt from interrogating senior Iraqi officials about the country's banned weapons program.

Mr Butler was one of the first witnesses to appear before a federal parliamentary inquiry examining the accuracy of intelligence about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

He says he cannot explain why banned weapons have not been found since the war in Iraq ended.

But Mr Butler says officials who surrendered to US authorities, including Iraq's former deputy prime minister, know the answers.

"What arrangement has been made with Tariq Aziz? He knew everything," Mr Butler said.

"Certainly [former presidential scientific adviser] Amir [Hamudi Hasan] al-Saadi did.

"Why aren't they putting us out of our misery by telling us the truth of these matters?

"Have they already told the United States but the United States for some reason isn't telling ... others. I'm making no accusation, I'm puzzled."


We're all puzzled, Dick. We're all puzzled.

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by fhios


Not to our president, apparently! Have you noticed who's been dying on his orders? Our own countrymen!

Too right! And at the time he is signing orders extending duty tours to those in Iraq, he is on vaction in Texas.

Perhaps his attitude is best summed up by this JREF poster:

Originally posted by Kodiak


Rule #3. Some human lives are worth more than others.

That may offend some of you, but in the real world it is a consideration to be made when deciding whether or not to take military, humanitarian, or diplomatic action.

[Frank Newgent]

It's not WMD. It's Dubya M-D.

Dubya-M-D (n.) 1. Idiomatic expression in the language of messianic nationalism: History will forgive the invasion of Iraq, even if no link is proven between terrorism and Dubya-M-D. 2. Ready-made stat, prevarication or pick-up line made handy through its specific use or ironic misuse in the expression of a metaphysical principle: I am certain that the distinct chemical, biological and nuclear mental forms or entities that are the manifestations, actualizations and objectivizations of fissionable ectoplasmatic Dubya-M-D must be around here somewhere. 3. New comedy/drama pilot starring former president George W. Bush as a zany neurosyphilitic psychiatrist self administering heroic doses of a powerful antipsychotic drug.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by DrChinese
Newly revised: Top 10 reasons WMD STILL have not been found in Iraq:

10. Four months is not long enough to find them - give them until after the election.
9. They were moved to Syria/Iran/the countryside/buried (this was done at night so we couldn't see it).
8. They have been returned to the French manufacturer for credit.
7. Did Bush say weapons? He meant weapons "programs".
6. According to the former Iraqi Information Minister, they were used to successfully defend against the infidel invaders.
5. Saddam destroyed them right before the war started, just to embarass Bush.
4. We did find them, you must not have read the news that day.
3. We found Chemical Ali, top scientists & many VIPs instead, and any day now they're gonna break - er - talk.
2. Who cares?

But the number 1 reason still is:

1. There weren't any!

Thanks to everyone who commented in the previous thread and help me to refine the list. Please forward this to Bush, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz for future spin control sessions.
11. We forgot to save the damn receipts.

[Bjorn]

The president stated once that we had found the weapons (in a speech from Poland, I believe) - referring to the trucks.

Has anyone seen him repeat it? Wouldn't that be the natural thing to do if he really believed it to be true?

Or has he admitted any mistake?

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Bjorn
The president stated once that we had found the weapons (in a speech from Poland, I believe) - referring to the trucks.

Has anyone seen him repeat it? Wouldn't that be the natural thing to do if he really believed it to be true?

Or has he admitted any mistake?
He will never admit a mistake. A truly tragic flaw.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Tricky

11. We forgot to save the damn receipts.
You've seen this, right?

[subgenius]

And this?

[Agnostic]

The weapons of mass distraction can be found if one logs on to google, types in "weapons of mass destruction," and hits the I am feeling lucky button.:roll:

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by subgenius

He will never admit a mistake. A truly tragic flaw.

I agree, and that's a large part of the reason we got into Iraq in the first place.

I predict some day, a presidential biography will quote Laura Bush saying something like "His only mistake was trusting those around him..."

The fact is that everyone could see this likely result coming well in advance: No WMDs found, wake up to a confused mess in post-war Iraq. And Bush refused to consider this. Expect more blunders as he further distorts reality to justify his positions.

[subgenius]

He has to "trust" (rely) on those around him because he's not running the show. He's not capable of it. (See Bush's Resume thread: even his defenders can't come up with a single achievment to qualify him for his current job..."not an imbecile", "could do worse" "not a failure" are the best they could do so far.)

Oh, he was a "governor and businessman" which so far seems to be sufficient even if he was a failure.

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by subgenius
He has to "trust" (rely) on those around him because he's not running the show. He's not capable of it. (See Bush's Resume thread: even his defenders can't come up with a single achievment to qualify him for his current job..."not an imbecile", "could do worse" "not a failure" are the best they could do so far.)

Oh, he was a "governor and businessman" which so far seems to be sufficient even if he was a failure.

Governor of Texas: We Texans have a long history of electing some impressive governors. Preston Smith and Dolph Briscoe are some of the luminaries that can join G.W. Bush in the mental equivalent of the gubernatorial special olympics. (Our current governor, Rick Perry, campaigned that school prayer should be restored.)

Businessman: a couple of "well timed" investments - ones available to people with the last name of Bush - give GWB his business experience. I.e. he knows how to parlay his name into $$$. (For that matter, into votes as well.)

[Ove]

Identify the Fool (oops, sorry PRESIDENT)


#1 : "I am not a Crook"

#2 : "Read my lips "No new Taxes".

#3 : "I did not have sex with that woman"

#4 : "I have learned from, our British allies, that Saddam is capable of, within 48 hrs, launching an attack with nuculyar or cemical weapons".

:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

[crackmonkey]

... and reason number 1 - they're in Lebanon's Beqaa Valley.

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
... and reason number 1 - they're in Lebanon's Beqaa Valley.

Hurry, better tell Rumsfeld so he can send the troops in...

(you're killing me here...)

[LW]

Originally posted by DrChinese

The fact is that everyone could see this likely result coming well in advance: No WMDs found, wake up to a confused mess in post-war Iraq.

I didn't see it. I expected some old WMD caches found and a mess in post-war Iraq.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by LW


I didn't see it. I expected some old WMD caches found and a mess in post-war Iraq. When the war started, I thought to myself that we'd better find some WMD or Bush would be SOL, and probably the rest of us with him. As I generally hope for the best, I honestly thought we'd find something more than standard munitions, empty trains and buried planes.

[subgenius]

It'll be interesting to see if the Bekaa Valley reports pan out.... if they do the CIA looks bad for ignoring a truck convoy going there in Jan. 03......what were they thinking?
Every time a door shuts another one closes.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Crossbow

Too right! And at the time he is signing orders extending duty tours to those in Iraq, he is on vaction in Texas.

Implying what, exactly?

Originally posted by Crossbow
Perhaps his attitude is best summed up by this JREF poster:

Originally posted by Kodiak:

Rule #3. Some human lives are worth more than others.

That may offend some of you, but in the real world it is a consideration to be made when deciding whether or not to take military, humanitarian, or diplomatic action.



Rule #4. There are some things in this world worth dying for.

This may also offend some of you, but in the real world it is just another consideration to be made when deciding whether or not to take military, humanitarian, or diplomatic action.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Kodiak


Implying what, exactly?



Rule #4. There are some things in this world worth dying for.

This may also offend some of you, but in the real world it is just another consideration to be made when deciding whether or not to take military, humanitarian, or diplomatic action.
I suppose rule #4.1 is.
"There are some things in this world worth sending others in to die for."

This little addendum is particularly important to our chickenhawk administration.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Tricky

I suppose rule #4.1 is.
"There are some things in this world worth sending others in to die for."

This little addendum is particularly important to our chickenhawk administration.

"Chickenhawk"????!!! :roll:

Yeah...and EVERY OTHER administration that has ever served the United States. :rolleyes:

No leader of men (political or military) can be successful if he cannot accept rule #4.1

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Kodiak


Implying what, exactly?



Meaning that there has been a fair bit of complaining from the people in the field regarding how they will have to stay on duty after they were told that 'the way home is through Baghdad' and after seeing how the president has been on vacation for about one month now while all of this is going on.

In case you have not heard, due to the extended military commitments quite a few service people will have to stay in the field a good while longer.


Army Foresees Doubling Up Tours

http://www.military.com/NewsContent?file=FL_army_082603

WASHINGTON -- For the first time since the all volunteer Army began in 1973, significant numbers of U.S. combat soldiers may have to start serving back to back overseas tours of up to a year each in places such as Iraq, Afghanistan and South Korea, top Army officers say.

...

Says one high-ranking Pentagon official familiar with the math: "Looking out three years, it is not unreasonable to expect that within a two-year period, a guy will have to do a year and a half outside the United States."

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Crossbow

Meaning that there has been a fair bit of complaining from the people in the field regarding how they will have to stay on duty after they were told that 'the way home is through Baghdad' and after seeing how the president has been on vacation for about one month now while all of this is going on.

In case you have not heard, due to the extended military commitments quite a few service people will have to stay in the field a good while longer.


Army Foresees Doubling Up Tours

http://www.military.com/NewsContent?file=FL_army_082603

WASHINGTON -- For the first time since the all volunteer Army began in 1973, significant numbers of U.S. combat soldiers may have to start serving back to back overseas tours of up to a year each in places such as Iraq, Afghanistan and South Korea, top Army officers say.

...

Says one high-ranking Pentagon official familiar with the math: "Looking out three years, it is not unreasonable to expect that within a two-year period, a guy will have to do a year and a half outside the United States."

"...a fair bit of complaining"???? Define please...

A couple?? A dozen?? Two score perhaps?? Out of what, over 146,000 troops in Iraq alone?

From the New York Times op/ed page:

To the Editor:

Re "U.S. Commander in Iraq Says Yearlong Tours Are Option to Combat `Guerrilla' War" (front page, July 17):

As soldiers serving with the 101st Airborne Division in northern Iraq, we're frustrated every time we open a newspaper and read articles about the extended deployments of troops overseas and soldiers complaining because they cannot go home.

Nobody forces a soldier into enlisting in the military. It's a voluntary contract that each soldier signs.

Do we miss our families back in the States? Yes. Are we going to sit around and write letters to Congress asking if we can go home? No.

The majority of us are professionals who will do what it takes to complete the mission, whether it is a wartime or a peacekeeping operation. For every soldier you read about who writes a letter to his Congressional representative imploring the government to bring us home, there are many more who are proud to be performing their duties.

It is a disservice to those who sacrificed their lives to sit around and complain about being here too long.
(Staff Sgt.) CLAY GRIMES
(Cpl.) JESSE ALLEN
Mosul, Iraq, July 18, 2003

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Kodiak


"Chickenhawk"????!!! :roll:

Yeah...and EVERY OTHER administration that has ever served the United States. :rolleyes:
You realize that in order to be a "chickenhawk", you must first be a hawk. Then you must be a hawk who has never been in a war. Clinton, though he did order a bombing here and there, could hardly be called a "hawk".

But the Bush advisory board is loaded with people who avoided being in a war, one way or another. Bush, Cheney, and Ashcroft all managed to avoid action. Rumsfeld flew jets between the Korean and Viet Nam wars, but never fought. Interestingly, the most moderate member of the cabinet is the one who is a general.

As I recall, much was made of Clinton's "draft dodging", yet those same detractors don't seem to care much about the failure of the Republican top brass to stand up for their country. Clinton at least had the courage to say he was against the Viet Nam war. Bush et. al. have shown no such courage, only excuses.

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Kodiak


"...a fair bit of complaining"???? Define please...

A couple?? A dozen?? Two score perhaps?? Out of what, over 146,000 troops in Iraq alone?

From the New York Times op/ed page:

To the Editor:

Re "U.S. Commander in Iraq Says Yearlong Tours Are Option to Combat `Guerrilla' War" (front page, July 17):

As soldiers serving with the 101st Airborne Division in northern Iraq, we're frustrated every time we open a newspaper and read articles about the extended deployments of troops overseas and soldiers complaining because they cannot go home.

Nobody forces a soldier into enlisting in the military. It's a voluntary contract that each soldier signs.

Do we miss our families back in the States? Yes. Are we going to sit around and write letters to Congress asking if we can go home? No.

The majority of us are professionals who will do what it takes to complete the mission, whether it is a wartime or a peacekeeping operation. For every soldier you read about who writes a letter to his Congressional representative imploring the government to bring us home, there are many more who are proud to be performing their duties.

It is a disservice to those who sacrificed their lives to sit around and complain about being here too long.
(Staff Sgt.) CLAY GRIMES
(Cpl.) JESSE ALLEN
Mosul, Iraq, July 18, 2003

Does not that article argue against your point where it says "... every time we open a newspaper and read articles about the extended deployments of troops overseas and soldiers complaining because they cannot go home."

Sorry, but I do not have exact statistics or numerical data as to how many people are ticked off and to what extent if that is what you are really looking for. However, I would say that such data would be difficult to assess since very few people actually in the military would go on record and say what their main complaints are. Actions such as this tend to harm, rather than help, one's time in the military.

At least that is what I found out when I was in, and I am sure that things are still basically the same.

[T'ai Chi]

How unscientific. There are no weapons of mass destruction, because mass is equivalent to energy, and energy can only be changed, not created or destroyed.

Oh, they'll probably find a particle of some atomic element and then claim that Osama or Saddam or OJ put in there, created thousands of large scale weapons and infrastructure, oh, then moved them magically away and left no trace, EXCEPT for this particle. Therefore, because we called in the CSI team (the ones from tv), we know they did it!

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Crossbow

Does not that article argue against your point where it says "... every time we open a newspaper and read articles about the extended deployments of troops overseas and soldiers complaining because they cannot go home."

No, because I never denied (and the article does not deny) that there has been a smattering of complaint, just as there always has been since soldiers and soldiering first appeared in the annals of history.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Kodiak


No, because I never denied (and the article does not deny) that there has been a smattering of complaint, just as there always has been since soldiers and soldiering first appeared in the annals of history.
Smattering, schmattering.
Geez give a dog a bone once in a while.
Its obviously would be good form for the boss to lead the way by showing an ability to sacrifice as he asks his people to. The "sacrifice" in this case just being toning down the amount of blatant vacationing.
Agree with reasonable points once in a while, it strengthens your position. It also disarms your opponent no end.
Automatic disagreement with everything is just a habit and a substitute for real discussion.
"The Argument Culture"--Deborah Tannen.
(Another good one for those who plan on relating to the opposite sex: "You Just Don't Understand"--Deborah Tannen)

[fishbob]

I would like to complain.

Nephew in the Marines was sent home, then was sent back - for some unknown period of time.

Nephew in the Reserves (driving loads of equipment in and out of Bagdad) was told he would be sent home in August, then told October, then told December, and now told "sometime next year".

Bush should not be vacationing. He should be personally directing supplies to the troops, since running the government allows him so much free time.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by subgenius

Smattering, schmattering.
Geez give a dog a bone once in a while.
Its obviously would be good form for the boss to lead the way by showing an ability to sacrifice as he asks his people to. The "sacrifice" in this case just being toning down the amount of blatant vacationing.
Agree with reasonable points once in a while, it strengthens your position. It also disarms your opponent no end.
Automatic disagreement with everything is just a habit and a substitute for real discussion.
"The Argument Culture"--Deborah Tannen.
(Another good one for those who plan on relating to the opposite sex: "You Just Don't Understand"--Deborah Tannen)

Sorry, no freebies....

Obvious? Pleeeze.... :rolleyes:

What you're talking about is, IMO, the liberal penchant for "symbolism over substance" (A.K.A. - "I feel your pain!" :( ).

That went out with the last administration.

I personally applaud the President's handlers for managing his time so well and attempting to keep his stress levels to a minimum.

Make all the personal attacks you want. A rested President is an alert and prepared President.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by fishbob
I would like to complain.

Nephew in the Marines was sent home, then was sent back - for some unknown period of time.

Nephew in the Reserves (driving loads of equipment in and out of Bagdad) was told he would be sent home in August, then told October, then told December, and now told "sometime next year".

Bush should not be vacationing. He should be personally directing supplies to the troops, since running the government allows him so much free time.

Micromanaging a war...

Hasn't history shown us just how bad an idea that is??

[fishbob]

I certainly do not want Bush managing the war. I would just like him to take charge of fixing the problems his low-bid contracting of critical military supply services caused.

Leave the war to the generals, and get back to work.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Kodiak


....Make all the personal attacks you want....
Personal attack????

[JAR]

Originally posted by Upchurch
As I generally hope for the best, I honestly thought we'd find something more than standard munitions, empty trains and buried planes.
So did I. I had become so accustomed to hearing about the bad things Saddam did that when I heard that Saddam was doing something bad, I just assumed it was the truth.

When Saddam claimed that he didn't have chemical weapons and then wouldn't allow an immediate inspection of those vans, he might as well have come out and said, "Yeah, I've got chemical weapons."

And this raises the question. If Saddam claimed he had chemical weapons and the only evidence the U.S. government had that he had chemical weapons was the fact that he claimed he did, would the invasion have been justified?

I'm not sure what the answer to that would be.

[crackmonkey]

"Yes".

[fishbob]

YesBut what if he was lying about how evil he was?

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by subgenius

Personal attack????

That was an admitted anticipatory remark on my part. I'd love nothing more than to be proven wrong in this regard...

[a_unique_person]

According to CNNNN tonight, the Iraq invasion has been the most successful in history, you can now be guaranteed that WMD will never be found there.

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by JAR

So did I. I had become so accustomed to hearing about the bad things Saddam did that when I heard that Saddam was doing something bad, I just assumed it was the truth.

When Saddam claimed that he didn't have chemical weapons and then wouldn't allow an immediate inspection of those vans, he might as well have come out and said, "Yeah, I've got chemical weapons."

And this raises the question. If Saddam claimed he had chemical weapons and the only evidence the U.S. government had that he had chemical weapons was the fact that he claimed he did, would the invasion have been justified?

I'm not sure what the answer to that would be.

Answer: Of course not. You don't invade sovereign nations on the other side of the world because they say or do something you don't like. You invade because they attack you (or on occasion, your ally).

Example: N. Korea claims weapons. Do we attack? (P.S. to the Bush apologists: please concoct some wild explanation as to why this is a totally different situation than Iraq. You know, Saddam said he had nothing - and he didn't - and we attacked anyway; N. Korea claims they have something, and we sit back and do little or nothing.)

Global peace depends on the notion of sovereignty. Bush must have skipped that day in World Politics 101.

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by Kodiak


That was an admitted anticipatory remark on my part. I'd love nothing more than to be proven wrong in this regard...

Sounds exactly like our reasoning for invading Iraq. Anticipatory invasion, still waiting to be proven wrong (or right, as the case may be)...

Yes, the US is spearheading the new bullyspeak, and I can see many are following suit. Attack first, analyze later.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by DrChinese

(P.S. to the Bush apologists: please concoct some wild explanation as to why this is a totally different situation than Iraq. You know, Saddam said he had nothing - and he didn't - and we attacked anyway; N. Korea claims they have something, and we sit back and do little or nothing.)


Because America have all those troops to make sure the nukes never go over the 38th. Duh!

(I imagine they all have baseball gloves. They can just jump up and catch the nukes as they fly over.)

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by DrChinese
Yes, the US is spearheading the new bullyspeak, and I can see many are following suit. Attack first, analyze later.

Pleeeeeze.... :rolleyes:

What a wonderful strawman! Thank you for showing your true colors. How disappointing... :(

Countless threads in this very forum have made numerous Ad Hominem attacks on Pres. Bush's intelligence, appearance, verbal skills, and religious convictions. I spoke in anticipation of these attacks occuring again in this thread.

Don't try to paint me as some unreasonable overreaction in lock-step with the current administration.

[Frank Newgent]

Originally posted by Kodiak

A rested President is an alert and prepared President.
Speaking of anticipatory I'd like to add: "Our arrested President is a Herbert and quite impaired President".

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by DrChinese


Answer: Of course not. You don't invade sovereign nations on the other side of the world because they say or do something you don't like. You invade because they attack you (or on occasion, your ally).

Example: N. Korea claims weapons. Do we attack? (P.S. to the Bush apologists: please concoct some wild explanation as to why this is a totally different situation than Iraq. You know, Saddam said he had nothing - and he didn't - and we attacked anyway; N. Korea claims they have something, and we sit back and do little or nothing.)

Global peace depends on the notion of sovereignty. Bush must have skipped that day in World Politics 101.

Your evaluation is cursory, simplistic, and amateurish.

It seems to me that, with all due respect, it is you who needs extra schooling in modern diplomacy, strategic warfare, and statecraft as evidenced by your inability to distinguish the differences between and complexities present in the Saddam/Iraq issue and the North Korean situation.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Frank Newgent

Speaking of anticipatory I'd like to add: "Our arrested President is a Herbert and quite impaired President".

If you say so, it must be true... :rolleyes:

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Frank Newgent

Speaking of anticipatory I'd like to add: "Our arrested President is a Herbert and quite impaired President".

One can never let one's guard down in the fight for Purity of Essence.

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by Kodiak


Your evaluation is cursory, simplistic, and amateurish.

It seems to me that, with all due respect, it is you who needs extra schooling in modern diplomacy, strategic warfare, and statecraft as evidenced by your inability to distinguish the differences between and complexities present in the Saddam/Iraq issue and the North Korean situation.

Ha, don't make me laugh!

N. Korea is totally different from Iraq, my comment about N. Korea was addressing only the concept - from an earlier post - as to what the leaders of those countries were saying and the relative justifications for invading based on those comments. In a world based on sovereignty, that isn't much of an issue in either case.

And my understanding of the geopolitical situation certainly makes me look like a genius when compared to where Cowboy George has led us so far! He had America believing Saddam was the boogieman! His deft handling of foreign policy makes us look like idiots (at best) and bullies (at worst) around the globe.

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by Kodiak

Countless threads in this very forum have made numerous Ad Hominem attacks on Pres. Bush's intelligence, appearance, verbal skills, and religious convictions. I spoke in anticipation of these attacks occuring again in this thread.

Don't try to paint me as some unreasonable overreaction in lock-step with the current administration.

I was only referencing your own statement about "anticipatory". The parallel was simply a bit of irony thrown in for good measure, sincle this thread is about attacking Iraq without having a reason first. Sorry if I impugned your reputation by drawing a comparison with the Bush administration's actions. I admit, in retrospect, that it might have been a bit harsh. I mean, who would want to be associated with the Bush administration right now?

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by DrChinese


Ha, don't make me laugh!

N. Korea is totally different from Iraq, my comment about N. Korea was addressing only the concept - from an earlier post - as to what the leaders of those countries were saying and the relative justifications for invading based on those comments. In a world based on sovereignty, that isn't much of an issue in either case.

And my understanding of the geopolitical situation certainly makes me look like a genius when compared to where Cowboy George has led us so far! He had America believing Saddam was the boogieman! His deft handling of foreign policy makes us look like idiots (at best) and bullies (at worst) around the globe.

All I can say is that I couldn't disagree more. :)

Off the subject, where is Frisco, Texas?

I've spent the last two weeks baking in Atlanta, Texas (in the ArkLaTex area) writing 5-axis CNC programs for our plant down there.

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by Kodiak


All I can say is that I couldn't disagree more. :)

Off the subject, where is Frisco, Texas?

I've spent the last two weeks baking in Atlanta, Texas (in the ArkLaTex area) writing 5-axis CNC programs for our plant down there.

Frisco is a delightful community north of Dallas, just past Plano. I work in the North Dallas area. Until quite recently, Frisco was just some pastures and farms. But now it is a growing city of 50,000.

Is Atlanta near Texarkana? I was just through there on vacation, having stopped to take pictures on the state line (I know, how lame is that).

What is a 5-axis CNC program? Sounds hairy.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by DrChinese

Frisco is a delightful community north of Dallas, just past Plano. I work in the North Dallas area. Until quite recently, Frisco was just some pastures and farms. But now it is a growing city of 50,000.

Is Atlanta near Texarkana? I was just through there on vacation, having stopped to take pictures on the state line (I know, how lame is that).

Yep. Atlanta is about 15-20 minutes South of Texarkana.

Originally posted by DrChinese

What is a 5-axis CNC program? Sounds hairy.

My company designs and manufactures glove box and instrumentation consoles for the recreational marine industry. We use three 5-axis computer controlled routers to cut out our vacuum-formed shrouds and dashes.

This is a smaller version of the machine I program:

http://www.motionmaster.com/catalog/FullSize/fs_imgs/SB-44X_400.JPG

What a complete waste of a degree majoring in history!

[subgenius]

Kodiak:
"What a complete waste of a degree majoring in history!"
___________________
You can always open a history store with a drive thru window.

"Defenestration of Prague? You want to super-size that?"

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by subgenius
Kodiak:
"What a complete waste of a degree majoring in history!"
___________________
You can always open a history store with a drive thru window.

"Defenestration of Prague? You want to super-size that?"


:teacher:


"Praise Bob!!"

[DrChinese]

Since we have pretty well demonstrated that Bush's thinking was WAY OFF in going to war over WMD (since there never were any to threaten the security of the US or the rest of the world)...

I guess we'll have to start looking into some of those OTHER hairbrain reasons Bush gave before the invasion:

1. For the benefit of the Iraqi people
2. Iraq did not comply with UNSC resoulutions
3. Saddam is a bad dancer

[subgenius]

Wait, there's more:

"They're in a place (the Bekaa Valley) where we can't go look."

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by DrChinese
Since we have pretty well demonstrated that Bush's thinking was WAY OFF in going to war over WMD...

:rolleyes: ...

Straw Man... Again...

We've had several threads already on this.

Weapons of mass destruction WERE NOT why the U.S. invaded Iraq and ousted Saddam.

See your "option 2." for a hint... :cool:

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Kodiak


:rolleyes: ...

Straw Man... Again...

We've had several threads already on this.

Weapons of mass destruction WERE NOT why the U.S. invaded Iraq and ousted Saddam.

See your "option 2." for a hint... :cool:

Well then please tell me what the war was about.

At the last State of the Union Address, President Bush said:

...

But some governments will be timid in the face of terror. And make no mistake about it: If they do not act, America will.

Our second goal is to prevent regimes that sponsor terror from threatening America or our friends and allies with weapons of mass destruction. Some of these regimes have been pretty quiet since September the 11th. But we know their true nature. North Korea is a regime arming with missiles and weapons of mass destruction, while starving its citizens.

Iran aggressively pursues these weapons and exports terror, while an unelected few repress the Iranian people's hope for freedom.

Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror. The Iraqi regime has plotted to develop anthrax, and nerve gas, and nuclear weapons for over a decade. This is a regime that has already used poison gas to murder thousands of its own citizens -- leaving the bodies of mothers huddled over their dead children. This is a regime that agreed to international inspections -- then kicked out the inspectors. This is a regime that has something to hide from the civilized world.

States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger. They could provide these arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred. They could attack our allies or attempt to blackmail the United States. In any of these cases, the price of indifference would be catastrophic.

We will work closely with our coalition to deny terrorists and their state sponsors the materials, technology, and expertise to make and deliver weapons of mass destruction. We will develop and deploy effective missile defenses to protect America and our allies from sudden attack. (Applause.) And all nations should know: America will do what is necessary to ensure our nation's security.

We'll be deliberate, yet time is not on our side. I will not wait on events, while dangers gather. I will not stand by, as peril draws closer and closer. The United States of America will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons.

...

It is clear to me that he was wanting to attack Iraq before Iraq could make use of its Weapons of Mass Destruction.

[subgenius]

Don't confuse us with facts please.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Crossbow


Well then please tell me what the war was about.

At the last State of the Union Address, President Bush said:

...

But some governments will be timid in the face of terror. And make no mistake about it: If they do not act, America will.

Our second goal is to prevent regimes that sponsor terror from threatening America or our friends and allies with weapons of mass destruction. Some of these regimes have been pretty quiet since September the 11th. But we know their true nature. North Korea is a regime arming with missiles and weapons of mass destruction, while starving its citizens.

Iran aggressively pursues these weapons and exports terror, while an unelected few repress the Iranian people's hope for freedom.

Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror. The Iraqi regime has plotted to develop anthrax, and nerve gas, and nuclear weapons for over a decade. This is a regime that has already used poison gas to murder thousands of its own citizens -- leaving the bodies of mothers huddled over their dead children. This is a regime that agreed to international inspections -- then kicked out the inspectors. This is a regime that has something to hide from the civilized world.

States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger. They could provide these arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred. They could attack our allies or attempt to blackmail the United States. In any of these cases, the price of indifference would be catastrophic.

We will work closely with our coalition to deny terrorists and their state sponsors the materials, technology, and expertise to make and deliver weapons of mass destruction. We will develop and deploy effective missile defenses to protect America and our allies from sudden attack. (Applause.) And all nations should know: America will do what is necessary to ensure our nation's security.

We'll be deliberate, yet time is not on our side. I will not wait on events, while dangers gather. I will not stand by, as peril draws closer and closer. The United States of America will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons.

...

It is clear to me that he was wanting to attack Iraq before Iraq could make use of its Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Where were you guys for the weeks where the enforcement of UN resolution 1441 was argued about in the UN, in Congress, and in the media?!

The WMD question and the freeing of the Iraqi people from tyranny were always ancillary motives that only strengthened the Administration's decision to invade.



Bush said it himself: "Our second goal is to prevent regimes that sponsor terror from threatening America or our friends and allies with weapons of mass destruction."

His first goal is found in the statement just before this... "But some governments (Russia, France, and Germany) will be timid in the face of terror. And make no mistake about it: If they do not act (to enforce UN res. 1441), America will."
(bold statements in parentheses added by me)

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Kodiak


Where were you guys for the weeks where the enforcement of UN resolution 1441 was argued about in the UN, in Congress, and in the media?!

The WMD question and the freeing of the Iraqi people from tyranny were always ancillary motives that only strengthened the Administration's decision to invade.



Bush said it himself: "Our second goal is to prevent regimes that sponsor terror from threatening America or our friends and allies with weapons of mass destruction."

His first goal is found in the statement just before this... "But some governments (Russia, France, and Germany) will be timid in the face of terror. And make no mistake about it: If they do not act (to enforce UN res. 1441), America will."
(bold statements in parentheses added by me)

Er, have you actually looked at Resolution 1441? I have and it deals almost entirely with Iraqi WMDs, therefore by your own reckoning:

Bush's first goal with the war dealt with Iraqi WMDs, and

Bush's second goal with the war dealt with Iraqi WMDs.

Sound right?

[CapelDodger]

From Kodiak:
It seems to me that, with all due respect, it is you who needs extra schooling in modern diplomacy, strategic warfare, and statecraft as evidenced by your inability to distinguish the differences between and complexities present in the Saddam/Iraq issue and the North Korean situation.
Translated as : we would, but we can't.

[CapelDodger]

From DrChinese:
... Bush's thinking ...
Dissing Bush subliminally. Sweet dishonesty.

[DrChinese]

According to a recent USA Today poll (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-08-27-poll-usat_x.htm), 57% of Americans believe that the war in Iraq was part of the overall war on terrorism.

This despite the fact that there is not one ounce of evidence that Saddam supported terrorism more than Bush does. And despite the fact that it now looks as if our continued presence is inciting terrorism in Iraq.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Crossbow


Er, have you actually looked at Resolution 1441? I have and it deals almost entirely with Iraqi WMDs, therefore by your own reckoning:

Bush's first goal with the war dealt with Iraqi WMDs, and

Bush's second goal with the war dealt with Iraqi WMDs.

Sound right?

No, dammit :mad:

The first goal deals with the repercussions for violating a UN security council resolution!

The second goal deals with a continued Iraqi WMD threat and the sponsoring of terrorism.

I'm tired of covering the same ground over and over with the same people. Play stupid if that's your game. If you have nothing new to offer, then I'm done... :nope:

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by CapelDodger

Translated as : we would, but we can't.

Straw Man...

Way to contribute! :rolleyes:

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Kodiak
No, dammit :mad:

The first goal deals with the repercussions for violating a UN security council resolution!
But many counties, including the US (and especially Israel) violate UN resolutions all the time. These are resolutions, not laws. What gives US the right to be the resolution enforcer, and what criteria do we use to decide which ones to enforce?
Originally posted by Kodiak
I'm tired of covering the same ground over and over with the same people. Play stupid if that's your game. If you have nothing new to offer, then I'm done... :nope:
Yes, this ground has been covered many times, and you too have offered nothing new. The UN did not authorize the invasion, and in fact opposed it. You cannot simultaneously use the UN as the reason for invasion and the bad guys. Insert another quarter if you wish to continue this game.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by DrChinese

This despite the fact that there is not one ounce of evidence that Saddam supported terrorism more than Bush does.

So are you saying that the UN security council was wrong when they stated in 1441: Deploring also that the Government of Iraq has failed to comply with its commitments pursuant to resolution 687 (1991) with regard to terrorism?

Or do you only consider the UN correct when it goes against the actions of the US?

The way I see it, you have 2 options:
1) Either the UN is always right, in which case Iraq was supporting terrorism (as was stated in 1441)

or:

2) The UN is wrong, in which case if the UN is wrong about things like terrorism, why should we automatically assume they are right about other things?

You can't have your cake and eat it too...

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Tricky

But many counties, including the US (and especially Israel) violate UN resolutions all the time. These are resolutions, not laws.

It should be noted that there are different types of resolutions. The ones that are passed against Israel are Chapter 6 resolutions. These resolutions are "non-enforcable", and typically require action by more than 1 party. (i.e. it requests Israel to withdraw from certain territory, but it also requests neighbouring countries like Syria to recognize their right to exist; Israel is under no obligation, and in some cases legally cannot follow such resolutions unless the other involved parties also agree to follow the resolutions.)

The resolutions against Iraq were Chapter 7 "enforcable" resolutions. In theory, they must be followed as "law". And while the UN did not give 'permission' for the US to invade Iraq, its failure to enforce its own chapter 7 resolutions means that no country need ever worry about following the requirements of the UN ever again.

All this is described in the following article: http://economist.com/world/na/displayStory.cfm?story_id=1378577

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Segnosaur
So are you saying that the UN security council was wrong when they stated in 1441: Deploring also that the Government of Iraq has failed to comply with its commitments pursuant to resolution 687 (1991) with regard to terrorism?

Or do you only consider the UN correct when it goes against the actions of the US?
The UN is not necessarily correct about anything. That is why we cannot use them as an excuse for invasion. That was a cowardly attempt to blame "the world" for our actions. Either we follow the UN's resolutions or we don't. We cannot pick the ones we like.

Originally posted by Segnosaur
The way I see it, you have 2 options:
1) Either the UN is always right, in which case Iraq was supporting terrorism (as was stated in 1441)

or:

2) The UN is wrong, in which case if the UN is wrong about things like terrorism, why should we automatically assume they are right about other things?
Resolution 1441 did NOT say Iraq was supporting terrorism. They said they hadn't accounted for their WMDs. All evidence has shown that Iraq was not a terrorist nation before the invasison.

And yes, the UN is wrong about a great many things. It is comprised of many nations, each with their own agenda. It should not be regarded either as a font of truth, or of lies. It is simply a place where countries debate, rather than go to war. I think that is a good idea.

Originally posted by Segnosaur
You can't have your cake and eat it too...
Very true. Now examine your own position of claiming that the UN gave the US a reason for invading Iraq but they are a useless organization whose resolutions we can ignore when we feel like it. Would you like a "to-go" box for your cake?

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by Segnosaur


So are you saying that the UN security council was wrong when they stated in 1441: Deploring also that the Government of Iraq has failed to comply with its commitments pursuant to resolution 687 (1991) with regard to terrorism?

Or do you only consider the UN correct when it goes against the actions of the US?

The way I see it, you have 2 options:
1) Either the UN is always right, in which case Iraq was supporting terrorism (as was stated in 1441)

or:

2) The UN is wrong, in which case if the UN is wrong about things like terrorism, why should we automatically assume they are right about other things?

You can't have your cake and eat it too...

I said: "This despite the fact that there is not one ounce of evidence that Saddam supported terrorism more than Bush does."

So I am guessing that you are putting forth the UN resolution language as "evidence" that Iraq supported terrorism.

Well, no, that is not evidence at all. It is entirely circular. Bush asserted Iraq supported terrorism, and had language to that effect inserted in the UN 1441 resolution. That certainly does not qualify as evidence; you need facts to have evidence.

As to the assertion that the UN is infallible, don't make me laugh. No one is infallible.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Tricky

Either we follow the UN's resolutions or we don't. We cannot pick the ones we like.


But that's what many of the anti-war people are doing...

They use the parts of the UN resolutions which show that going to war is not supported, yet when Iraqi support of terrorism is discussed, they 'ignore' the parts of the resolutions which state that Iraq is supporting terrorism.

Originally posted by Tricky

Resolution 1441 did NOT say Iraq was supporting terrorism. They said they hadn't accounted for their WMDs. All evidence has shown that Iraq was not a terrorist nation before the invasison.


While most of the resolution concerned itself with WMD, if you read the part of the resolution I posted earlier (which was part of 1441), it did say Iraq supported terrorism. It also had sections which stated Iraq did not live up to its obligations regarding Kuwait.

Originally posted by Tricky

Very true. Now examine your own position of claiming that the UN gave the US a reason for invading Iraq but they are a useless organization whose resolutions we can ignore when we feel like it.

The UN didn't give the US a reason to invade Iraq, Saddam and Iraqi actions over the past decade gave the US a reason to invade Iraq.

And you're right, I do keep referring to the UN a lot (considering I think its a useless organization). Why do I? Probably because I feel that the UN took a very pro-Saddam attitude, if I measure Iraq against those same pro-Saddam attitudes and still feel invasion is warranted, then I feel more confident about my support of the war.

[CapelDodger]

From Kodiak:
Straw Man...
Eh?

Is my precis wrong? Iraq : would, could, did. North Korea : would, can't, haven't. Iran : would, might, watch this space.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by DrChinese

So I am guessing that you are putting forth the UN resolution language as "evidence" that Iraq supported terrorism.


The fact that it was in the resolution indicates that the member states that voted on the resolution thought that there was "evidence" that Iraq supported terrorism. Hey, maybe they were all wrong, but then why would they vote for a resolution that said "Iraq supports terrorism" when they don't have evidence that they do? (Frankly, there is plenty of evidence; however, a UN resolution is a place for vague generalities, not necessarily details.)

Originally posted by DrChinese

As to the assertion that the UN is infallible, don't make me laugh.

In that case, will you start criticizing anyone who says "the UN didn't give permission for war", or "Its against UN laws", since you yourself are suggesting the UN makes mistakes.

Originally posted by DrChinese

No one is infallible.

Well, I am, but that's beside the point.

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by Kodiak


No, dammit :mad:

The first goal deals with the repercussions for violating a UN security council resolution!


Tricky addressed this already, but I'll add another point:

Bush did not have UN support for the invasion. This required UNSC approval from a number of different angles. Bush choose to forego that path when he could not get sufficient support.

You cannot say that Bush was enforcing a UNSC resolution by taking actions the UNSC did not approve. This is a red herring, as is the argument that Saddam supported terrorism.

[CapelDodger]

from DrChinese:
Well, no, that is not evidence at all. It is entirely circular. Bush asserted Iraq supported terrorism, and had language to that effect inserted in the UN 1441 resolution.
Fundamentally important; it was the inclusion of this language that was traded for the US agreeing to text that was the basis for the need for a second resolution. (That's diplomacy for you.) The US camp gained the inclusion of terrorism in a format that can be quoted in venues such as this, and the other members of the security council had the requirement for a second resolution. Of course, the US was going into action anyway as everybody knew but again, that's diplomacy.

Not that there would have been a resolution 1441 if the Brits hadn't pushed it - pointing out that the "screw you" option wouldn't actually go away.

From Me:
... the requirement for a second resolution.
If you wanted to interpret it that way. Another triumph for diplomacy: a form of words that everybody can interpret to their own constituency in the way they wish. In light of whatever actually happens.

[CapelDodger]

from Segnosaur:
The fact that it was in the resolution indicates that the member states that voted on the resolution thought that there was "evidence" that Iraq supported terrorism.
For some of them it meant that they found a bottle of whisky under their seats when they took their places. Naive or what?

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
from Segnosaur:

For some of them it meant that they found a bottle of whisky under their seats when they took their places. Naive or what?

I guess they would have needed a whole case of whisky to vote to approve military action.

Naive? No... I've seen enough evidence from relatively independent sources to convince me that Iraq was supporting terrorism; of Palistinian suicide bombers and other Palistinian terrorists, Abu Nidal, and the harbouring of known terrorist figures.

Note: I do realize that Iraq may not be the biggest terrorism supporter; they may have reduced their support of some terrorist groups. However, that does not excuse their recent actvities.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Segnosaur
Naive? No... I've seen enough evidence from relatively independent sources to convince me that Iraq was supporting terrorism; of Palistinian suicide bombers and other Palistinian terrorists, Abu Nidal, and the harbouring of known terrorist figures.
Unless Saddam was encouraging Abu Nidal and other terrorists to stay in Iraq, you cannot say he was "harbouring" them. After all, the 9/11 terrorists were living in the USA before the attack. Does that mean we were "harbouring" them? Saddam did give money to the families of suicide bombers, but that was pretty much a public relations move designed to increase his approval in the Arab world. I don't see any evidence that he provided weapons or other material support to Hamas or other terrorist groups.

Originally posted by Segnosaur
Note: I do realize that Iraq may not be the biggest terrorism supporter; they may have reduced their support of some terrorist groups. However, that does not excuse their recent actvities.
Then the US is guilty of hypocrisy for going after a "little fish" in the terrorist pond while ignoring big fish, like Saudi Arabia. If you can't excuse Iraq's "recent activities" then how can you excuse the activities within the country of our good friend the Saudis? They never lifted a finger to help us until they had some bombs go off in their own country.

Every single piece of evidence so far has shown that Iraq was not a significant exporter of terrorism, at least until now.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Tricky

Unless Saddam was encouraging Abu Nidal and other terrorists to stay in Iraq, you cannot say he was "harbouring" them. After all, the 9/11 terrorists were living in the USA before the attack. Does that mean we were "harbouring" them?

There are a couple of major differences. The terrorists Saddam allowed to stay were not in hiding (unlike the 9/11 hijackers). Some were known by the world to be terrorists (such as the hijacker from the Achilles Laural (sp?)). More than that, he allowed some terrorst groups to set up offices, even allowing them on TV.

Originally posted by Tricky

Saddam did give money to the families of suicide bombers, but that was pretty much a public relations move designed to increase his approval in the Arab world. I don't see any evidence that he provided weapons or other material support to Hamas or other terrorist groups.


Oh, as long as the terrorism support is only for public relations purposes, then its OK.

As for other support of terrorism, there is:
http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/2002/html/19988.htm
http://www.terrorismanswers.com/sponsors/iraq.html

Originally posted by Tricky

Then the US is guilty of hypocrisy for going after a "little fish" in the terrorist pond while ignoring big fish, like Saudi Arabia. If you can't excuse Iraq's "recent activities" then how can you excuse the activities within the country of our good friend the Saudis? They never lifted a finger to help us until they had some bombs go off in their own country.


I agree... the US is guilty of a hypocricy. I think Bush's and Clinton's relatively light treatment of Saudi Arabia was wrong. At least over the past decade, it could be excused as being the lesser of two evils. (Iraq may have been a smaller supporter of terrorism, but they were worse in other ways, and it may have been necessary to have a 'friend' in the region.) But if they manage to turn Iraq into a democracy, and still act friendly to Saudi Arabia, then Bush (or whoever the president is by then) definitely deserves a beating.

Originally posted by Tricky

Every single piece of evidence so far has shown that Iraq was not a significant exporter of terrorism, at least until now.

Given the fact that foreign terrorists are going into Iraq, wouldn't that make them an "importer" instead of an "exporter"?

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Segnosaur
There are a couple of major differences. The terrorists Saddam allowed to stay were not in hiding (unlike the 9/11 hijackers). Some were known by the world to be terrorists (such as the hijacker from the Achilles Laural (sp?)). More than that, he allowed some terrorst groups to set up offices, even allowing them on TV.
Yes, I agree it is different. Iraq was not hostile to terrorists. Neither was it particularly supportive, aside from allowing them to appear on TV. My point is that if you were going to look for nations that breed terrorists, Iraq would be way down the list.
Originally posted by Segnosaur
Oh, as long as the terrorism support is only for public relations purposes, then its OK.
Not okay, but not the same as materially supporting terrorism, like the Taliban in Afhghanistan.

Originally posted by Segnosaur
I agree... the US is guilty of a hypocricy. I think Bush's and Clinton's relatively light treatment of Saudi Arabia was wrong. At least over the past decade, it could be excused as being the lesser of two evils. (Iraq may have been a smaller supporter of terrorism, but they were worse in other ways, and it may have been necessary to have a 'friend' in the region.) But if they manage to turn Iraq into a democracy, and still act friendly to Saudi Arabia, then Bush (or whoever the president is by then) definitely deserves a beating.
I am a little disinclined to tell other countries what to do. While I disagree with the Saudis (and China and Venezuela and many others) I don't see that it is our job to "fix" them. We picked Iraq to fix. I think that was just as wrong as it would be to pick Saudi Arabia to "fix". We should use our economic and political strength to effect change, not our military strentgth. Otherwise, we become as bad as the regimes we wish to replace. I do not wish our legacy to read, "Well, there were worse places."

Originally posted by Segnosaur
Given the fact that foreign terrorists are going into Iraq, wouldn't that make them an "importer" instead of an "exporter"?
Yeah, I thought about that as I typed it. Hoped you wouldn't catch me. ;)

[CapelDodger]

From Segnosaur:
Naive? No... I've seen enough evidence from relatively independent sources to convince me that Iraq was supporting terrorism; of Palistinian suicide bombers and other Palistinian terrorists, Abu Nidal, and the harbouring of known terrorist figures.
I was referring to your apparent belief that diplomats voting for something means they believe in it.

[CapelDodger]

This morning's Observer publishes an article by the Late Dr. Kelly re WMD in Iraq, written a few days before the invasion:
Only regime change will avert the threat (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/politics/story/0,6903,1032773,00.html)

The UN has been attempting to disarm Iraq ever since 1991 and has failed to do so. It is an abject failure of diplomacy with the split between France, China and Russia on the one hand, and Britain and the United States on the other, creating a lack of 'permanent five' unity and resolve. More recently Germany, a temporary yet powerful member of the Security Council, has exacerbated the diplomatic split. The threat of credible military force has forced Saddam Hussein to admit, but not co-operate with, the UN inspectorate. So-called concessions - U2 overflights, the right to interview - were all routine between 1991 and 1998. After 12 unsuccessful years of UN supervision of disarmament, military force regrettably appears to be the only way of finally and conclusively disarming Iraq.

It seems that Dr. Kelly did not think that arms inspections could succeed in certainly disarming Iraq.

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
This morning's Observer publishes an article by the Late Dr. Kelly re WMD in Iraq, written a few days before the invasion:
Only regime change will avert the threat (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/politics/story/0,6903,1032773,00.html)

It seems that Dr. Kelly did not think that arms inspections could succeed in certainly disarming Iraq.

Kelly's assertions essentially mimic the US rationale for war: to remove the threat. With each "expert" quoting the other like-minded "expert", they mostly managed to delude people into believing a threat existed. Also from the above source:

"There are indications that the programmes continue.

Iraq continues to develop missile technology, especially fuel propellents and guidance systems for long-range missiles. Iraq has recovered chemical reactors destroyed prior to 1998 for allegedly civilian activity, built biological fermenters and agent dryers, and created transportable production units for biological and chemical agents and the filling of weapons. Key nuclear research and design teams remain in place, even though it is assessed that Iraq is unable to manufacture nuclear weapons unless fissile material is available."

However, after 4 months of searching, there is not one iota of evidence to support anything other than the very first statement: There are indications...

Yes, there were plenty of indications. In fact, there are indications of lots of things at lots of times. For example, UFO advocates provide no shortage of "indications" that flying saucers are kidnapping citizens left and right every day of the week. We, as skeptics, are supposed to see that indications are not evidence.

And the CIA/NSA types are ALSO supposed to know the difference between" indications" and "evidence". It's their job. And presidents are not supposed to lead us into war against countries who have done nothing to us. It is his job.

IF the difference between indications and evidence had been made clear to the American public - instead of the con job Blair and Bush perpetrated on everyone - and IF our president had only acted in accordance with UNSC rules for invading another country... THEN we would not be in Iraq today.

[subgenius]

PAPER: DANGEROUSLY HIGH LEVELS OF RADIATION MEASURED AROUND BAGHDAD
Mon Sep 01 2003 15:05:42 ET
EXPRESS [LONDON]

SOLDIERS and civilians in Iraq face a health timebomb after dangerously high levels of radiation were measured around Baghdad.

Levels between 1,000 and 1,900 times higher than normal were recorded at four sites around the Iraqi capital where depleted uranium (DU) munitions have been used across wide areas.


Experts estimate that Britain and the US used 1,100 to 2,200 tons of armour-piercing shells made of DU during attacks on Iraqi forces.
..........

"Really these things are dirty bombs. Exactly the sort of device that President Bush and Prime Minister Blair keep talking about being in the hands of terrorists."
......

http://drudgereport.com/flash4.htm

[CapelDodger]

from Dr Chinese:
However, after 4 months of searching, there is not one iota of evidence to support anything other than the very first statement: There are indications...
The pre-war inspections did uncover "illegal" missiles and pieces of dual-use technology being put to its non-military use. Dr Kelly describes the 122mm rockets as specific for chemical and biological payloads, and he was an expert in this field. Given the subsequent events it seems unlikely he was exaggerating. His exasperation with the Saddam regime is very clear.

The problem was that Saddam would never even appear to have rid Iraq of WMD since his own credibility rested on apparently having them. So the man who was in charge of weapons concealment was put in charge of documenting how they had been destroyed, sending a clear signal of deception. Thus Dr Kelly's conclusion,
The long-term threat, however, remains Iraq's development to military maturity of weapons of mass destruction - something that only regime change will avert.
Had this been the argument we went to war on I think it would be reasonable enough. Not everybody would agree, of course, and it seems the UK and US governments exaggerated the present danger in order to win over more of the public. As well as introducing entirely spurious links with Jihadist terrorism.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by subgenius
PAPER: DANGEROUSLY HIGH LEVELS OF RADIATION MEASURED AROUND BAGHDAD
Mon Sep 01 2003 15:05:42 ET
EXPRESS [LONDON]

SOLDIERS and civilians in Iraq face a health timebomb after dangerously high levels of radiation were measured around Baghdad.

Levels between 1,000 and 1,900 times higher than normal were recorded at four sites around the Iraqi capital where depleted uranium (DU) munitions have been used across wide areas.


Experts estimate that Britain and the US used 1,100 to 2,200 tons of armour-piercing shells made of DU during attacks on Iraqi forces.
..........

"Really these things are dirty bombs. Exactly the sort of device that President Bush and Prime Minister Blair keep talking about being in the hands of terrorists."
......

http://drudgereport.com/flash4.htm
Which leads to to reason number "n" (I've lost count) why we haven't been able to find Iraqi WMDs.

n.) We can't detect them over the radioactivity of our own WMDs.

Makes one wonder if our soldiers in Iraq will come down with strange diseases and high rates of cancer after the war. Indeed, it make you wonder how much of a role depleted uranium played in the mysterious "Gulf War Syndrome" that afflicted so many Desert Storm soldiers.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Tricky

Which leads to to reason number "n" (I've lost count) why we haven't been able to find Iraqi WMDs.

n.) We can't detect them over the radioactivity of our own WMDs.

Makes one wonder if our soldiers in Iraq will come down with strange diseases and high rates of cancer after the war. Indeed, it make you wonder how much of a role depleted uranium played in the mysterious "Gulf War Syndrome" that afflicted so many Desert Storm soldiers.

Nah, that was all made up. No evidence for it. Can you point to any?

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Tricky

Which leads to to reason number "n" (I've lost count) why we haven't been able to find Iraqi WMDs.

n.) We can't detect them over the radioactivity of our own WMDs.

Makes one wonder if our soldiers in Iraq will come down with strange diseases and high rates of cancer after the war. Indeed, it make you wonder how much of a role depleted uranium played in the mysterious "Gulf War Syndrome" that afflicted so many Desert Storm soldiers.
And the people who live there.
Keeps getting better doesn't it.
At some point even administration supporters have to take stock to see if we have done far more harm than good.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
Nah, that was all made up. No evidence for it. Can you point to any?
Evidence for what? That Gulf War Syndrome was real, or that it was related to radiation from depleted uranium?

Originally posted by Subgenius
And the people who live there.
Keeps getting better doesn't it.
Yes, I should have mentioned the people of Iraq. Perhaps I am blinded by the same tunnel vision that infects so many of the war supporters in that they only recognize American casualties.
Originally posted by Subgenius
At some point even administration supporters have to take stock to see if we have done far more harm than good.
Not necessarily. Only if they care. I have little evidence that they do.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by subgenius

Levels between 1,000 and 1,900 times higher than normal were recorded at four sites around the Iraqi capital where depleted uranium (DU) munitions have been used across wide areas.

[snip]

http://drudgereport.com/flash4.htm

This is absolute crap, whoever wrote it obviously doesn't know anything about radiation. Depleted uranium is called depleted for a very good reason: it has almost none of the radioactive isotope. In other words, IT'S NOT RADIOACTIVE! The health risks from DU weapons (and that's a very contested issue as well) are from ordinary heavy-metal chemical poisoning, NOT from radioactivity. But the fact that the story leads with radioactivity is an immediate indication that the author doesn't know what they're talking about. Either the author or their source is just inventing facts here, because none of it makes sense or is even really possible.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Ziggurat


This is absolute crap, whoever wrote it obviously doesn't know anything about radiation. Depleted uranium is called depleted for a very good reason: it has almost none of the radioactive isotope. In other words, IT'S NOT RADIOACTIVE! The health risks from DU weapons (and that's a very contested issue as well) are from ordinary heavy-metal chemical poisoning, NOT from radioactivity. But the fact that the story leads with radioactivity is an immediate indication that the author doesn't know what they're talking about. Either the author or their source is just inventing facts here, because none of it makes sense or is even really possible.
Well somebody doesn't know anything about radiation. While depleted uranium is only about 40% as radioactive as natural uranium, it is a blatent lie to say it is not radioactive. It is true that there is a lot of conflicting evidence about the dangers of radioactivity due to depleted uranium, but what is often ignored is the toxicity of the uranium itself. (http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/faq_17apr.htm) Uranium is one of the most toxic poisons in the world, and the dangers of inhaling particles or being pierced by fragments is badly underestimated.

It is, in fact, so toxic that exploding a DU shell could easly be described as chemical warfare. Isn't that supposed to be one of the things the US was against?

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Ziggurat


This is absolute crap, whoever wrote it obviously doesn't know anything about radiation. Depleted uranium is called depleted for a very good reason: it has almost none of the radioactive isotope. In other words, IT'S NOT RADIOACTIVE! The health risks from DU weapons (and that's a very contested issue as well) are from ordinary heavy-metal chemical poisoning, NOT from radioactivity. But the fact that the story leads with radioactivity is an immediate indication that the author doesn't know what they're talking about. Either the author or their source is just inventing facts here, because none of it makes sense or is even really possible.

Where are you getting your "facts"?
This is a very pro-Dept. of Defense article defending health risks from exposure to DU, and it is full of equivocation. Many of the "outs" apply directly to this situation.
http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/faq_17apr.htm

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by subgenius


Where are you getting your "facts"?
This is a very pro-Dept. of Defense article defending health risks from exposure to DU, and it is full of equivocation. Many of the "outs" apply directly to this situation.
http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/faq_17apr.htm

I get my facts from actually working around radiation, and understanding what it is and what it means. Quote from the link you posted:

"While natural and depleted uranium are considered chemically toxic, they are not considered a radiation hazard. "

Their claim of radiation levels "1900 times background" are absurd, and are either invented or twisted to the point of being meaningless.

For those interested in the subject, here's a few questions you should be able to answer before you jump in:

What is typical background radiation level?
What are considered safe levels of radiation exposure?
What are the main types of ionizing radiation?
What is the main type of radiation from depleted uranium?

If you don't know the answers to these questions, you need to do some homework. Knowing them may not be sufficient, but that's at least a starting point that everybody should be familiar with before they jump in on this radiation from DU issue.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Tricky

Well somebody doesn't know anything about radiation. While depleted uranium is only about 40% as radioactive as natural uranium, it is a blatent lie to say it is not radioactive.


OK, you caught me. I didn't distinguish from being significantly radiactive at all to being completely non-radioactive. Hell, if you want to get technical, bananas are radioactive, and measurably so, because they contain a lot of potasium. But DU is simply not a significant radiological hazard if it isn't ingested (and even then it's not the radiation that you should be worrying about). Even natural uranium isn't that radioactive - you can even buy uranium ore over the internet, it's safe to play with (just don't walk around with it in your underwear).


It is, in fact, so toxic that exploding a DU shell could easly be described as chemical warfare. Isn't that supposed to be one of the things the US was against?

Done with your rant? Good. Back to my point: that article was full of crap. If you want to worry about chemical toxicity, be my guest. But that's not what the article claimed.

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
The pre-war inspections did uncover "illegal" missiles and pieces of dual-use technology being put to its non-military use. Dr Kelly describes the 122mm rockets as specific for chemical and biological payloads, and he was an expert in this field. Given the subsequent events it seems unlikely he was exaggerating. His exasperation with the Saddam regime is very clear.

The problem was that Saddam would never even appear to have rid Iraq of WMD since his own credibility rested on apparently having them. So the man who was in charge of weapons concealment was put in charge of documenting how they had been destroyed, sending a clear signal of deception. Thus Dr Kelly's conclusion,

"The long-term threat, however, remains Iraq's development to military maturity of weapons of mass destruction - something that only regime change will avert."

Had this been the argument we went to war on I think it would be reasonable enough. Not everybody would agree, of course, and it seems the UK and US governments exaggerated the present danger in order to win over more of the public. As well as introducing entirely spurious links with Jihadist terrorism.

I agree that the present danger was exaggerated, as well as the spurious links to terrorism.

However, Kelly's conclusion - as quoted - falls short, far short indeed. For two reasons: a) it is clear from the (lack of) evidence discovered so far that Iraq had NO such significant programs; and b) Kelly's expertise is no greater than any one else's in the area of politics: why is regime change the only solution when it is now clear that UN sanctions essentially had the intended effect of keeping Saddam too impoverished to be able to develop much in the way of military might? (His troops didn't/couldn't even put on a good show.)

I consider Kelly to be totally discredited. His conclusions assume facts which were demonstrably incorrect. Ultimately, based on the admittedly small amount of his stuff I have read, it is impossible to separate his facts and accurate analysis from his guesses, speculation and wishful thinking.

As to the "subsequent events", my interpretation would be that nothing he has said could be relied upon given that he obviously realized he had done something wrong somewhere. A man who kills himself to demonstrate the truth of his assertions has a lot more than a screw loose.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by DrChinese

why is regime change the only solution when it is now clear that UN sanctions essentially had the intended effect of keeping Saddam too impoverished to be able to develop much in the way of military might? (His troops didn't/couldn't even put on a good show.)


Sanctions were slipping, and they were having an incredibly costly effect on the populace because of the way Saddam abused the program. I'm not sure exactly where you stand on all of this (I haven't gone back and read all your posts), but I find it supremely ironic that some anti-war critics claim on the one hand that our invasion hurt more Iraqis than Saddam (ignoring those harmed by his abuse of the oil for food program) and on the other hand claimed that war wasn't necessary BECAUSE sanctions were in place. Sanctions were having a terrible effect on the Iraqi populace, but there is no hope to contain Saddam without them. So do you invade, killing some civilians but opening the way for improvement, or do you keep the sanctions in place and let the Iraqis suffer a slowly but surely? Those who opposed the invasion need to answer the question of why it was better to let the Iraqi people continue to suffer under sanctions than it is to invade so that sanctions can be safely lifted.

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by Ziggurat

Sanctions were slipping, and they were having an incredibly costly effect on the populace because of the way Saddam abused the program. I'm not sure exactly where you stand on all of this (I haven't gone back and read all your posts), but I find it supremely ironic that some anti-war critics claim on the one hand that our invasion hurt more Iraqis than Saddam (ignoring those harmed by his abuse of the oil for food program) and on the other hand claimed that war wasn't necessary BECAUSE sanctions were in place. Sanctions were having a terrible effect on the Iraqi populace, but there is no hope to contain Saddam without them. So do you invade, killing some civilians but opening the way for improvement, or do you keep the sanctions in place and let the Iraqis suffer a slowly but surely? Those who opposed the invasion need to answer the question of why it was better to let the Iraqi people continue to suffer under sanctions than it is to invade so that sanctions can be safely lifted.

I agree that sanctions had a lot of bad effects for the Iraqis, but I haven't seen a lick of evidence (and not "indications", "hints", etc.) that they were slipping. As I was anti-war all the way, the sanctions weren't much of an issue for me one way or the other. The point of the war - according to those who said Saddam was an immediate threat to the US and had to be taken out - was that sanctions WEREN'T accomplishing their intended effect. Clearly, they were - nothing sinster found to date.

How is it even possible to attack someone who is supposed to be a threat, and then you find out they weren't? It would be like declaring war on Japan on December 8, 1941, and then discovering Pearl Harbor didn't happen. I think it is embarassing that Bush rattled his saber over Saddam's WMD; went to war; and hasn't found anything to back up his claims.

And instead of admitting his mistake, Bush has invented a new reason to justify his bad behavior: the Iraqis wanted to be overthrown! They're better off being occupied by the U.S.! That is the ultimate rationalization, and by the way folks... how could it ever be proven or disproven? Put it up for a popular vote in Iraq? Maybe we'll send USAToday in to take a poll.

World peace depends on the notion of sovereignty, something that Bush and many Americans apparently have little understanding of - and even less respect for.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by DrChinese

How is it even possible to attack someone who is supposed to be a threat, and then you find out they weren't? It would be like declaring war on Japan on December 8, 1941, and then discovering Pearl Harbor didn't happen. I think it is embarassing that Bush rattled his saber over Saddam's WMD; went to war; and hasn't found anything to back up his claims.


I agree, it is embarassing for Bush. He should not have tried to make the case that the threat was more immediate than it was. But two things to keep in mind: first, Saddam seems to have been trying to make us think he had such weapons. In the absence of definitive information (which we could not get until we were in), we were facing an uncertain threat. Against an uncertain threat, inaction is often not the best response. Second, the long-term threat, which is admittedly harder to asses, is not tied directly to whether or not he had weapons at this moment. It is a combination of long-term threat and humanitarian relief for the Iraqis that made me decide that invasion was the right decision. My reasons are not exactly the same as Bush's, and I am quite happy to criticise many of the specific claims he made and some of the details of how things were handled.


World peace depends on the notion of sovereignty, something that Bush and many Americans apparently have little understanding of - and even less respect for.

Saddam did not care about sovereignty, he used it as an excuse to keep others out of his country but he was perfectly willing to ignore it when he wanted to invade a neighbor. The idea that we should respect the sovereignty of an aggressive dictator is like saying you should play by boxing rules while your opponent kicks you in the groin. Sovereignty cannot assure world peace. How, exactly, did sovereignty protect the Kurds from Saddam's campaigns, which killed as many as 180,000 of them? What good did sovereignty do in Rwanda? It did not keep the peace in these cases. Governments, unlike people, do not have fundamental rights. The UN security council has only authorized the use of force on two occasions (Rwanda is not one of them - they didn't even have the moral courage to call it what it was, genocide), it is largely ineffective on security issues. And I don't see France going to the UN security council every time it wants to have an adventure in Africa, so beware of hypocracy on this issue.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Ziggurat
OK, you caught me. I didn't distinguish from being significantly radiactive at all to being completely non-radioactive. Hell, if you want to get technical, bananas are radioactive, and measurably so, because they contain a lot of potasium. But DU is simply not a significant radiological hazard if it isn't ingested (and even then it's not the radiation that you should be worrying about). Even natural uranium isn't that radioactive - you can even buy uranium ore over the internet, it's safe to play with (just don't walk around with it in your underwear).
Indeed, everthing contains a small amount of natural radioactivity (that's why carbon-12 dating works), but uranium naturally contains quite a bit. Now you wouldn't walk around with Uranium in your pants, nor would you want to live in an area that has abnormally high (even if it is not 1000 times background) radiation. While it might not be enough to kill or even sterilize you, I think we don't have enough data to say what the long-term might be on genetics or cancer rates, especially when you live, not just work, around it. But I agree that a lot of anti-nuke kooks overstate the dangers of radioactivity. I'd still bet that you wouldn't voluntarily keep depleted uranium shells in your home.

I'd say the problem of uranium toxicity is much greater than its radioactivity, especially when you blow it into tiny bits with a bomb explosion, allowing it to contaminate everything around it. That is what I was referring to when saying we were using chemical weapons.

Originally posted by Ziggurat
Done with your rant? Good. Back to my point: that article was full of crap. If you want to worry about chemical toxicity, be my guest. But that's not what the article claimed.
I ranted? Hardly. I admitted that I wonder about the long term effect of exposure to low-level radioactivity from DU, but I made no claims. I simply proposed a scenario where some of the strange illnesses associated with Gulf War I might have something to do with the use of DU. Do you wish to deny that it is a possibility?

The website that both Subgenius and I linked, downplayed DU radioactivity, but waffled considerably on DU toxicity. You have not refuted the assertion that DU is bad for your health, only that you probably won't die of radiation poisoning.

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by Ziggurat

DrChinese: "World peace depends on the notion of sovereignty, something that Bush and many Americans apparently have little understanding of - and even less respect for."

Saddam did not care about sovereignty, he used it as an excuse to keep others out of his country but he was perfectly willing to ignore it when he wanted to invade a neighbor. The idea that we should respect the sovereignty of an aggressive dictator is like saying you should play by boxing rules while your opponent kicks you in the groin. Sovereignty cannot assure world peace. How, exactly, did sovereignty protect the Kurds from Saddam's campaigns, which killed as many as 180,000 of them? What good did sovereignty do in Rwanda? It did not keep the peace in these cases. Governments, unlike people, do not have fundamental rights. The UN security council has only authorized the use of force on two occasions (Rwanda is not one of them - they didn't even have the moral courage to call it what it was, genocide), it is largely ineffective on security issues. And I don't see France going to the UN security council every time it wants to have an adventure in Africa, so beware of hypocracy on this issue.

The "World Peace" I refer to is about war betweens nations. So when Saddam attacked Kuwait, he rightfully brought on the wrath of Kuwait's defenders. The US violated sovereignty in the recent invasion, and this will definitely upset the cause of world peace. If the US can violate this important precept, others will too.

You also said: "But two things to keep in mind: first, Saddam seems to have been trying to make us think he had such weapons. In the absence of definitive information (which we could not get until we were in), we were facing an uncertain threat. Against an uncertain threat, inaction is often not the best response. " This logic seems very questionable to me.

First, it is North Korea - and not Iraq - that has been working overtime to convince the world it is a threat to be reckoned with. When is Bush invading them? (P.S. No oil for grabs in Korea is there?)

Second, can you give me ANY example of the US pre-emptively attacking to defend itself, and it having been shown to be the smart thing to do? I cannot see any examples of this in which your premise is born out (at least on the world stage). In fact, I don't think I have an example with regards to ANY invasion of ANY country in the past 100 years. (I would NOT count as an example the failure of Kuwait to pre-emptively attack Iraq in 1990; or the failure of the U.S. to pre-emptively attack Japan in 1941; in both cases, better defense would have been a reasonable option as well as a pre-emptive attack.)

In other words, if sovereignty is to be displaced by some new concept in international relations, what would that be? Because sovereignty is the cornerstone of the mutual co-existence of all countries. Live and let live.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by DrChinese

First, it is North Korea - and not Iraq - that has been working overtime to convince the world it is a threat to be reckoned with. When is Bush invading them? (P.S. No oil for grabs in Korea is there?)


No, there isn't any oil in Korea, but that means something rather different than you imply. Ecnomic sanctions did little to losen Saddam's grip, because he could make plenty of money on smuggling oil. Kim doesn't have that option. In fact, if we were to cut off all aid, we could make North Korea implode without even invading. We have leverage against North Korea that simply did not exist with Iraq. Let's see what happens with that.


Second, can you give me ANY example of the US pre-emptively attacking to defend itself, and it having been shown to be the smart thing to do? I cannot see any examples of this in which your premise is born out (at least on the world stage).


It is dangerous to assume that one must have precendent for action. The world is changing. Circumstances change. We have not done this before, but the situation has never been the same either.


In other words, if sovereignty is to be displaced by some new concept in international relations, what would that be? Because sovereignty is the cornerstone of the mutual co-existence of all countries. Live and let live.

We did not invade Iraq arbitrarily. There were three criteria that applied to Iraq that only apply to a handful of other countries: it was a dictatorship, it sought nuclear weapons, and it sponsored terrorism (Al Qaeda links have been overplayed, but Saddam provided backing to Hamas). Only a handful of countries satisfy these requirements, and it's rather easy for a country to take itself out of the running if it so choses. So what exactly is the rational for defending the sovereignty of countries that satisfy all three of those conditions?

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by Ziggurat
1. It is dangerous to assume that one must have precendent for action. The world is changing. Circumstances change. We have not done this before, but the situation has never been the same either.

2. We did not invade Iraq arbitrarily. There were three criteria that applied to Iraq that only apply to a handful of other countries: it was a dictatorship, it sought nuclear weapons, and it sponsored terrorism (Al Qaeda links have been overplayed, but Saddam provided backing to Hamas). Only a handful of countries satisfy these requirements, and it's rather easy for a country to take itself out of the running if it so choses. So what exactly is the rational for defending the sovereignty of countries that satisfy all three of those conditions?

1. It is dangerous to unilaterally change the rules of war. If any other country did what we are doing, we would be as outraged as others are. We have to be objective. Doing something as far out as invading other countries requires powerful motivations, and these were not present in this case. We made the same mistake in Vietnam - going to war without traditional justification. Who can even remember our objective there was to "stop communism"? Well, we didn't stop communism in Vietnam and we can't stop all world dictators/terrorism/etc. by making a stand in Iraq.

2. So the long-standing principle of sovereignty is to be replaced by a desire to eliminate dictatorships and countries who provide (debatable) assistance to terrorists in small countries. Such a policy change is equivalent to starting a new cold war, something a lot of conservatives would reallly love (see PNAC for example).

I repeat my statement: the principle of sovereignty is the cornerstone of international relations. It is not to be trifled with lightly, and I have no confidence whatsoever that our current administration understands the issues involved. Just as the president who put us in Korea in the early 50's (Truman) had no idea that 50 years later (a half century!) we would still be right in the middle of things there. A small miscalculation at any stage can have large repercussions, and we may watch them unfold for another half century in Iraq.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by DrChinese
1. It is dangerous to unilaterally change the rules of war. If any other country did what we are doing, we would be as outraged as others are. We have to be objective. Doing something as far out as invading other countries requires powerful motivations, and these were not present in this case.


I disagree. I think there were very powerful motivations. And like I said, what are France's motives for repeated military intervention in Africa? Do you really think Russia, of Chechnya fame, is concerned about our Iraq invasion beyond their own selfish motives? China is also not fundamentally concerned about sovereignty - that might get in the way of their claims on Taiwan.


We made the same mistake in Vietnam - going to war without traditional justification. Who can even remember our objective there was to "stop communism"? Well, we didn't stop communism in Vietnam and we can't stop all world dictators/terrorism/etc. by making a stand in Iraq.


We made a very different mistake in Vietnam. There was no "sovereignty" issue there, our mistake was to prop up a thoroughly corrupt government by force. As I mentioned, we don't need to stop all dictators. But certain dictators we do need to act against.


2. So the long-standing principle of sovereignty is to be replaced by a desire to eliminate dictatorships and countries who provide (debatable) assistance to terrorists in small countries. Such a policy change is equivalent to starting a new cold war, something a lot of conservatives would reallly love (see PNAC for example).


Saddam's aid to Hamas is not debatable. And as I mentioned, it's not simply dictatorships that we would be acting against, only those who fit all three. And I've got news for you, we already ARE in a global war against islamic extremists. They declared war on us, and pretending we're not at war won't make us any safer.


I repeat my statement: the principle of sovereignty is the cornerstone of international relations. It is not to be trifled with lightly, and I have no confidence whatsoever that our current administration understands the issues involved.


You are correct that it is not to be taken lightly, but I don't think it has been.


Just as the president who put us in Korea in the early 50's (Truman) had no idea that 50 years later (a half century!) we would still be right in the middle of things there. A small miscalculation at any stage can have large repercussions, and we may watch them unfold for another half century in Iraq.

It is indeed a dangerous undertaking, just as sitting idle would be dangerous. Although we did not forsee the length of our military involvment in Korea, we were right to defend them militarily. If we can turn Iraq into a functioning democracy, it will be well worth keeping troops there indefinitely. In fact, I think that's rather the goal, to have a long-term treaty with Iraq for mutual defense, with US troops stationed in Iraq for external defense.

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by Ziggurat
It is indeed a dangerous undertaking, just as sitting idle would be dangerous. Although we did not forsee the length of our military involvment in Korea, we were right to defend them militarily. If we can turn Iraq into a functioning democracy, it will be well worth keeping troops there indefinitely. In fact, I think that's rather the goal, to have a long-term treaty with Iraq for mutual defense, with US troops stationed in Iraq for external defense.

I find no logical support for the idea that "sitting idle would be dangerous". That is essentially a "boogieman" argument and is circular in nature (assumes that which you seek to prove). If we defend ourselves when attacked, we will be fine - the US is rarely attacked because of our military might. But if we attack first, we are paranoid bullies. How did we know Saddam was going to attack the US or our interests? We know for sure after he attacks. Until then, there is no provocation.

As to long term commitment to Korea and Iraq: we have gained little or nothing from our support of S. Korea in the past 50 years. It should be obvious that we never understood what was going on there. Ditto Vietnam, and ditto Iraq.

Different strokes for different folks.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Tricky

But many counties, including the US (and especially Israel) violate UN resolutions all the time. These are resolutions, not laws. What gives US the right to be the resolution enforcer, and what criteria do we use to decide which ones to enforce?

All valid points for debate. The fact remains that the US did invade Iraq, and the enforcement of UN Security Council Resolution 1441 was the President's primary reason.

Originally posted by Tricky
Yes, this ground has been covered many times, and you too have offered nothing new.

My point stands. I need offer nothing new..


Originally posted by Tricky
The UN did not authorize the invasion, and in fact opposed it.

Irrelevant, much like the UN without the U.S. UN authorization or approval played no part in designating the goals for the U.S. invasion of Iraq by President Bush.


Originally posted by Tricky
You cannot simultaneously use the UN as the reason for invasion and the bad guys. Insert another quarter if you wish to continue this game.

Who said the UN was the "bad guys"?!? Were they inept and ineffective? Yes. Were they allied with Iraq, or terrorists? Of course not.

I suggest inserting your own quarter and try playing again... ;)

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Tricky

Which leads to to reason number "n" (I've lost count) why we haven't been able to find Iraqi WMDs.

n.) We can't detect them over the radioactivity of our own WMDs.

Makes one wonder if our soldiers in Iraq will come down with strange diseases and high rates of cancer after the war. Indeed, it make you wonder how much of a role depleted uranium played in the mysterious "Gulf War Syndrome" that afflicted so many Desert Storm soldiers.

Now, repeat after me... there is no gulf war syndrome. Now, was that so hard?

See: http://www.fumento.com/sugulf.html

For example, on the link between gulf war and cancer: (from http://www.fumento.com/biggulf.html)


a study appeared in The New England Journal of Medicine. Using the latest data available, it reported the cancer rate of Persian Gulf vets was slightly below that of comparable vets who didn't deploy to the Gulf, and far lower than that of the comparable civilian population


Similar links (or, shall we say, non-links) have been found between 'gulf war syndrome' and birth defects.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by DrChinese

I find no logical support for the idea that "sitting idle would be dangerous". That is essentially a "boogieman" argument and is circular in nature (assumes that which you seek to prove).


That's because you aren't paying close enough attention. Saddam wanted nuclear weapons, and had a program in place that would have aquired them. The IAEA did not know about this program prior to the first gulf war. Saddam never fully cooperated with inspections, and continued to try to hide parts and plans for his nuclear program. The only reasonable interpretation of his continued non-compliance was that he intended to resume devopment of nuclear weapons. The IAEA was taken by surprise by his last attempt to build nukes, how can you have faith that they'd be able to uncover them in the future, when Saddam had no intention of ever coming into full compliance? That is why it was risky to do nothing. There's no circular logic here at all - I didn't lay out the argument before, but it's all there, and it's easy to see if you've actually paid attention to what Saddam has been up to.


If we defend ourselves when attacked, we will be fine - the US is rarely attacked because of our military might. But if we attack first, we are paranoid bullies. How did we know Saddam was going to attack the US or our interests? We know for sure after he attacks. Until then, there is no provocation.


Suppose a nuclear bomb was detonated in New York City. This would be a terrible blow, and we would not be "fine" if it happened. Even worse, however, we would likely be unable to respond. Who would you attack if that happened? How do you respond to provocation if you don't know who did it? You can't, which makes it a very attractive means of attacking the US. The possibility of nuclear weapons in the hands of those who would be willing to use them covertly is not something we can allow even as a possibility. Saddam was still years away from getting a bomb, it is true, but I do not have faith (and that's all it is) that inspectors could ensure he never got one or that we'd know if he was trying to get one. That's simply not a risk I think we should take. The possibility for such damaging strikes without revealing the source is something completely new in international relations, and it changes the game completely. That's why I said before that looking for precedent for every action you take is dangerous. The threat is without precedent.


As to long term commitment to Korea and Iraq: we have gained little or nothing from our support of S. Korea in the past 50 years. It should be obvious that we never understood what was going on there. Ditto Vietnam, and ditto Iraq.

Different strokes for different folks.

You're kidding me about Korea, right? We got a democratic and prosperous ally. We kept South Korea from ending up in the same boat as North Korea. I'd say in the long run we got a whole lot out of our efforts in Korea. Vietnam, I completely concur, was largely a waste. But it's completely premature to conclude that Iraq will be a failure, and the analogy to Vietnam is really poor.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by DrChinese

I agree that sanctions had a lot of bad effects for the Iraqis, but I haven't seen a lick of evidence (and not "indications", "hints", etc.) that they were slipping.

Lets see....

How about the illegal pipeline that Iraq had been running between them and Syria? (See: http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1471299/04162003/id_0.jhtml)


The U.S. has shut down a key oil pipeline that was pumping as many as 200,000 gallons a day from Iraq into Syria.

The pipeline had operated under the Saddam Hussein regime in violation of United Nations sanctions.)


How about diversions of money and food from the oil-for-food program into programs to supply Iraq's military and Saddam's palaces?

Of course, you do realize that many on the anti-war side also were against the sanctions themselves, claiming that they lead to hundreds of thousands of deaths of Iraqi civilians.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Tricky

Yes, I agree it is different. Iraq was not hostile to terrorists. Neither was it particularly supportive, aside from allowing them to appear on TV. My point is that if you were going to look for nations that breed terrorists, Iraq would be way down the list.


Personally, I consider allowing terrorist groups sanctuary, and even allowing them to set up offices is being supportive. (Its a lot easier to run a terrorist organization if you don't have to worry about police raids and arrests.)

And while Iraq may be down the list of Terrorism supporters, how many countries could you really put ahead of it? Saudi Arabia for sure, Iran, Libya (but even they've cleaned up a bit), Afghanistan (before the American invasion), perhaps a few nations in north Africa, and Syria. Other than that, even the most brutal dictatorships are more interested in supressing their own people, rather than attacking external targets.

Originally posted by Tricky

I am a little disinclined to tell other countries what to do. While I disagree with the Saudis (and China and Venezuela and many others) I don't see that it is our job to "fix" them.


A couple of points that I would like to make:
- If a country is 'supporting terrorism', then they are trying to tell other nations what to do. (In effect, they are waging 'war by proxy'.) Any country subject to such terrorist attacks (as the US was when attacked by al Quaeda, or Israel is when attacked by Saddam-sponsored bombings) has the right to defend themselves, and that could mean attacks against the nations giving santuary to the terrorist organizations.
- Although national soverignty is important, I also think human rights are as well. If Hitler had not invaded Poland, and instead decided to simply kill all undesirables in his country, would you think he should be left alone?

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
Had this been the argument we went to war on I think it would be reasonable enough. Not everybody would agree, of course, and it seems the UK and US governments exaggerated the present danger in order to win over more of the public. As well as introducing entirely spurious links with Jihadist terrorism.

What do you mean, that it would be reasonable to go to War for a Regime change? Well, what United States know for sure is to change Regimes by a safe distance, why do you think that they haven't managed to do that so far.

The blackmail of the public opinion Capel Dodger is a serious "crime" one of those that stay unpunished of course, I thought that UK had a healthier Democracy than USA and its public opinion was severe, we must wait and see if it will stand up to its reputation.

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by Segnosaur
How about the illegal pipeline that Iraq had been running between them and Syria? (See: http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1471299/04162003/id_0.jhtml)

The U.S. has shut down a key oil pipeline that was pumping as many as 200,000 gallons a day from Iraq into Syria.



That would be all of 4000 barrels of oil, probably netting Saddam all of $80,000 (20 zillion Iraqi dinars). Puh-leeze!

The sanctions were performing their intended purpose in all material respects.

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by Ziggurat
1. That's because you aren't paying close enough attention. Saddam wanted nuclear weapons, and had a program in place that would have aquired them. The IAEA did not know about this program prior to the first gulf war. Saddam never fully cooperated with inspections, and continued to try to hide parts and plans for his nuclear program. The only reasonable interpretation of his continued non-compliance was that he intended to resume devopment of nuclear weapons. The IAEA was taken by surprise by his last attempt to build nukes, how can you have faith that they'd be able to uncover them in the future, when Saddam had no intention of ever coming into full compliance? That is why it was risky to do nothing. There's no circular logic here at all - I didn't lay out the argument before, but it's all there, and it's easy to see if you've actually paid attention to what Saddam has been up to.

2. You're kidding me about Korea, right? We got a democratic and prosperous ally. We kept South Korea from ending up in the same boat as North Korea. I'd say in the long run we got a whole lot out of our efforts in Korea. Vietnam, I completely concur, was largely a waste. But it's completely premature to conclude that Iraq will be a failure, and the analogy to Vietnam is really poor.

1. Circular because Saddam had no such program, and the IAEA said so before we invaded.

2. What is our interest in propping up Korea? Who have they ever been to us? We have never had vital interests there, we only invaded to counter the supposed "Chinese" threat.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by DrChinese

1. Circular because Saddam had no such program, and the IAEA said so before we invaded.

2. What is our interest in propping up Korea? Who have they ever been to us? We have never had vital interests there, we only invaded to counter the supposed "Chinese" threat.

The IAEA said he had no nuclear weapons program before the first gulf war, and they were wrong. They are not to be depended upon to discover hidden programs. And you completely avoided the issue of him restarting the program in the future.

As for our interest in Korea, you have a strange take on what is and isn't in our interest. Are you honestly saying the world would be better off if we had let North Korea overrun South Korea?

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by DrChinese


That would be all of 4000 barrels of oil, probably netting Saddam all of $80,000 (20 zillion Iraqi dinars). Puh-leeze!

The sanctions were performing their intended purpose in all material respects.

Ahem... You said I haven't seen a lick of evidence. I have provided you evidence. Even though that particular pipeline would not bring Iraq's total sales to what they would be without sanctions, it is still an example of Iraq getting around sanctions.

Are you going to withdraw your claim that there is not 'a lick' of evidence?

(Of course, if you do a google search, you will find many articles from the late 90s/early 00s which show that some countries/politicians were looking to remove sanctions.)

And, there is also the diversion of money from the oil-for-food program to other purposes.

Now, the next time an anti-war person says that the sanctions themselves were wrong, are you going to stand up to them and say that they were necessary?

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Ziggurat
The IAEA said he had no nuclear weapons program before the first gulf war, and they were wrong. They are not to be depended upon to discover hidden programs. And you completely avoided the issue of him restarting the program in the future.
It appears you are once again confusing arms with arms programs. There is no evidence that Saddam has ever had nuclear weapons, only that he was trying (with little success) to get them. The Israeli raid on their reactor in 1981 was the last time anyone could point to a nuclear weapons program that was anywhere close to completion.

All you can do is repeat monotonously what you are "sure" he planned to do. Sorry, Ziggy. That propehcy of yours never held water and it doesn't now.

But while your're predicting the future, why don't you tell us what other tinpot dictators are "sure" to get nuclear weapons in the future? We can take them out now.

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by Ziggurat
1. The IAEA said he had no nuclear weapons program before the first gulf war, and they were wrong. They are not to be depended upon to discover hidden programs. And you completely avoided the issue of him restarting the program in the future.

2. As for our interest in Korea, you have a strange take on what is and isn't in our interest. Are you honestly saying the world would be better off if we had let North Korea overrun South Korea?

1. Simple: Saddam had no meaningful nuclear program when we invaded in March. The IAEA was right and Bush was wrong. Period, the facts are there on the face of the coin. The other side of the coin is the boogieman, where facts are never welcome.

As to the state of Iraq's nuke program in 1991 - you and I have different concepts of what comprises such a program. After Israel knocked out Saddam's budding reactor, what did he ever really have? Nothing. He can want nukes all he wants, they are not available on the free market (yet).

Future actions warrant future responses. The world is not a changed environment where future actions can be seen in some clairvoyant manner and acted upon (a la "Minority Report").

2. I may start a separate thread to discuss Korea, but the short answer is: It is not our role in the world to interfere in other countries destinies to fulfill our (US) idea of what a better world is.

To answer your question directly: NO, I do not think that our intervention in Korea tipped the scale towards a better world. I think we made it a worse world in some respects, by creating distrust between China and the US. And I don't believe that the North would have definitely won - but we'll never know, will we?

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Segnosaur


Ahem... You said I haven't seen a lick of evidence. I have provided you evidence. Even though that particular pipeline would not bring Iraq's total sales to what they would be without sanctions, it is still an example of Iraq getting around sanctions.


Also, the article has a unit error, where it claims gpd instead of bpd. The correct amount flowing through the pipeline was 200,000 barrels per day, which helped Saddam avoid sanctions to the tune of approximately $1.2 billion per year.

MattJ

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by aerocontrols


Also, the article has a unit error, where it claims gpd instead of bpd. The correct amount flowing through the pipeline was 200,000 barrels per day, which helped Saddam avoid sanctions to the tune of approximately $1.2 billion per year.

MattJ

(Also aimed at Segnosaur)

Perhaps - as happens - there may be more than one point of view on the subject. It was certainly not a secret pipeline and despite Seg's reference, may have been in compliance with sanctions.

See from July 1998 (that was 5 years ago) Damascus upset over Washington's opposition to Iraqi oil exports (http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/980716/1998071659.html): "Syrian official sources on Wednesday expressed strong worries over the US stand opposing the agreement providing for pumping Iraqi oil via Syrian ports. The agreement was signed on Tuesday in Damascus according to items of the "oil-for-food" accord signed between Iraq and the UN. The sources said the opposition is unjustified. It is unacceptable. Because it contradicts with what had been approved by the UN Security Council concerning sales of Iraqi oil via Turkish, Iraqi and Syrian ports." (Warning: this quote is from Arabic News, a news source that does not subscribe to pro-US viewpoints.)

So I think I'll stay with my point that sanctions were essentially performing their intended effect. (Seg, if you want to call it a "lick" of evidence, I have no problem with that. You win.)

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by DrChinese

As to the state of Iraq's nuke program in 1991 - you and I have different concepts of what comprises such a program. After Israel knocked out Saddam's budding reactor, what did he ever really have? Nothing. He can want nukes all he wants, they are not available on the free market (yet).


:confused: I'm afraid you betray your own ignorance on the subject here. He had a very active program to develop uranium enrichment technologies. The IAEA is now well aware of this, and has reported on it extensively, but they had no clue about it until after gulf war 1. He was only a few years away from being able to produce a nuclear weapon when he invaded Kuwait, and the IAEA has even said as much. Ever hear of Al Tuwaitha? You don't know what he did in the past, so why in the world should anyone expect your speculations on the future to have any weight?


2. I may start a separate thread to discuss Korea, but the short answer is: It is not our role in the world to interfere in other countries destinies to fulfill our (US) idea of what a better world is.


Oh, so it was the Soviet's and China's role then? :rolleyes: A lot of this has been hashed out already in a thread where Malachi posited that North Korea's fascist brand of communism was a response to the US. That idea was full of crap then, and it still is.

[CapelDodger]

From Cleopatra:
What do you mean, that it would be reasonable to go to War for a Regime change?
Yes I do. Any case should be examined individually, but I'm sure the case of Iraq was justified. I'm not commending the way it was done, but the fact that it was done doesn't outrage my moral sense. I don't agree with the idea of using "sovereignty" as a catch-all simplification of what should be careful moral choices.

From DrChinese:
It is not our role in the world to interfere in other countries destinies to fulfill our (US) idea of what a better world is.
I assume "our" refers to the US. I don't know that the US has a "role"; it just exists and does things. Might it be the proper role of some other, well-intentioned group to interfere to achieve what they regard as a better world? Without, of course, going into details about what such an organisation might be, could you in principle accept the validity of such a body?

(Regarding the Korean War, the South were toast, chaff before the wind. Without the scraped-together US intervention they'd have been gone. They very nearly were anyway. This would have resulted in vastly increased Soviet influence in Korea, and possibly an earlier split between Moscow and Peking. As I see it, anyway.)

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Tricky

It appears you are once again confusing arms with arms programs. There is no evidence that Saddam has ever had nuclear weapons, only that he was trying (with little success) to get them. The Israeli raid on their reactor in 1981 was the last time anyone could point to a nuclear weapons program that was anywhere close to completion.


I'm not confusing anything, and evidently I know more about this than you do. I never said he HAD nuclear weapons. I said he had a nuclear weapons program, which was probably only a few years away from producing a nuke when he invaded Kuwait. This information is all available from the IAEA themselves - Saddam had an active program in place at Al Tuwaitha. And the IAEA had absolutely no clue about it until after the first gulf war. I'd call a few years away pretty close.


But while your're predicting the future, why don't you tell us what other tinpot dictators are "sure" to get nuclear weapons in the future? We can take them out now.

I'm not "predicting the future", I'm assessing future risks. Unless you want to bury your head in the sand, you should be doing the same thing.

North Korea and Iran will develop nukes unless we stop them. Iran might still bow to diplomatic pressure (over a decade of that made no difference to Saddam), and we have economic leverage against North Korea that we also didn't have against Saddam - they will implode without external aid, so we can threaten their survival without invading them.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by DrChinese
Perhaps - as happens - there may be more than one point of view on the subject. It was certainly not a secret pipeline and despite Seg's reference, may have been in compliance with sanctions.

Indeed the pipeline wasn't a secret. Who claimed it was, exactly?

In what manner was the pipeline in compliance? In what manner could the two states comply with UN monitoring while at the same time denying that they were pumping oil? (http://www.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/meast/11/22/un.iraq.ap/)

Do you believe, in fact, that they were not pumping oil? Do you believe that they could secretly pump oil through a non-secret pipeline in such a manner as to be 'in compliance' with UN sanctions?

MattJ

[edit to replace unneccessarily snarky comment with less snarky version]

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by Ziggurat
I'm not "predicting the future", I'm assessing future risks. Unless you want to bury your head in the sand, you should be doing the same thing.

North Korea and Iran will develop nukes unless we stop them. Iran might still bow to diplomatic pressure (over a decade of that made no difference to Saddam), and we have economic leverage against North Korea that we also didn't have against Saddam - they will implode without external aid, so we can threaten their survival without invading them.

You sound like Bush: Saddam is the boogieman. N. Korea is the boogieman. Iran is the boogieman.

FACTS: The US invented nuclear weapons. The US has used nuclear weapons - in a terroristic fashion against innocent civilians (not our first taste of civilian blood, either).

But we somehow have the high moral ground to decide who else should have them? Oh, yea, I remember, we're the guys with white hats. That excuses anything and everything we do. Talk about ultimate rationalization...

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by DrChinese

You sound like Bush: Saddam is the boogieman. N. Korea is the boogieman. Iran is the boogieman.

FACTS: The US invented nuclear weapons. The US has used nuclear weapons - in a terroristic fashion against innocent civilians (not our first taste of civilian blood, either).

But we somehow have the high moral ground to decide who else should have them? Oh, yea, I remember, we're the guys with white hats. That excuses anything and everything we do. Talk about ultimate rationalization...

And you are acting like a Saddam appologist. You couldn't argue successfully that Saddam wasn't trying to get nukes and didn't represent a threat, so you resort to the standard "well the US is really worse" refrain. Why am I not surprised?

We should not have used nuclear weapons, but we did. That's the reality of the situation. I don't think we fully understood what we were doing at the time, but we were in a war that we did not start. Should we take a nuclear hit to make things "even"? That is what you seem to be arguing here. And that would be a shameful sentiment.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by DrChinese
The US has used nuclear weapons - in a terroristic fashion against innocent civilians...

Revisionist history, IMO...

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by Ziggurat


1. And you are acting like a Saddam appologist. You couldn't argue successfully that Saddam wasn't trying to get nukes and didn't represent a threat, so you resort to the standard "well the US is really worse" refrain. Why am I not surprised?

2. We should not have used nuclear weapons, but we did. That's the reality of the situation. I don't think we fully understood what we were doing at the time, but we were in a war that we did not start. Should we take a nuclear hit to make things "even"? That is what you seem to be arguing here. And that would be a shameful sentiment.

1. I am not an apologist for Saddam in any way. I don't think "the US is really worse" at all. That is an inappropriate inference and I resent it. I don't call names at JREF posters. I am a proud American who tries to see both sides of difficult issues.

Saddam had no nuclear program of any significance in March 2003. This is what we know today. That conclusion comes from the current reporting in Iraq and elsewhere. Bush lied about the subject, as he has essentially admitted.

2. I think I stand behind Truman on use of the bomb. Not sure really. But regardless, we don't own the moral highground, not even close. It is foolish to accord ourselves special status because we are Americans. We are one member of the world community, and we have a lot of respect because we deserve it. But we are not infallible and it is wrong to speak as if we are.

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by Kodiak


Revisionist history, IMO...

What do you call what happened in Hiroshima? Attack against vicious Japanese suicide bombers? Revenge for Pearl Harbor? Or scaring civilians? What else is terrorism? Or is it terrorism only if carried out by terrorists?

I know about the justifications, but I also know that the ends justified the means in this case. Truman himself knew it was wrong to bomb civilians without warning them first. But he did it anyway.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by DrChinese

Saddam had no nuclear program of any significance in March 2003. This is what we know today. That conclusion comes from the current reporting in Iraq and elsewhere. Bush lied about the subject, as he has essentially admitted.


Yes, Bush did lie about the extent of Saddam's current capability. But I see nothing to indicate that his future capability was not something we needed to worry about. That, plus humanitarian relief (we could not safely lift sanctions with Saddam in power), is sufficient reason for me to support the invasion. I don't support Bush's distortion of the case, but I also don't think his mendacity overrules the real justifications.


2. I think I stand behind Truman on use of the bomb. Not sure really. But regardless, we don't own the moral highground, not even close. It is foolish to accord ourselves special status because we are Americans. We are one member of the world community, and we have a lot of respect because we deserve it. But we are not infallible and it is wrong to speak as if we are.

I never said or even implied we are infallible. But we were justified in invading Iraq. We do not need past good deeds to justify doing the right thing now, and I see no advantage to being paralyzed by concerns over moral high ground. I do not find criticism of our overall course of action (as opposed to just the words Bush spoke) to be at all convincing, and in some cases (not speaking specifically about you here) the criticisms are even self-contradictory. There is an obsession among some critics of the war to focus on Bush alone, as if his flaws invalidate our course of action. That is a dangerous and self-defeating approach.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by CapelDodger


Yes I do. Any case should be examined individually, but I'm sure the case of Iraq was justified.

I am sorry Capel Dodger but this is plain hypocricy. Now that we are talking there are numerous countries that are a potential threat, run by lunatics, some of them elected that have an uncontrol armory ( Israel for example) where Human Rights are violated in the worse possible way ( Turkey for example) and the International Community sits in the same table with those countries and discuss with them.

Following your logic if the International Community invaded Iraq because it's a potential nuclear threat it must invade Israel as well.

Dr.Chinese
FACTS: The US invented nuclear weapons. The US has used nuclear weapons - in a terroristic fashion against innocent civilians (not our first taste of civilian blood, either).


That was a very brave thing to say.

edited to add:

Capel Dodger I will keep that :
I'm not commending the way it was done for future reference.

Consistency is very important when we are discussing about politics.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Cleopatra

Following your logic if the International Community invaded Iraq because it's a potential nuclear threat it must invade Israel as well.


Nonsense. First, Israel is a functioning democracy, not a dictatorship. That alone separates it from every single one of its neighbors. And that matters, much as countries like China and Russia would like to pretend it doesn't. Second, Israel does have human rights issues, but it is not a state sponsor of terrorism. Iraq was. Syria and Iran still are. Turkey also has human rights issues, but it too is a democracy, which is why it's a member of NATO. So on the simplistic level of checking off criterion for invasion, Israel doesn't stack up. On a more realistic level, Israel doesn't threaten its neighbors with invasion or with nuclear weapons, and as bad as the Palestinian situation is, it doesn't even compare to what Saddam did to the Kurds. The comparison between Iraq and Israel is ridiculous.

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by Ziggurat


Nonsense. First, Israel is a functioning democracy, not a dictatorship. That alone separates it from every single one of its neighbors. And that matters, much as countries like China and Russia would like to pretend it doesn't. Second, Israel does have human rights issues, but it is not a state sponsor of terrorism. Iraq was. Syria and Iran still are. Turkey also has human rights issues, but it too is a democracy, which is why it's a member of NATO. So on the simplistic level of checking off criterion for invasion, Israel doesn't stack up. On a more realistic level, Israel doesn't threaten its neighbors with invasion or with nuclear weapons, and as bad as the Palestinian situation is, it doesn't even compare to what Saddam did to the Kurds. The comparison between Iraq and Israel is ridiculous.

Well, Zig (may I call you Zig?)... Funny that you and you alone - or perhaps the US and the US alone - seems to know all of the rules for when and how countries should be invaded. I have never seen these rules spelled out before - I must have skipped class that day.

At any rate, it seems that these rules amazingly change as the political climate changes. No one - unless I missed something - seriously advocated invading Iraq before 9/11, and yet essentially nothing changed vis a vis Saddam between 9/11 and 3/2003. (For instance, Bush specifically said during the election cycle that Iraq needed nothing new done.) So I conclude that your parallels for invasion - who, why and when - are essentially ad hoc. Which matches them up with Bush's thinking fairly well, in my opinion.

I contrast this with the longstanding policy of international sovereignty, a tried and true method for insuring world peace. As long as nations support this concept, there will be more peace and less war. Deviating from it leads to more war and less peace.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Ziggurat


Nonsense. First, Israel is a functioning democracy, not a dictatorship. That alone separates it from every single one of its neighbors. And that matters, much as countries like China and Russia would like to pretend it doesn't. Second, Israel does have human rights issues, but it is not a state sponsor of terrorism. Iraq was. Syria and Iran still are. Turkey also has human rights issues, but it too is a democracy, which is why it's a member of NATO. So on the simplistic level of checking off criterion for invasion, Israel doesn't stack up. On a more realistic level, Israel doesn't threaten its neighbors with invasion or with nuclear weapons, and as bad as the Palestinian situation is, it doesn't even compare to what Saddam did to the Kurds. The comparison between Iraq and Israel is ridiculous.

Well, as an Israeli citizen I am fully aware of the fact that Israel is a democracy and that it doesn't violate Human Rights the way Turkey does for example ( although the latest legislation regarding the marriages between Jews anb Arab Israelis is an outrageous example of Apartheit policy) but Israel is a country that refuses to comply with the International regulations regarding nuclear weapons, it refuses to inform the international community about the nature of its armory and it has for PM someone that has declared that " Arab countries might have the Oil but we have the matches" referring to the nuclear weapons.

As for Turkey it's widely known that it violates the human rights grossely and yet United States of America patronize this country to get into the EU.

For more info have a look here http://www.torturecare.org.uk/client6.htm

and this is from today's BBC News

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3199945.stm

USA and UK justified the invasion to Iraq on moral grounds mostly ( since they lacked evidence about WMD...) now that that they have started their moral campaign they must apply their morality to the area in general, otherwise they will never gain back their lost credibility.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Ziggurat


Nonsense. First, Israel is a functioning democracy, not a dictatorship.

Democracy has nothing do with it. Iraq is a signatory to the Nuclear Nonproliferation treaty, as is Iran.

Pakistan, India, France, Israel, China, USA, USSR, et. al. are either NOT signatories or DID NOT become so until AFTER they became nuclear powers.

How many times must this be said?

MattJ

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by DrChinese

Well, Zig (may I call you Zig?)...


If you want...


Funny that you and you alone - or perhaps the US and the US alone - seems to know all of the rules for when and how countries should be invaded. I have never seen these rules spelled out before - I must have skipped class that day.


Bush spelled them out, and to repeat:
1) dictatorship
2) pursues weapons of mass destruction (personally nukes or small pox equivalent are the only ones that are REALLY important, anthrax and mustard gas aren't much worse than conventional weapons)
3) support terrorism

Yes, this is a new principle. But we're dealing with a changing world. And we're not alone, either - aside from Britain and Spain, most former east-block states (who have much more recent experience with the dangers of totalitarian governments than France) supported us.


At any rate, it seems that these rules amazingly change as the political climate changes. No one - unless I missed something - seriously advocated invading Iraq before 9/11, and yet essentially nothing changed vis a vis Saddam between 9/11 and 3/2003. (For instance, Bush specifically said during the election cycle that Iraq needed nothing new done.) So I conclude that your parallels for invasion - who, why and when - are essentially ad hoc. Which matches them up with Bush's thinking fairly well, in my opinion.


I didn't bring up 9/11 because of the controversy about whether or not Saddam supported Al Quaeda. But he did support terrorists, including Hamas. 9/11 showed that merely waiting to respond is not effective enough. There are those who want to detroy our country, and they cannot be disuaded by threats of retaliation. So what worked against past foes (Soviet Union, for example) will not work against the foes we now face. We need to be more proactive if we want to prevent something like 9/11 or worse from happening.

But you're actually wrong about nobody wanting to invade Iraq before 9/11. A number of people advocated that, for the same reasons that I laid out earlier. But they didn't have much support, because most people (including myself and apparently Bush) hadn't accepted the idea that merely responding after you have been attacked is inadequate protection. 9/11 changed a lot of people's minds on that, and for good reason.


I contrast this with the longstanding policy of international sovereignty, a tried and true method for insuring world peace. As long as nations support this concept, there will be more peace and less war. Deviating from it leads to more war and less peace.

The conflict we face goes far beyond issues of sovereignty. In traditional conflicts between states, you could disuade opponents from taking actions you did not want through threats of retaliation. Sovereignty worked because states were rational, though often selfish or even spiteful. But we are facing foes that are not rational, that cannot be disuaded, who want not merely to change OUR actions but to actually destroy us. Threats of retaliation are inadequate. To do anything about this larger problem, we need to confront it directly. In this context, traditional concepts of sovereignty do not get us any closer to peace, they only serve as cover to give those who wish to destroy us greater ability to act against us.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Cleopatra


Well, as an Israeli citizen I am fully aware of the fact that Israel is a democracy and that it doesn't violate Human Rights the way Turkey does for example ( although the latest legislation regarding the marriages between Jews anb Arab Israelis is an outrageous example of Apartheit policy) but Israel is a country that refuses to comply with the International regulations regarding nuclear weapons, it refuses to inform the international community about the nature of its armory and it has for PM someone that has declared that " Arab countries might have the Oil but we have the matches" referring to the nuclear weapons.


Which international regulations are you talking about?

edit: Also, where/when did Sharon make the statement you attribute to him?

[Cleopatra]

This is from Capel Dodger but I am not addressing only to him:
Might it be the proper role of some other, well-intentioned group to interfere to achieve what they regard as a better world? Without, of course, going into details about what such an organisation might be, could you in principle accept the validity of such a body?

No. I think that it's exactly that in principle that we must not accept the validity of anybody not even fo organizations to interfere to other countries. Problems that arise in countries/societies cannot be solved by external interventions because they are not really solved.Only the society that has produced a problem can solve it, I expect you Capel Dodger that you have a good knowledge of History to agree with that.

I'd rather you supported political cynicism than making vague references to well-intentioned groups that they would solve world's problems, when in History have you seen that.

I find amusing the way some people are dreaming about the creation of secular states in the Arab world, this shows how little people know about the Arab world.

How the Western countries can persuade a Middle Eastern that a secular state is the only path to progress when they cannot offer an good example with the only secular state that exists in the area.

If the West fails to control Israel, if the West cannot make Israel to comply with basic international regulations regarding human rights and nuclear weapons, then you cannot persuade anybody in the area about the benefits of a secular State.

Matt

This is a list of resolutions that call Israel to place all its nuclear installations under Agency safeguards and to accede to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. I found them in the site of IAEO. In this year's International Conference, Israel will be an issue again.

These include:
1. General Assembly resolutions:
1994 A/RES/49/78
1995 A/RES/50/73
1996 A/RES/51/48
1997 A/RES/52/41
1998 A/RES/53/80
1999 A/RES/54/57
2000 A/RES/55/36
2001 A/RES/56/27
2. Agency resolutions:
1987 GC(XXXI)/RES/470
1988 GC(XXXII)/RES/487
1989 GC(XXXIII)/RES/506
1990 GC(XXXIV)/RES/526
1991 GC(XXXV)/RES/570

The argument that Israel hasn't signed the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons so it can't be subjective to inspections is not a valid arguement especially when the International Community talks about a Free Nuclear Weapons Middle East.

You cannot go to War about WMD and allow a country of Middle East not only to have such weapons but also to be secretive about them unless the War wasn't about WMD.

As for Sharon's statement I will have to look for it.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by aerocontrols


Democracy has nothing do with it. Iraq is a signatory to the Nuclear Nonproliferation treaty, as is Iran.

Pakistan, India, France, Israel, China, USA, USSR, et. al. are either NOT signatories or DID NOT become so until AFTER they became nuclear powers.

How many times must this be said?

MattJ

And Iraq had arms inspectors in it, and as it turns out, there was pretty well nothing there. Iran has arms inspectors in it. I would like to see the day that Israel allows them in.

As for the expediency of nations and treaties, that is something we have to take as a given. It does not mean we should just give up.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Ziggurat


If you want...



Bush spelled them out, and to repeat:
1) dictatorship
Plenty of countries are guilty of that, including countries the US has supported when they were dictatorships such as Argentina, Cambodia, Guatemala, El Salvador, others...

2) pursues weapons of mass destruction (personally nukes or small pox equivalent are the only ones that are REALLY important, anthrax and mustard gas aren't much worse than conventional weapons)
As it has been noted a million times, which people keep ignoring, if this was an issue it should have been addressed with UN backing, not with the US acting unilaterally.

3) support terrorism
The US supports terrorism. Argentina, El Salvador and Guatemala used terrorism with US support. A car bomb that killed 80 people in a botched attempt to kill Sheikh Fadlallah was paid for by the CIA. What you wanted to say is that Saddam supported the wrong terrorists.

Yes, this is a new principle. But we're dealing with a changing world. And we're not alone, either - aside from Britain and Spain, most former east-block states (who have much more recent experience with the dangers of totalitarian governments than France) supported us.

Define 'support'. Do you mean 'we're USA all the way' (and if so, provide evidence), or do you mean 'we'll be economically disadvantaged if we don't give this thing some lip service, so we'll sign the I Hate Saddam petition'?


I didn't bring up 9/11 because of the controversy about whether or not Saddam supported Al Quaeda. But he did support terrorists, including Hamas. 9/11 showed that merely waiting to respond is not effective enough. There are those who want to detroy our country, and they cannot be disuaded by threats of retaliation. So what worked against past foes (Soviet Union, for example) will not work against the foes we now face. We need to be more proactive if we want to prevent something like 9/11 or worse from happening.
So why not go after the actual terrorists instead of the people who may or may not be supporting them? How many attacks on America has Hamas made? If zero, why mention them?

But you're actually wrong about nobody wanting to invade Iraq before 9/11. A number of people advocated that, for the same reasons that I laid out earlier. But they didn't have much support, because most people (including myself and apparently Bush) hadn't accepted the idea that merely responding after you have been attacked is inadequate protection. 9/11 changed a lot of people's minds on that, and for good reason.
Yes. Specifically Richard Perle, Armitage, Wolfowitz, the sort of people whose motto is "Peace through Strength". The fact that people were advocating an incorrect action in the past does not make it a correct action now.


The conflict we face goes far beyond issues of sovereignty. In traditional conflicts between states, you could disuade opponents from taking actions you did not want through threats of retaliation. Sovereignty worked because states were rational, though often selfish or even spiteful. But we are facing foes that are not rational, that cannot be disuaded, who want not merely to change OUR actions but to actually destroy us. Threats of retaliation are inadequate. To do anything about this larger problem, we need to confront it directly. In this context, traditional concepts of sovereignty do not get us any closer to peace, they only serve as cover to give those who wish to destroy us greater ability to act against us.

Much the same thing could be said about the US. The US would have a lot less to worry about if it didn't actively pursue her foreign interests using violence. But the US is a slow beast, slow to learn, slow to adapt, slow to use diplomacy. More's the pity is that other countries are starting to pay for her stupidity in the form of terrorist attacks on soft targets like Bali and the UN headquarters in Iraq. Never mind. USA all the way.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Matt

This is a list of resolutions that call Israel to place all its nuclear installations under Agency safeguards and to accede to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons...

The argument that Israel hasn't signed the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons so it can't be subjective to inspections is not a valid arguement especially when the International Community talks about a Free Nuclear Weapons Middle East.

You'll forgive me if I'm one of those people who believes that the only international law that is binding is that international law that a nation agrees to. Countries that have not signed Treaty A are not bound by it. Refusing the calls of the international community to become bound by a treaty is not a violation of international regulations.

The Internaional Community's wishes for a nuclear-free Middle East are not binding on any country in the Middle East. The International Community's authority to inspect for nuclear weapons comes only from the NPT. Israel is in the same position as Pakistan. The International Community can call for Pakistan to accept inspections, (they don't, because Pakistan isn't Israel) but there is no authority to enforce those calls.

This position is the consistent one: The International Community should attempt to enforce the NPT on those countries that have signed it. Attempting to enforce the NPT on countries that have not signed it would fly in the face of international law.

MattJ

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


And Iraq had arms inspectors in it, and as it turns out, there was pretty well nothing there. Iran has arms inspectors in it. I would like to see the day that Israel allows them in.

As for the expediency of nations and treaties, that is something we have to take as a given. It does not mean we should just give up.

I would like to see the day that Norway stops whaling. My desire to see them stop, however, does not grant me the authority to force them to stop. Indeed we should not 'give up' on trying to convince countries to do the things we want them to do. Neither should we attempt to equate one country's violations of international law with another country's non-violations. Refusing to sign a treaty is not a violation of international law. Refusing to comply with a treaty one has not signed is no violation, either.

MattJ

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

As it has been noted a million times, which people keep ignoring, if this was an issue it should have been addressed with UN backing, not with the US acting unilaterally.


I have addressed this a million times. The UN is incompetent and impotent. It demonstrated clearly that it never intended to authorize force against Saddam to back up its own mandates. Saddam was therefore NEVER going to comply with the UN. Yes, the UN should have been the ones to handle this. But since they clearly weren't going to, are you trying to argue that their impotence should paralyse us?


Much the same thing could be said about the US. The US would have a lot less to worry about if it didn't actively pursue her foreign interests using violence.


Oh sure, Osama never would have sent the 9/11 hijackers if only we'd play nice. You are naive, and that kind of naivety could cost thousands or even millions of american lives if it dictated our policy.


But the US is a slow beast, slow to learn, slow to adapt, slow to use diplomacy. More's the pity is that other countries are starting to pay for her stupidity in the form of terrorist attacks on soft targets like Bali and the UN headquarters in Iraq. Never mind. USA all the way.

You're a fool. You believe that these terrorists would respond to diplomacy, that they are even capable of being placated by rational concessions. They are not. They want to destroy us, and NOTHING we do will change that. Those who bombed the Bali nightclubs and UN Iraq headquarters are not expressing some justified resentment towards the US, they are trying to destroy civilization, both ours AND their own. That last point is something you seem completely oblivious - they do not resent our oppression of them, they resent the progress of their own societies. They are the enemies of their own people. Get that through your thick skull. People's lives are at stake, and you're sticking your head further and further into the sand.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by DrChinese


What do you call what happened in Hiroshima? Attack against vicious Japanese suicide bombers? Revenge for Pearl Harbor? Or scaring civilians? What else is terrorism? Or is it terrorism only if carried out by terrorists?

I know about the justifications, but I also know that the ends justified the means in this case. Truman himself knew it was wrong to bomb civilians without warning them first. But he did it anyway.

Other than the political considerations and casualty predictions for a home island invasion (estimates range between 50,000 to 1,000,000 US casualties), there are these facts to consider:

1. Hiroshima had one of Japan's largest munitions storage facilities, and was home for the factory that produced the Zero fighter plane.

2. Nagasaki was the home of the Mitsubishi torpedo factory.

3. Both cities were strategic transportation and war-machine industial centers.

4. For perspective, more civilians died in the bombings of Tokyo, Kobe, and Yokohama than died at both Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Ziggurat


I have addressed this a million times. The UN is incompetent and impotent. It demonstrated clearly that it never intended to authorize force against Saddam to back up its own mandates. Saddam was therefore NEVER going to comply with the UN. Yes, the UN should have been the ones to handle this. But since they clearly weren't going to, are you trying to argue that their impotence should paralyse us?



Oh sure, Osama never would have sent the 9/11 hijackers if only we'd play nice. You are naive, and that kind of naivety could cost thousands or even millions of american lives if it dictated our policy.



You're a fool. You believe that these terrorists would respond to diplomacy, that they are even capable of being placated by rational concessions. They are not. They want to destroy us, and NOTHING we do will change that. Those who bombed the Bali nightclubs and UN Iraq headquarters are not expressing some justified resentment towards the US, they are trying to destroy civilization, both ours AND their own. That last point is something you seem completely oblivious - they do not resent our oppression of them, they resent the progress of their own societies. They are the enemies of their own people. Get that through your thick skull. People's lives are at stake, and you're sticking your head further and further into the sand.

The ol' "They hate us because we're so enlightened and free" argument. No discourse on terrorism should be without it. I like your appeals to the crowd as well. "People's lives are at stake, man, WAKE UP!" You should have added TIME IS RUNNING OUT!

The best thing about those arguments are, they don't address the actual issues.

BTW, if the UN is going to be written off as incompetent by an antsy US, what will the US say when a country like China decides to 'liberate' Taiwan? And if the UN is so incompetent, why is the US requesting aid in policing and rebuilidng Iraq from the UN? Surely the US wouldn't want to entrust so difficult a task to the incompetent UN? Have a stab at developing arguments this time. I mean, the emotive appeals are nice and all, but their shelf life is pretty short. A bit like the nerve gas and small pox Saddam allegedly had.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Kodiak


Other than the political considerations and casualty predictions for a home island invasion (estimates range between 50,000 to 1,000,000 US casualties), there are these facts to consider:

1. Hiroshima had one of Japan's largest munitions storage facilities, and was home for the factory that produced the Zero fighter plane.

2. Nagasaki was the home of the Mitsubishi torpedo factory.

3. Both cities were strategic transportation and war-machine industial centers.

4. For perspective, more civilians died in the bombings of Tokyo, Kobe, and Yokohama than died at both Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

Oh, well, if more civilians died at Tokyo, Kobe and Yokohama than Nagasaki and Hiroshima, well, that's all right then.

The whole idea of bombing civilian cities (including Tokyo et al) was basically terrorism. Berlin, London... they were all bombed in the mistaken notion that it would somehow wreck the morale of the countries involved. America, being a country slower to learn than most, continues the policy of bombing civilians to this day.

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by Ziggurat

(directed at Mr. Manifesto)

You believe that these terrorists would respond to diplomacy, that they are even capable of being placated by rational concessions. They are not. They want to destroy us, and NOTHING we do will change that. Those who bombed the Bali nightclubs and UN Iraq headquarters are not expressing some justified resentment towards the US, they are trying to destroy civilization, both ours AND their own. That last point is something you seem completely oblivious - they do not resent our oppression of them, they resent the progress of their own societies. They are the enemies of their own people. Get that through your thick skull. People's lives are at stake, and you're sticking your head further and further into the sand.

You advocate the following, if I understand your positions:

a. When it comes to the US, the end justifies the means. But for others - such as terrorists - the end does not justify the means.

b. It doesn't matter what the long-term results are, we shouldn't stick our head in the ground and do nothing. If we do the wrong thing for the right reason, everything will be OK.

c. There are boogiemen under every rock.

Did I get this right?

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

Oh, well, if more civilians died at Tokyo, Kobe and Yokohama than Nagasaki and Hiroshima, well, that's all right then.

I'm very sorry you feel that way.




Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

The whole idea of bombing civilian cities (including Tokyo et al) was basically terrorism. Berlin, London... they were all bombed in the mistaken notion that it would somehow wreck the morale of the countries involved. America, being a country slower to learn than most, continues the policy of bombing civilians to this day.

Morale was one, though no where near the only or most important, consideration when bombing targets were chosen in WWII.

The rest is just your typical propaganda...

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Kodiak


Morale was one, though no where near the only or most important, consideration when bombing targets were chosen in WWII.


Really? What were the other reasons?

[Renfield]

Originally posted by Kodiak


No, dammit :mad:

The first goal deals with the repercussions for violating a UN security council resolution!



This arguement simply doesn't hold up when you look at Bush's stance and statements about the UN leading up to the war. If Bush were really so concerned about the will of the UN being violated, he would have waited for some kind of UN approval or cooperation for the war.

Not to mention the fact that the US has violated UN resolutions on numerous occassions, along with our ally Israel and countless other countries. We were actually defying the UN by invading.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

BTW, if the UN is going to be written off as incompetent by an antsy US, what will the US say when a country like China decides to 'liberate' Taiwan?

Well, lets see...

If China decides to 'liberate' Taiwan, any actions taken to defend Taiwan will have to go through the Security council, which will probably be vetoed by China.

So, any defense of Taiwan will have to be accomplished by either existing non-UN organizations (such as NATO did in Kosovo), or by ad-hoc coaltions (such as the ones that were involved in Iraq and Afghanistan). It would further demonstrate the inability of the UN to enact real change.

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

And if the UN is so incompetent, why is the US requesting aid in policing and rebuilidng Iraq from the UN?

Perhaps they feel that since the overthow of Saddam will benefit the entire world, then more countries should be involved.

Or perhaps it is because the US has the best fighting force in the world, but what is needed now is 'peacekeepers', and other countries (with more lightly armed militaries) are better suited to that role.

Or maybe they are trying to be diplomatic, and wanted to give other countries the chance to say "Look, we can help too".

Or maybe the US wanted to try to let the Iraqis know that other countries supported them, not just the US.

Or maybe it was an attempt to cut down on terrorist attacks, by either: 1) preventing terrorists from acting, since they might not necessarily attack 'evil' US targets, but forces from other countries, and they may not want to look too bad (hey, everyone hates the US, don't they), or 2) if terrorists do attack the forces from some other UN nation, it may cause other UN countries to get serious about stopping terrorism. (Hey, when al Quaeda attacked Saudi Arabia, for a moment they were actually serious about helping stop terrorism. Didn't last too long though.)

Or maybe it is a combination of all of the above.

Or maybe getting the UN involved is just a really bad decison, that the US will regret.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Renfield

Not to mention the fact that the US has violated UN resolutions on numerous occassions, along with our ally Israel and countless other countries. We were actually defying the UN by invading.

Ok, once again...

The resolutions against Israel are chapter 6 resolutions. They are considered 'non-enforcable'. They request that a country try to resolve situations peacefully. However, it also requires action by other countries. For example, there may be resolutions requiring Israel to withdraw from certain areas, but the resolution also calls on other countries (like Syria) to cease hostilities. Israel is under no obligation to follow the terms of chapter 6 resolutions if other parties involved refuse to follow the terms of the resolutions themselves.

The resolutions against Iraq were chapter 7 'enforcable' resolutions. For all intents and purposes, they should be considered 'law' and should be followed; otherwise military actions can be taken.

Please don't drag the whole tired "Israel ignores resolutions" argument into the debate unless you understand the difference.

For more information, see: http://economist.com/world/na/displayStory.cfm?story_id=1378577

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


Really? What were the other reasons?

FromMilitaryHistoryOnline: (http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/wwii/bombercommand/default.aspx) "For Bomber Command, the directives of June 20 were two-fold: medium bombers were to attack shipping, troop build-up and enemy airfields; 'heavies' were to focus upon enemy aircraft production. Other targets were indicated as well, and mine-laying ops ('gardening', in RAF slang), as opportunity arose..."

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
BTW, if the UN is going to be written off as incompetent by an antsy US, what will the US say when a country like China decides to 'liberate' Taiwan?


It's not what we would say that matters, it is what we would do. And what we WOULDN'T do in that case is sit around waiting for the UN to fix the situation. Seeing as how China is a permanent member of the UN security council, I'm surprised you brought this example up in defense of the UN, since it's actually quite a perfect example of how helpless that organization can be.


And if the UN is so incompetent, why is the US requesting aid in policing and rebuilidng Iraq from the UN? Surely the US wouldn't want to entrust so difficult a task to the incompetent UN? Have a stab at developing arguments this time. I mean, the emotive appeals are nice and all, but their shelf life is pretty short. A bit like the nerve gas and small pox Saddam allegedly had.

The UN can play a positive role in providing humanitarian relief. That would be a good thing for everyone. But what we sure as hell DON'T want them to try doing is taking over any security responsibilities. They proved themselves incapable of that task in Bosnia.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Renfield

This arguement simply doesn't hold up when you look at Bush's stance and statements about the UN leading up to the war. If Bush were really so concerned about the will of the UN being violated, he would have waited for some kind of UN approval or cooperation for the war.

The Administration did wait, until it was clear that certain UN security council member states with veto-status refused to apply any repercussions (as called for in the resolution) against Iraq for violating 1441..

Originally posted by Renfield

Not to mention the fact that the US has violated UN resolutions on numerous occassions, along with our ally Israel and countless other countries. We were actually defying the UN by invading.

Exactly which UN Security Council Resolutions has the United States violated??

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Segnosaur

Perhaps they feel that since the overthow of Saddam will benefit the entire world, then more countries should be involved.
Pity they didn't ask the rest of the world's opinion before invading.

Or perhaps it is because the US has the best fighting force in the world, but what is needed now is 'peacekeepers', and other countries (with more lightly armed militaries) are better suited to that role.
Pfft! The more lightly armed you are, the better suited you are to peacekeeping? Admit it, you just made that up didn't you?

Or maybe they are trying to be diplomatic, and wanted to give other countries the chance to say "Look, we can help too".
:roll: "It takes a village to invade a country"


Or maybe the US wanted to try to let the Iraqis know that other countries supported them, not just the US.
http://smilies.crowd9.com/otn/realhappy/xxrotflmao.gif "Please UN peoples! We still have a hospital or two standing in Iraq! Show us you support us like the US do. Come in and blow them up!"

Or maybe it was an attempt to cut down on terrorist attacks, by either: 1) preventing terrorists from acting, since they might not necessarily attack 'evil' US targets, but forces from other countries, and they may not want to look too bad (hey, everyone hates the US, don't they),
http://www.gamers-forums.com/smilies/contrib/blackeye/lol.gif You mean, 'evil' US targets like the UN headquarters? Boy, do you ever have a short memory. Do you seriously think that the US wants help from the UN as a terrorist prevention measure?
2) if terrorists do attack the forces from some other UN nation, it may cause other UN countries to get serious about stopping terrorism. (Hey, when al Quaeda attacked Saudi Arabia, for a moment they were actually serious about helping stop terrorism. Didn't last too long though.)
http://www.gamers-forums.com/smilies/contrib/blackeye/lol.gif http://instagiber.net/smiliesdotcom/contrib/Bizkit/sweat.gif http://instagiber.net/smiliesdotcom/contrib/geno/rofl.gif One of Al-Qaeda's targets is the UN. A-Q (along with other extremists in the Arab world) thinks that the UN is a puppet of Israel. The UN has plenty of reason to get serious about stopping terrorism, and has tried to stop terrorism. But a problem occurs when one of the worst propentents of terrorism is the United States.


Or maybe it is a combination of all of the above.

Or maybe getting the UN involved is just a really bad decison, that the US will regret.
Or maybe you're smoking something that you should be passing to me instead of hogging to yourself.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by DrChinese

You advocate the following, if I understand your positions:


You clearly do not understand my position, or willfully misrepresent it to try to make your own argument seem more rational in comparison. And hey, you're right, your arguments make a lot more sense than your charicature of my arguments.


a. When it comes to the US, the end justifies the means. But for others - such as terrorists - the end does not justify the means.


This makes absolutely no sense. On the most fundamental level, the ends of terrorists and fascists are not themselves justifiable. But much of what you say suggests you do not believe this. If you cannot accept that proposition, there is no common ground between us. If you CAN accept that idea, then we can worry about the whole ends justifying the means debate (though you did not understand my position on that correctly either).


b. It doesn't matter what the long-term results are, we shouldn't stick our head in the ground and do nothing. If we do the wrong thing for the right reason, everything will be OK.


You think this is what my position will lead to. I disagree. But I never advocated what you suggest at all. Rather I think that the long-term results ARE the most important ones. Our battle against terrorism and fascism is going to be a long one, probably decades at least. But I have heard of no plan for victory over these forces coming out of the anti-war croud, only frightened claims that we're making it worse. The only support for that comes from short-term effects - an immediate increase in terrorist activities says nothing about the long-term danger. It is the anti-war croud that's ignoring the long-term consequences here. 9/11 was the consequence for not responding adequately to the Africa embassy bombings and the USS Cole bombing. If they could go back in time, without knowing the specifics of the plot but only knowing that Osama had declared war on the US and would strike a terrible blow against us, what would the anti-war croud be willing to do to try to prevent it? Would they have been willing to invade Afghanistan before 9/11? Because we should have. So don't try to claim that I'M the one overlooking long-term consequences.


c. There are boogiemen under every rock.


This accusation needs no response


Did I get this right?

Not even close. Care to try again?

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by Kodiak
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Renfield

This arguement simply doesn't hold up when you look at Bush's stance and statements about the UN leading up to the war. If Bush were really so concerned about the will of the UN being violated, he would have waited for some kind of UN approval or cooperation for the war.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Administration did wait, until it was clear that certain UN security council member states with veto-status refused to apply any repercussions (as called for in the resolution) against Iraq for violating 1441..


Your understanding of the English language differs from my own.

If someone waits for approval that is rejected immediately (as Bush learned earlier this year) and goes ahead and does it ANYWAY... That is NOT waiting.

Why is it so heard for Bush apologists to state the obvious? Bush did not have any kind of UN approval to invade Iraq. Period. Bush cannot claim that he was enforcing UN resolutions BECAUSE the UN did not want those resolutions enforced by the US.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

Pity they didn't ask the rest of the world's opinion before invading.


So what you are saying is that the rest of the world things things were better with Saddam in power? (You realize that attitude goes against 99% of the anti-war side who claim "I'm glad Saddam is gone, but....")

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

Pfft! The more lightly armed you are, the better suited you are to peacekeeping? Admit it, you just made that up didn't you?


Many heavy arms (M1A1 tanks, B52 bombers, etc.) are of no use in 'peacekeeping'. Although US soldiers are capable of acting as peacekeepers, it is a case of asking them to perform tasks that they weren't given as their primary training. Espensive tanks will go unused while their drivers try fighting door-to-door. (There were even stories about US forces having to use AK-47s because the drivers of the tanks weren't issued M-16s.)

Other countries (such as Canada) have more experience as peace keepers, and the fact that they don't have the same heavy armaments means that the average soldier is better suited to peace keeping.

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

http://smilies.crowd9.com/otn/realhappy/xxrotflmao.gif "Please UN peoples! We still have a hospital or two standing in Iraq! Show us you support us like the US do. Come in and blow them up!"


You, ah, do realize that hospitals were not targeted by the US during the invasion. By suggesting that the US was 'blowing them up' is rather low class, don't you think?

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

You mean, 'evil' US targets like the UN headquarters? Boy, do you ever have a short memory. Do you seriously think that the US wants help from the UN as a terrorist prevention measure?
...
One of Al-Qaeda's targets is the UN. A-Q (along with other extremists in the Arab world) thinks that the UN is a puppet of Israel.

You, ah, do realize that there are more terrorist groups around than al Qaeda, do you not? Some will target the UN, others will not.
Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

The UN has plenty of reason to get serious about stopping terrorism, and has tried to stop terrorism.

Plenty of reasons to get serious about terrorism, but no interest in acting. (Unless you call all of the 'resolutions' a form of action.)

[Crossbow]

Amen Dr. Chinese!

Sometimes I think that I am the only one who listened to the George W. speeches made in the run-up to the Second Gulf War where he said, among other things, "If the UN does not act [meaning if the UN does not approve military action], then we [meaning the USA will act on its on regardless what anyone else has to say about the matter] will!"

And now that he has acted, George W. is having to go back to the UN and ask for the resources to help him out of this mess before the situation so totally goes out of control that it bankrupts the USA and costs him the 2004 election.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by aerocontrols


You'll forgive me if I'm one of those people who believes that the only international law that is binding is that international law that a nation agrees to. Countries that have not signed Treaty A are not bound by it. Refusing the calls of the international community to become bound by a treaty is not a violation of international regulations.

The Internaional Community's wishes for a nuclear-free Middle East are not binding on any country in the Middle East. The International Community's authority to inspect for nuclear weapons comes only from the NPT. Israel is in the same position as Pakistan. The International Community can call for Pakistan to accept inspections, (they don't, because Pakistan isn't Israel) but there is no authority to enforce those calls.

This position is the consistent one: The International Community should attempt to enforce the NPT on those countries that have signed it. Attempting to enforce the NPT on countries that have not signed it would fly in the face of international law.
MattJ

Ha! I have heard many times these arguments while discussing the creation of the Permanent International Criminal Court.

In reality these are not arguments. Your post describes the philosophy of political amoralism.

I am not against political amoralism, I can discuss everything on a philosophical level, I would like though, those that embrace political amoralism not to be ashamed to declare it openly, or not to try to take advantage of the enacted organisations ( like UN) to legalize the application of the political amoralism as a political practice.

When the War in Middle East will be over and when Palestinians will have their own State, when the first serious internal problems will start for Israel -- to put it clearly-- when the civil war will start, Israel will need the International Community.

Let's hope that by then, friends of Israel all over the world will have arrived to persuade Israel to accept and abide by the International Law.

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Kodiak


The Administration did wait, until it was clear that certain UN security council member states with veto-status refused to apply any repercussions (as called for in the resolution) against Iraq for violating 1441..

Exactly which UN Security Council Resolutions has the United States violated??

I would say that the Second Gulf War was a violation of the first chapter of the UN Charter.
Further, I would remind you that 1441 was not authorization for the use of force.

UN Charter:
http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/index.html
Security Council resolution 1441 (2002) The situation between Iraq and Kuwait
http://www.un.org/Docs/scres/2002/sc2002.htm

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Dr.Chinese

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FACTS: The US invented nuclear weapons. The US has used nuclear weapons - in a terroristic fashion against innocent civilians (not our first taste of civilian blood, either).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That was a very brave thing to say.



Thanks for the compliment (I think). And what you are saying about Israel is brave as well. I do not understand why the debaters on this forum "hide" or otherwise gloss over facts that are not salient to their position. I love the US, but that does not mean I support everything we do. I sense the same between you and your country.

It is healthy to look at both sides of an issue. My entire life, I have been led to believe that the atomic bomb was used in Japan to prevent even worse bloodshed. And that our possession of nuclear weapons was essentially a God-given right.

But now I realize that there is another side to the story, and I want to hear it and discuss it. For instance:

President Truman's July 25, 1945 diary entry on the first use of the atomic bomb in Japan:

"This weapon is to be used against Japan between now and August 10th. I have told the Sec. of War, Mr. Stimson, to use it so that military objectives and soldiers and sailors are the target and not women and children. Even if the Japs are savages, ruthless, merciless and fanatic, we as the leader of the world for the common welfare cannot drop that terrible bomb on the old capital or the new.

He and I are in accord. The target will be a purely military one and we will issue a warning statement asking the Japs to surrender and save lives. I'm sure they will not do that, but we will have given them the chance. It is certainly a good thing for the world that Hitler's crowd or Stalin's did not discover this atomic bomb. It seems to be the most terrible thing ever discovered, but it can be made the most useful..."

-Quoted in Robert H. Ferrell, Off the Record: The Private Papers of Harry S. Truman (New York: Harper and Row, 1980) pp. 55-56.

It is ridiculous that Bush's foreign policy is not identified for what it is: deceptive, belligerent and darkly Orwellian.

[CapelDodger]

Hi Cleopatra:
Following your logic if the International Community invaded Iraq because it's a potential nuclear threat it must invade Israel as well.
Indeed. Also Pakistan, Zimbabwe (Africa needs sorting out in general), Burma, Saudi Arabia, loads of places. I'm an equal-opportunities interventionist.

[Cleopatra]

Dr.Chinese

Of course it was a compliment. I too have difficulties in understanding why people cannot tolerate truth or sincerity.

I assure you that I wouldn't mind if Pr.Bush declared that he goes to War because he wants the Oil for his country. I cannot accept though claims that the War was about Human Rights among other things.

The same stands for Israel.

Israel was established on human ashes literally speaking. Israel pursued the German Criminals all around the world based on International Law, it cannot now turn its back to this very law.

Looking for something else last night, I had the opportunity to read again the Number 70 of The Federalist composed by Hamilton in 1788 ( the year that the final volumes of Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire were published...nice coincidence don't you agree? ) where he tries to list the lessons his newborn country could learn from History...

Maybe some people should have a look at this text....

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
Hi Cleopatra:

Indeed. Also Pakistan, Zimbabwe (Africa needs sorting out in general), Burma, Saudi Arabia, loads of places. I'm an equal-opportunities interventionist.

Sorry Capel Dodger

I am against interventions. Maybe because I wasn't born in the Metropolis of an Empire. :)

[Renfield]

Originally posted by Tricky

It appears you are once again confusing arms with arms programs. There is no evidence that Saddam has ever had nuclear weapons, only that he was trying (with little success) to get them. The Israeli raid on their reactor in 1981 was the last time anyone could point to a nuclear weapons program that was anywhere close to completion.

All you can do is repeat monotonously what you are "sure" he planned to do. Sorry, Ziggy. That propehcy of yours never held water and it doesn't now.

But while your're predicting the future, why don't you tell us what other tinpot dictators are "sure" to get nuclear weapons in the future? We can take them out now.

Not to mention that Bush justified the war with claims that we had proof of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (not just "plans" or "programs") and that there was an immenent threat. Neither of which was remotely true.

[CapelDodger]

from Mr Manifesto:
America, being a country slower to learn than most, continues the policy of bombing civilians to this day.
Frankly, I think it belittles what was done to Dresden, Warsaw, Tokyo and so many other places to suggest that today's collateral damage is equivalent. Civilians are not bombed deliberately. Why would they be? What would it achieve? What could be the political objective of such attacks?

Kodiak: you give four alternative reasons for the use of atomic weapons when the real reason is obvious - to demonstrate to Japan and the wider world that the US had nuclear weapons and that they were devastating. Japanese military production wasn't a factor since it was practically non-existent by this point. There were few moral qualms about bombing civilians in WW2, certainly not at the highest political and military levels (although Dresden turned a lot of stomachs, even Churchill's. But then, that was happening to white people).

[CapelDodger]

from Cleopatra:
I am against interventions. Maybe because I wasn't born in the Metropolis of an Empire.
That's a nice way to describe Cardiff. And it will be so, after the Benevolent Dictatorship is established and my program of intervention gets going. It wouldn't have mattered where I was born really, I'm just naturally arrogant.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
from Mr Manifesto:

Civilians are not bombed deliberately. Why would they be? What would it achieve? What could be the political objective of such attacks?


You are joking aren't you?? Bombardements against civilians is the most common way to exercise pressure to the government of the country that accepts the attack and a safe way to bend the trust of people to their government and their army.

Please Capel Dodger....

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
from Cleopatra:

That's a nice way to describe Cardiff. And it will be so, after the Benevolent Dictatorship is established and my program of intervention gets going. It wouldn't have mattered where I was born really, I'm just naturally arrogant.

Ok this made me laugh :) For reason that do not interest this thread your Dictatorship will never be established. A hint: your approach to things is a priori and by nature self-destructive.

But I will keep this too as a reference to address future laments of yours for the Palestinians...

[Renfield]

Originally posted by Segnosaur


Ok, once again...

The resolutions against Israel are chapter 6 resolutions. They are considered 'non-enforcable'. They request that a country try to resolve situations peacefully. However, it also requires action by other countries. For example, there may be resolutions requiring Israel to withdraw from certain areas, but the resolution also calls on other countries (like Syria) to cease hostilities. Israel is under no obligation to follow the terms of chapter 6 resolutions if other parties involved refuse to follow the terms of the resolutions themselves.

The resolutions against Iraq were chapter 7 'enforcable' resolutions. For all intents and purposes, they should be considered 'law' and should be followed; otherwise military actions can be taken.

Please don't drag the whole tired "Israel ignores resolutions" argument into the debate unless you understand the difference.

For more information, see: http://economist.com/world/na/displayStory.cfm?story_id=1378577

I'm afraid your the one being selective. No where in the resolution you speak of does it call for war should resolutions not be followed, in fact quite the opposite. And it certainly doesn't give the US authority to decide when and how much military action should be taken. We were in violation of this same resolution when we decided to go into Iraq without UN approval.

Anyway, my point that we and many of our allies have never been very consistent in supporting the UN stands. What I'm talking about is the attitude of the US and many of its allies towards the UN.The fact remains that we've often disregarded the UN ourselves and ignored its decisions and resolutions when they haven't suited us hasen't changed. Whether some of these resolutions were "enforcable" or not is beside the point. All that tells you is that the UN has not decided to take action against the US.

Besides, I'm sure if someone were to look into it, you could find quite a few instances of "chapter 7" resolutions being broken, and the US doing nothing. I would dare say some of these violations are likely to involve the US or our allies in some way.

For you to claim now, after the invasion and after the US's lies about Iraqi WMD have been exposed, that we went in there to uphold UN resolutions is pretty ridiculous, considering that the UN did not approve of such an extreme action.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Cleopatra


Ha! I have heard many times these arguments while discussing the creation of the Permanent International Criminal Court.

In reality these are not arguments. Your post describes the philosophy of political amoralism.

I have never heard the term. I'm somewhat unwilling to continue debating someone who simply responds that my arguments 'are not arguments'. I made some very specific claims. Kindly do me the favor of agreeing, disagreeing, or even ignoring them. It's rather rude to dismiss everything I said as 'not arguments'.

I cannot see how your third paragraph applies to anything I have said, so I don't see how I can respond. Perhaps you could clarify.

Your final two paragraphs are premised in fortune-telling. I'll take them for what they're worth.

MattJ

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Renfield

I'm afraid your the one being selective. No where in the resolution you speak of does it call for war should resolutions not be followed, in fact quite the opposite. And it certainly doesn't give the US authority to decide when and how much military action should be taken.

You are right, 1441 doesn't specify what the response should be, and that is one of the reasons why the UN is a useless organization; they make 'enforcable' resolutions, yet they refuse to act on them.

Originally posted by Renfield
We were in violation of this same resolution when we decided to go into Iraq without UN approval.


No, actually that's where you're wrong. Resolution 1441 dealt only with Iraq, disarmament, terrorism, and Kuwait. It did not give any details about what other countries should and should not do.


Originally posted by Renfield

Anyway, my point that we and many of our allies have never been very consistent in supporting the UN stands.

You brought up Israel, and indicated that failure to enforce those resolutions was somehow equivalent to failure to enforce Iraqi resolutions. I was pointing out that, even under the extremely flawed rules of the UN, Iraq and Israel should be treated differently based on the types of rules.

Originally posted by Renfield
What I'm talking about is the attitude of the US and many of its allies towards the UN.The fact remains that we've often disregarded the UN ourselves and ignored its decisions and resolutions when they haven't suited us hasen't changed.


Are you dumb enough to think the US and its allies are the only ones who disregard the UN when it suits them?

Originally posted by Renfield
Whether some of these resolutions were "enforcable" or not is beside the point.

No, its right on the point. If you are going to argue the 'letter of the law' , then be ready to accept the 'letter of the law' when it also goes against your beliefs.

Originally posted by Renfield

Besides, I'm sure if someone were to look into it, you could find quite a few instances of "chapter 7" resolutions being broken, and the US doing nothing. I would dare say some of these violations are likely to involve the US or our allies in some way.


Them why don't you search out those broken resolutions, if you think there are 'quite a few'. (Those making the claim should provide proof.)

And while you're at it, see what other countries are ignoring those multitudes of broken resolutions.

Originally posted by Renfield

For you to claim now, after the invasion and after the US's lies about Iraqi WMD have been exposed, that we went in there to uphold UN resolutions is pretty ridiculous, considering that the UN did not approve of such an extreme action.

You do realize that 'upholding' UN resolutions was actually given as an excuse before the invasion. So while the UN didn't actually want its rules enforced, you at least cannot claim that the US said they wanted to uphold UN resolutions only after no WMD had been discovered.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by aerocontrols


It's rather rude to dismiss everything I said as 'not arguments'.
MattJ

Maybe you are more familiar with the terms that are in fashion in this forum and I refuse to use exactly because I do not want to appear rude.

So, I rephrase it:

"What you posted was mere sophistry that can be found in every site of Zionist propaganda. "

I also undrestand that you must have found the last two paraphaphs of my post strange. In order to predict the Future in Politics you need a good grasp of History. History. You know, the study of the Past.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Crossbow


I would say that the Second Gulf War was a violation of the first chapter of the UN Charter.
Further, I would remind you that 1441 was not authorization for the use of force.


The question that had been asked by Kodiak was "what resolutions has the US violated". Being in violation of the UN charter is not the same as a violation as a resolution. (If you want to go that route, there are various elements of the charter concerned with human rights, democracy, etc. which were also routinely broken by Iraq, as well as Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, etc.)

And you are right, 1441 did not authorize the use of force. It was a dumb mistake for the UN to pass a resolution that it would likely never enforce; why would any country ever bother listening to such a resolution again? (Any actions to enforce that resolution would therefore be done on a logical or moral, rather than legal basis.)

As for it violating the UN charter, you are right in that there are elements of the UN charter which require peaceful resolutions. (Strange though, the human rights elements of the charter are continually ignored.) However, there are also elements of the UN charter which did give some legality to the invasion:
- Article 1 also mentions measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace
- Article 51 mentions the right of countries to engage in self defense, of themselves or their allies. Although there was no direct threat to the US, Iraq had been guilty of the following:

Terrorism support (against Israel and other countries); as the US is an ally of Israeal, they can be called on to defend them
Targeting of US planes patrolling Iraqi areas

Some people also believe that the right to 'self defense' includes premptive action, based on historical precident; for example, the US blockade of Cuba during the missle crisis, Israel's first strike during one of their wars, and various attacks by Britian against the spanish Armada.
- Earlier resolutions (also acknowleged by 1441) indicate Iraq had failed to make proper reparations to Kuwait following the first gulf war. Kuwait had a right to redress, which was being denied.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Maybe you are more familiar with the terms that are in fashion in this forum and I refuse to use exactly because I do not want to appear rude.

So, I rephrase it:

"What you posted was mere sophistry that can be found in every site of Zionist propaganda. "

Please explain to me, then, what gives the International Community the authority to demand that Israel subject its weapons to international inspection, while not giving the authority to demand the same from the United States, France, Great Britain, China, Pakistan, and India.

Why is Israel any different than those nations?

MattJ

[a_unique_person]

Hmmm, Aerocontrols Vs Cleopatra. I will be watching with interest. (Hint to Aercontrols, watch out for the crocodiles).

[subgenius]

Interesting to go against the UN, and then ask them to help with the "hurricanes born of your own mistakes."
Puts them on the horns of a dilemma.

There's gotta be a good analogy here, it'll come to me later.
Feel free to jump in with your own.

(I'm gonna hop on my 50cc motorscooter and "ride like the wind" .....well, a breeze anyway.)

[ssibal]

We went against the UN? You mean we went against the wishes of some members of the UN. The U.S. did not break the UN Charter. We had all the legal justification for invasion:

Resolution 678 allows the U.S. to use all means necessary (i.e. war) to implement Resolution 660 and ALL SUBSEQUENT RELEVANT RESOLUTIONS.
Resolution 687 created the CEASE-FIRE based on conditions that Iraq was supposed to follow.
Resolution 1441 found Iraq in MATERIAL BREACH of its previous obligations (meaning they were breaking the terms of the cease-fire).

To top it off the UN still has not officially condemned the U.S. or even brought up the subject.

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by Segnosaur


1. The question that had been asked by Kodiak was "what resolutions has the US violated". Being in violation of the UN charter is not the same as a violation as a resolution. (If you want to go that route, there are various elements of the charter concerned with human rights, democracy, etc. which were also routinely broken by Iraq, as well as Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, etc.)

2. And you are right, 1441 did not authorize the use of force. It was a dumb mistake for the UN to pass a resolution that it would likely never enforce; why would any country ever bother listening to such a resolution again? (Any actions to enforce that resolution would therefore be done on a logical or moral, rather than legal basis.)

3. As for it violating the UN charter, you are right in that there are elements of the UN charter which require peaceful resolutions. (Strange though, the human rights elements of the charter are continually ignored.) However, there are also elements of the UN charter which did give some legality to the invasion:
- Article 1 also mentions measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace
- Article 51 mentions the right of countries to engage in self defense, of themselves or their allies. Although there was no direct threat to the US, Iraq had been guilty of the following:

Terrorism support (against Israel and other countries); as the US is an ally of Israeal, they can be called on to defend them
Targeting of US planes patrolling Iraqi areas

4. Some people also believe that the right to 'self defense' includes premptive action, based on historical precident; for example, the US blockade of Cuba during the missle crisis, Israel's first strike during one of their wars, and various attacks by Britian against the spanish Armada.

5. Earlier resolutions (also acknowleged by 1441) indicate Iraq had failed to make proper reparations to Kuwait following the first gulf war. Kuwait had a right to redress, which was being denied.

Seg, you win some kind of prize with this one.

1. Violating the UN charter's most sacred provision is a lot worse than a resolution, and you are splitting hairs on the difference anyway. By mentioning the other examples, you are essentially using others' bad behavior to justify our own lawlessness. And what a list, anyway.

2. 1441 was dumb? Maybe the intention was to do something short of a US invasion. Our invasion was like the death penalty: essentially the maximum punishment. Using your logic: I guess now countries can do whatever they want as long as the US won't invade over it.

3. You are right - there was no direct threat to the US although Bush implied immediate action was necessary to save the world.
4. The most famous examples of pre-emptory first strikes in the name of self-defense I can think of are a) the German invasion of Czechoslovakia and b) the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. In both cases, vital national interests were cited. Oops! I guess it depends on your perspective, doesn't it? That is why this is prohibited.

5. Kuwait did not want the invasion or Iraq and made that quite clear.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
from Mr Manifesto:

Frankly, I think it belittles what was done to Dresden, Warsaw, Tokyo and so many other places to suggest that today's collateral damage is equivalent. Civilians are not bombed deliberately. Why would they be? What would it achieve? What could be the political objective of such attacks?


The objective is to try to make enemy forces surrender by attacking civilians. It isn't called 'attacking civilians' of course, that would be unpalatable to you and yours. It's referred to as 'collateral damage', sometimes as 'oops!'. For example, "We've dropped 1500 cluster bombs with brightly coloured explosive canisters that are attractive to children. Oops!" "We hit a restaurant, we thought Saddam was in it. A hundred civilians or so died. Oops!"

As I've said, America is slow to learn that this trick doesn't work. I haven't said that it is 'equivalent to Dresden...", what I am saying is the same basic principle is still being used by the US.

The political objective is nothing to do with the citizens of the US or the 'civilised' nations of the West. It's an objective against the US's enemies.

Back later.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by DrChinese

1. Violating the UN charter's most sacred provision is a lot worse than a resolution, and you are splitting hairs on the difference anyway. By mentioning the other examples, you are essentially using others' bad behavior to justify our own lawlessness. And what a list, anyway.


Once again (since you seem to have trouble following the thread)... In response to a post, Kodiak had asked what resolutions the US had broken. NOT what parts of the UN charter. Got it? Do you want me to explain it to you one again?

Sacred provision? Does that mean that the UN is now a religious organziation? Does that mean that the head of the UN is now like the pope?

And who decides wht the most 'sacred' provisions are? Frankly, I'd say that for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, (which comes before 'sovereign' in the charter by the way) should be the part that takes precidence. But hey, that's just me.

Originally posted by DrChinese

2. 1441 was dumb? Maybe the intention was to do something short of a US invasion. Our invasion was like the death penalty: essentially the maximum punishment.


Read what I wrote, will you?

The idea of passing 1441 when it lacked any chance of actually being enforced was dumb. It gave a 'law', but with no chance of Iraq being forced to follow the law, the only possible outcome was a weaking of the UN's own influence.

The intent was not to do something short of a US invasion; for most of the countries, the intent was to pass a resolution and do nothing.

Originally posted by DrChinese

3. You are right - there was no direct threat to the US although Bush implied immediate action was necessary to save the world.


And as I have repeated many times before... I supported the invasion based on my own beliefs and criteria, not what Bush had said or claimed.

Originally posted by DrChinese

4. The most famous examples of pre-emptory first strikes in the name of self-defense I can think of are a) the German invasion of Czechoslovakia and b) the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. In both cases, vital national interests were cited.

Nope.... 'vital national interests' do not equal 'self-defense'. (Unless you can show Czechoslovakia was supplying German terrorists, or that the US actually had plans to invade Japan prior to Pearl Harbor). Sorry, try again.

Originally posted by DrChinese

5. Kuwait did not want the invasion or Iraq and made that quite clear.

Really? They hid it well.

http://www.kuwait-info.org/News/powell_thanks.html
http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2003/631/sc4.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2878585.stm
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.-led_coalition_against_Iraq

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

The objective is to try to make enemy forces surrender by attacking civilians. It isn't called 'attacking civilians' of course, that would be unpalatable to you and yours. It's referred to as 'collateral damage', sometimes as 'oops!'.


You really should try to actually learn something about the military.

"Collateral damage" refers to the accidental killing of civilians. What the US was doing in World War 2 was not accidental; in that war, civilians were targeted partly to reduce moral, but also because they provided part of the infractructure that the enemy used to continue the war.

What happens in Iraq really is "collateral damage" in the true sense of the word.

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
For example, "We've dropped 1500 cluster bombs with brightly coloured explosive canisters that are attractive to children

Would you rather they drop cluster bombs that were 'sand coloured' so they could blend into the landscape? :rolleyes:

Maybe if they disguised them as toy trains and dolls, then you might have a point. (That would be a first for you.)

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
Oops!" "We hit a restaurant, we thought Saddam was in it. A hundred civilians or so died. Oops!"


You do realize that, under the 'rules of war', leaders are not to put their own people in danger by stationing military targets (or themselves) near civilians? (Thus using them as unwilling 'human sheilds'.) Although the loss of life is regrettable, I place most of the blame on Saddam himself.

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Segnosaur


The question that had been asked by Kodiak was "what resolutions has the US violated". Being in violation of the UN charter is not the same as a violation as a resolution. (If you want to go that route, there are various elements of the charter concerned with human rights, democracy, etc. which were also routinely broken by Iraq, as well as Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, etc.)

And you are right, 1441 did not authorize the use of force. It was a dumb mistake for the UN to pass a resolution that it would likely never enforce; why would any country ever bother listening to such a resolution again? (Any actions to enforce that resolution would therefore be done on a logical or moral, rather than legal basis.)

As for it violating the UN charter, you are right in that there are elements of the UN charter which require peaceful resolutions. (Strange though, the human rights elements of the charter are continually ignored.) However, there are also elements of the UN charter which did give some legality to the invasion:
- Article 1 also mentions measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace
- Article 51 mentions the right of countries to engage in self defense, of themselves or their allies. Although there was no direct threat to the US, Iraq had been guilty of the following:

Terrorism support (against Israel and other countries); as the US is an ally of Israeal, they can be called on to defend them
Targeting of US planes patrolling Iraqi areas

Some people also believe that the right to 'self defense' includes premptive action, based on historical precident; for example, the US blockade of Cuba during the missle crisis, Israel's first strike during one of their wars, and various attacks by Britian against the spanish Armada.
- Earlier resolutions (also acknowleged by 1441) indicate Iraq had failed to make proper reparations to Kuwait following the first gulf war. Kuwait had a right to redress, which was being denied.

OK then, so by your logic it is perfectly acceptable for a country which helped to found the UN, which has done more than any other country in the world to support the UN (in spirit, action, and by example) to violate the very first chapter of the charter that it helped to write because violating the charter is not the same thing as violating a specific resolution. Strictly speaking, I am sure that you are right, but practically speaking that is quite incorrect since it sets such a bad example.

As for Resolution 1441, if you will remember it was the USA that worked so hard to push it through so again, therefore if the same country that sponsors a resolution is also the same country that violates that resolution, then at the very least that country sets a very poor example to the rest of the world (especially when that country is a world leader).

As far as Iraq supporting terrorism waged against Israel, that is true. However there are many other countries that do the same sort of thing to a much larger extent (Saudi Arabia for one) and when it comes to terrorism, Israel has done plenty of its own so it is rather difficult to make a good case for this issue.

It is true that Iraq did target planes patrolling the Iraqi no-fly zones. However, just about every time that was done the offenders were soon targeted and destroyed. So are you saying that the USA killed thousands of Iraqis, spent hundreds of billions of dollars, invaded a soverign country, and put tens of thousands of American troops in daily danger for months, if not years, to come just to make the no-fly zones safer to patrol? I am sorry, but that is just silly!

Finally, your examples of pre-emptive action should be examined a bit closer.
As for the US blockade of Cuba, the USA did have good evidence (unlike with Iraq) of just what weapons were in country and what they could do, also the OAS (Organization of American States), unlike the Arab States, signed off on the blockade so there was a fair amount of international support for the action.
As for pre-emptive strikes made by Israel, if you recall, these have never been supported by the international community (there have even been a couple of times when the USA has condemmed such actions).
As for the Spanish Armada, if you will recall, it was on its way to invade England at the time it was intercepted and there was already a state of war between England and Spain at the time. Such an event can hardly be called pre-emptive action.

Thanks to all!

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Crossbow

OK then, so by your logic it is perfectly acceptable for a country which helped to found the UN, which has done more than any other country in the world to support the UN (in spirit, action, and by example) to violate the very first chapter of the charter that it helped to write because violating the charter is not the same thing as violating a specific resolution. Strictly speaking, I am sure that you are right, but practically speaking that is quite incorrect since it sets such a bad example.


Why should the fact that the US had a part in founding the UN make a difference? Maybe world circumstances have changed, and the people who started it couldn't see into the future to know what would happen. Or maybe it was a mistake to begin with.

Of course, the big question is: what are your goals? If you are quite happy to see innocent people get slaughtered, for terrorists to continue blowing up stuff, and for dictators to run everything (as long as there is no overt war between nations), then yes, the UN may be a good thing.

Personally, I believe that there should be more emphasis on human rights. I do not think it is right that a person lives the threat of torture just because of the country they come from. The UN is a failure when dealing with the serious issues.

Originally posted by Crossbow

As far as Iraq supporting terrorism waged against Israel, that is true. However there are many other countries that do the same sort of thing to a much larger extent (Saudi Arabia for one)


I agree... Saudi Arabia (and probably Iran) are bigger supporters of terrorism. (And, if Bush fails to put more pressure on the Saudis, I will consider it a major failure.) But, that should not excuse Iraq's actions in supporting terrorism against Israel. (It should also be noted that some of the terrorism that Iraq supported also affected other Western nations, including giving santuary to a terrorist who had killed an American.)

Originally posted by Crossbow
and when it comes to terrorism, Israel has done plenty of its own so it is rather difficult to make a good case for this issue.


Are you referring to acts that it may have performed before becoming a nation, or its treatment of Palestinians? (Personally, I think its treatment of palestinians, although heavy-handed, has been more of a response thing.)

Originally posted by Crossbow

It is true that Iraq did target planes patrolling the Iraqi no-fly zones. However, just about every time that was done the offenders were soon targeted and destroyed. So are you saying that the USA killed thousands of Iraqis, spent hundreds of billions of dollars, invaded a soverign country, and put tens of thousands of American troops in daily danger for months, if not years, to come just to make the no-fly zones safer to patrol? I am sorry, but that is just silly!


Sorry, but there is no rule that says 'for this type of attack, this is the maximum retaliation you are allowed'. Its up to the leaders to decide. (And while basing the invasion on just the no-fly zones would be silly, I'm talking legal justification here.)

Originally posted by Crossbow

Finally, your examples of pre-emptive action should be examined a bit closer.
As for the US blockade of Cuba, the USA did have good evidence (unlike with Iraq) of just what weapons were in country and what they could do

The US knew what various WMD could do, knew Iraq had used them, and they knew that Iraq wasn't cooperating with resolutions that would guarantee that it was disarmed.

Originally posted by Crossbow
also the OAS (Organization of American States), unlike the Arab States, signed off on the blockade so there was a fair amount of international support for the action.


So the US is going to base its policy decisions on what the Arab states (of which brutal dictatorships are common) want? Should the majority always decide what is right, even if the minority is adversly affected?

As for international support, remember, dozens of countries ended up supporting the US in its invasion of Iraq.

Originally posted by Crossbow
As for pre-emptive strikes made by Israel, if you recall, these have never been supported by the international community


I'm referring to the 6 day war... when Egypt was about to attack but was pre-emptively attacked by Israel.

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by Segnosaur


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by DrChinese

2. 1441 was dumb? Maybe the intention was to do something short of a US invasion. Our invasion was like the death penalty: essentially the maximum punishment.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Read what I wrote, will you?

The idea of passing 1441 when it lacked any chance of actually being enforced was dumb. It gave a 'law', but with no chance of Iraq being forced to follow the law, the only possible outcome was a weaking of the UN's own influence.

The intent was not to do something short of a US invasion; for most of the countries, the intent was to pass a resolution and do nothing.


You want it both ways!

According to you:
1. Iraq violates an earlier UN resolution.
2. The US pushes a new UN resolution (1441) addressing Iraq's violation of the earlier one; but it's a dumb resolution because other countries don't plan enough follow-up action if Iraq doesn't comply with the new one (you read their minds).
3. 1441 doesn't have any teeth to it, so obviously the ONLY solution is for the US to immediately violate the resolution itself.
4. US violates sacred (!) portions of the UN charter and the intent if not the actual wording of 1441 by destroying the government of Iraq.
5. Now the US is just as guilty as Iraq ever was, if not more so.

For some: the UN is useful and good as long as it goes along with the US, and only to the extent it goes along with the US. Bush personally went to the UN and asked for support leading to 1441. Then he snubbed its provisions, showing that he never seriously considered following its will. And in doing so, he showed the ugliest side of the US to the entire world: there are two sets of rules, one for the US and one for everyone else. And then, just to add insult to injury, he claims he has a UN mandate as well!

[Crossbow]

I have to agree with Dr. C on this one.

There are some people who love the UN when it supports what they want it to do and at the same time are fully prepared to cast it off as soon as it does not support their own narrow wishes.

Kind of reminds me of my ex-wife who would ask people for opinions before she made a decision then do what she wanted to do anyway. If someone supported her, then she would think that she was right because there was at least one person in the world to validate the action. If everyone disagreed with her, then she would think that she must be right because no one else had the same courage to act that she did.

Ugh!

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by aerocontrols


Please explain to me, then, what gives the International Community the authority to demand that Israel subject its weapons to international inspection, while not giving the authority to demand the same from the United States, France, Great Britain, China, Pakistan, and India.

Why is Israel any different than those nations?

MattJ

Aerocontrols, I have never said that only Israel must subject its weapons to International inspection. I expect the same from every country that has a nuclear arsenal.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Cleopatra


Aerocontrols, I have never said that only Israel must subject its weapons to International inspection. I expect the same from every country that has a nuclear arsenal.

The important thing to me is that you understand that this:

Following your logic if the International Community invaded Iraq because it's a potential nuclear threat it must invade Israel as well.

flies in the face of international law.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Crossbow
I have to agree with Dr. C on this one.

There are some people who love the UN when it supports what they want it to do and at the same time are fully prepared to cast it off as soon as it does not support their own narrow wishes.

It doesn't have to be an "all or nothing" proposition.

Simply keep the WHO and dissolve the Security Council. 21st century communication technology insures that international diplomatic communication and negotiation is simple and instantaneous.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by DrChinese


You want it both ways!

According to you:
1. Iraq violates an earlier UN resolution.


Actually, I'd make that resolutions (note the plural). But that's splitting hairs.

Originally posted by DrChinese

3. 1441 doesn't have any teeth to it, so obviously the ONLY solution is for the US to immediately violate the resolution itself.


Given the fact that the US was not actually mentioned in the resolution, and the resolution gives no guarantee to the survival of the Iraqi government, the US did not violate the resolution. (Hey, you want to play the 'legal' game, then you have to do so consistently.)

Originally posted by DrChinese

4. US violates sacred (!) portions of the UN charter and the intent if not the actual wording of 1441 by destroying the government of Iraq.


At the beginning of your post, you had said according to you (i.e. Segnosaur); however, most of what you posted is your viewpoint, not mine.

Again, there are many sections of the UN charter, and they sometimes conflict with each other. The invasion of Iraq was 'against' some portions of the charter, but supported by others.

And if anything, the US (and the coaltion) were the only ones willing to keep the intent of 1441 alive. The intent was to guarantee complete Iraqi cooperation with disarmament efforts. They were not.

Originally posted by DrChinese

5. Now the US is just as guilty as Iraq ever was, if not more so.


In your mind maybe. But hey, you're more than happy to see Iraqis die, as long as its at the hands of other Iraqis, regardless of what the UN says about human rights.

Originally posted by DrChinese

For some: the UN is useful and good as long as it goes along with the US, and only to the extent it goes along with the US.

Why are you assuming the US is unique in this regard? Probably every country in the world has the same attitude.... "Yah UN! (Until it does something we don't like)".

And why should the US base its foreign policy on an organization that is "democratic", but in which the majority of contries deny those same democratic rights to their own citizens?

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by DrChinese

5. Now the US is just as guilty as Iraq ever was, if not more so.


You are a Saddam appologist. You may not like the label, but it fits when you're willing to say things like this.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Ziggurat


You are a Saddam appologist. You may not like the label, but it fits when you're willing to say things like this.

No, IMO he's a knee-jerk America basher.

Iraq is just the current "flavor-of-the-month"...





"Self loathers of the world unite!" :D


(you know who you are...) ;)

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Kodiak


No, IMO he's a knee-jerk America basher.

Iraq is just the current "flavor-of-the-month"...

Come on, guys. Personal attacks because he disagrees with Bush policy? Has American been sending you some of his campaign literature? (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870076246#post1870076246)
Originally posted by American

What don't you understand about "with us or against us"?

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by aerocontrols


The important thing to me is that you understand that this:



flies in the face of international law.

The important thing to me, Aerocontrols, is that you understand that those that ignore the International Law cannot really appeal to it.

Countries that refuse to sign treaties that have to do either with Nuclear Weapons or with the International Criminal Court are not in the position to enforce what they call International Law.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Tricky

Come on, guys. Personal attacks because he disagrees with Bush policy? Has American been sending you some of his campaign literature? (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870076246#post1870076246)


That rings hollow when I've been called a Republican puppet and a Bush apologist...

BTW, I'm not attacking anyone. Dr. "C" has every right to question, disagree, and bash as he sees fit.

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Kodiak


It doesn't have to be an "all or nothing" proposition.

Simply keep the WHO and dissolve the Security Council. 21st century communication technology insures that international diplomatic communication and negotiation is simple and instantaneous.

OK, fine, thanks for your thought!

It is simple, direct, to the point, and makes you very happy, as such there is no reasoning I can offer to counter a view of such enlightenment.

[dsm]

Originally posted by Crossbow

OK, fine, thanks for your thought!

It is simple, direct, to the point, and makes you very happy, as such there is no reasoning I can offer to counter a view of such enlightenment.


Sure there is... ;)

Once all the countries have gone through the process of "negotiating" with all the other countries to establish the rules by which they will live with each other, have you not then established a defacto UN and wound up back in the same place we are now?

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by Kodiak


That rings hollow when I've been called a Republican puppet and a Bush apologist...

BTW, I'm not attacking anyone. Dr. "C" has every right to question, disagree, and bash as he sees fit.

You could call me a Democratic puppet or a Clinton apologist (although I am neither), but that is not at all the same as calling me a "Saddam apologist" (which is an insult).

I would hope the difference would be evident. A label shouldn't be insulting.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by dsm


Sure there is... ;)

Once all the countries have gone through the process of "negotiating" with all the other countries to establish the rules by which they will live with each other, have you not then established a defacto UN and wound up back in the same place we are now?

The BIG difference?

No centralized "international" bureaucracy.

[dsm]

Originally posted by Kodiak

The BIG difference?

No centralized "international" bureaucracy.

In the beginning, no. In the end, yes.

It's the logical end result of the negotiation process.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by DrChinese


You could call me a Democratic puppet or a Clinton apologist (although I am neither), but that is not at all the same as calling me a "Saddam apologist" (which is an insult).

I would hope the difference would be evident. A label shouldn't be insulting.

Agreed. That's why I disagreed with Ziggurat...

Hell, even the "American basher" and the "Self loathers" remarks were half in jest!

Ad Homs just distract from the discussion anyway...I apologize if you took my remarks as being insulting.

[CapelDodger]

From Mr Manifesto:
The objective is to try to make enemy forces surrender by attacking civilians.
Why not try to achieve the same by howling at the moon, or sticking pins in dolls? Why would anyone believe that bombing civilians achieves the surrender of the enemy? It's been tried many times and failed. The strategists behind the recent bombing campaigns are perfectly well aware of that. What sort of logic would it take to think that the Saddam regime would surrender because civilians are being bombed - with the results broadcast to the world? Military strategists are not slavering kill-crazies. They're assigning limited, expensive munitions to the task of defeating the enemy. This involves defeating his forces by destruction or by robbing them of their means to continue resistance.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by dsm


In the beginning, no. In the end, yes.

It's the logical end result of the negotiation process.

How do you figure? :confused:

Nearly every country currently has embassies and diplomats in nearly every recognized nation on the planet. Why not negotiate one-on-one?

Also, nothing would stop small (EU), region-specific (Arab League, NAFTA), or special interest (OPEC) countries from banding together. Any and all business could be handled face-to-face within hours (thanks to modern aviation) or instantaneously (via video phone or conference call).


If you are intent on your position, please explain (school is in session, if you will...). :)

[Tricky]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
Why would anyone believe that bombing civilians achieves the surrender of the enemy? It's been tried many times and failed.
Um... Wasn't this the logic used when we nuked Japan? Yeah, I know those cities had military importance, but the real idea was to show off our new toy and get them to surrender. As I recall, it worked.

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by Kodiak


Agreed. That's why I disagreed with Ziggurat...

Hell, even the "American basher" and the "Self loathers" remarks were half in jest!

Ad Homs just distract from the discussion anyway...I apologize if you took my remarks as being insulting.

I didn't take your remarks that way, but I didn't think Zig need to say anything about "Saddam apologist". When talking on the boards, taking an alternative stand does not make one unpatriotic or otherwise inhuman. The point is to exercise critical thinking processes, and that necessarily makes for some spirited discussion, which is healthy.

I have nothing nice to say about Saddam, and I never have said anything nice about him or defended him that I can recall. I have said before that the world will be a better place when Saddam is not in it. (Don't mistake that statement for support for the Iraqi invasion.)

[Tricky]

Originally posted by DrChinese
I have nothing nice to say about Saddam, and I never have said anything nice about him or defended him that I can recall.
Well I'll go out on a limb here and say that he was not totally evil, because he didn't use his WMDs on the invading army, even though he had plenty of advance notice that they were going to attack.

[CapelDodger]

From Tricky:
Um... Wasn't this the logic used when we nuked Japan? Yeah, I know those cities had military importance, but the real idea was to show off our new toy and get them to surrender. As I recall, it worked.
I'm sure I've read somewhere about Roosevelt's diary in which he noted his determination that the bombs should only be used against military targets rather than population centres. Not that that's conclusive, of course. I did say that the method had been tried and found wanting. The fire-bombing of Japanese cities was one of those attempts. Remember, the history of bombing civilians only goes back to the 20's and there was very little of it to learn from before 1945. Further evidence was provided by Kissinger's "bomb them back to the Stone Age" policy, which didn't work. (Let's not get caught up in details; who won that one?)

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by DrChinese

You could call me a Democratic puppet or a Clinton apologist (although I am neither), but that is not at all the same as calling me a "Saddam apologist" (which is an insult).

I would hope the difference would be evident. A label shouldn't be insulting.

I insulted you because you basically said that our actions are equivalent to Iraq's. That is simply false. If you can argue against our policies and actions without resorting to saying that we're as bad as Saddam, I will happily refrain from calling you an appologist. Nothing we have ever done in the last century even compares to what Saddam has done, repeatedly, and would have continued to do if able. To suggest otherwise is not an offense against America, it is an offense against humanity. This is not a matter of being pro-Bush (I'm not) or anti-Clinton (I'm not, and a lot of the left would do well to listen to what he has to say about Iraq), or even simply pro- or anti-American. I wouldn't care so much if it was. I have attacked you harshly because the sentiments you express refuse to distinguish true barbarity from simple military conflict. The true danger of fundamentalist islamic terrorists, for example, doesn't come simpy from their willingness to use any means possible. It also comes from the ends they hope to achieve, which are equally horrific. That aspect of our current conflict is something you seem to refuse to accept.

And Tricky, as for Saddam not being evil because he didn't use chemical weapons, that's a REALLY poor rationalization. There are plenty of reasons he might not have used them which have nothing to do with him being a nice guy: chemical weapons are not particularly useful against military targets, biological weapons take a long time to work even if they do, and field commanders might have been reluctant because they're very dangerous for your own troops (wind blows the wrong way and you're screwed) and they might be scared of retaliation in kind. How the hell evil do you have to be to be considered totally evil? Would it redeem Hitler at all if he liked to pet puppies?

[Tricky]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
From Tricky:

I'm sure I've read somewhere about Roosevelt's diary in which he noted his determination that the bombs should only be used against military targets rather than population centres. Not that that's conclusive, of course. I did say that the method had been tried and found wanting. The fire-bombing of Japanese cities was one of those attempts. Remember, the history of bombing civilians only goes back to the 20's and there was very little of it to learn from before 1945. Further evidence was provided by Kissinger's "bomb them back to the Stone Age" policy, which didn't work. (Let's not get caught up in details; who won that one?)
I agree. Let us just say then that bombing civilians is an uncertain strategy. Believe me, I am very much against the way it was used in Iraq.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Ziggurat
And Tricky, as for Saddam not being evil because he didn't use chemical weapons, that's a REALLY poor rationalization. There are plenty of reasons he might not have used them which have nothing to do with him being a nice guy: chemical weapons are not particularly useful against military targets, biological weapons take a long time to work even if they do, and field commanders might have been reluctant because they're very dangerous for your own troops (wind blows the wrong way and you're screwed) and they might be scared of retaliation in kind. How the hell evil do you have to be to be considered totally evil? Would it redeem Hitler at all if he liked to pet puppies?
Why would he care? According to your portrayel of him, he does not care for his own people either, and would do anything to have a final gesture of defiance. Isn't that what madmen do?

No there is not much good to say about Saddam or Hitler, but I do not doubt that both of them thought they were doing the right thing. I don't see why it is so important for you to prove that he totally evil. Does it interfere with your burning anger to see him as a deeply flawed human?

[CapelDodger]

Tricky: Deliberate bombing of civilians was not a policy used in Iraq.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
Tricky: Deliberate bombing of civilians was not a policy used in Iraq.

But it was in Serbia.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
Tricky: Deliberate bombing of civilians was not a policy used in Iraq.
Nor did I say it was. But they certainly showed a lack of concern about collateral damage, in light of the civilian to combatant kill ratio.

If they couldn't kill the combatants without killing a lot more civilians, then maybe bombing wasn't the way to go.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Tricky

Why would he care? According to your portrayel of him, he does not care for his own people either, and would do anything to have a final gesture of defiance. Isn't that what madmen do?


He wouldn't necessarily care himself. But it's a little harder to give orders to a soldier to shoot a nerve gas shell if that soldier (or field commander) thinks it might get blown back at him by the wind. And though he certainly didn't care about his people, he still needed his troops to be able to actually fight.


No there is not much good to say about Saddam or Hitler, but I do not doubt that both of them thought they were doing the right thing. I don't see why it is so important for you to prove that he totally evil. Does it interfere with your burning anger to see him as a deeply flawed human?

We're not in a literature class here. Talking about a deeply flawed human is useless in this context, because there is no hope to repair the "flaw". Insisting that we not view him as thoroughly evil is the first step in rationalizing not doing anything about the danger he posed. It's like how the UN refused to call what happened in Rwanda a genocide, because if they called it what it was, they might be obliged to do something about it, and they certainly didn't want to be troubled with that.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Tricky

Nor did I say it was. But they certainly showed a lack of concern about collateral damage, in light of the civilian to combatant kill ratio.

If they couldn't kill the combatants without killing a lot more civilians, then maybe bombing wasn't the way to go.

WHAT? Are you SERIOUS? What do you think the civilian-to-combatant kill ratio was? Do you have a source, and any real analysis that shows that this ratio implies what you're claiming? You are aware that Iraqi troops were basically using the civilian population as shields, aren't you?

[dsm]

Originally posted by Kodiak

How do you figure? :confused:


Two countries negotiate treaties on how they want to behave with each other (economically, militarily, politically, etc.). A third country negotiates to gain access to some part of the previous treaties. Eventually, this becomes a three-way negotiation as all parties try to find acceptable grounds for treaties involving the new party. With each successive country attempting to come into the treaties, current treaty signatories become less and less inclined to re-negotiate the treaty yet again and simply say that the new party must accept most (all?) of the rules of the current treaty. You now have a defacto UN where the treaties are concerned.


Nearly every country currently has embassies and diplomats in nearly every recognized nation on the planet. Why not negotiate one-on-one?


The idea of the UN, although 50-75 years old, is still a relatively new one in the annals of the world. Besides, I'm not saying that the UN should replace ALL direct interaction between nations, just that it can supplement that interaction and provide a more stable world picture.


Also, nothing would stop small (EU), region-specific (Arab League, NAFTA), or special interest (OPEC) countries from banding together.


Agreed, although this could come under the auspices of the UN to ensure that negotiations between the parties conform to internationally agreed rules (I'm assuming here that the UN has powers to enforce international laws). That doesn't mean that the UN artificially imposes rules on the negotiations -- just that it can be called upon if negotiations break down.


Any and all business could be handled face-to-face within hours (thanks to modern aviation) or instantaneously (via video phone or conference call).


Whether you have a body of ambassadors in New York or a virtual body of people on the Internet (or vid-phone or...) is immaterial. In the long run, you (hopefully) wind up with a constitution(?) that everyone buys into as the way to run the world.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Ziggurat
He wouldn't necessarily care himself. But it's a little harder to give orders to a soldier to shoot a nerve gas shell if that soldier (or field commander) thinks it might get blown back at him by the wind. And though he certainly didn't care about his people, he still needed his troops to be able to actually fight.

That is a ludicrous objection If that were the case, then he would have never used gas against the Kurds. If that were the case then he would never have even bothered to make WMDs if he was afraid to use them.

Of course, we know now that he did not intend to use WMDs against the invaders, or even to really put up a fight. By simply running away, he probably saved a lot of lives. Of course, to suggest that he cared about saving lives is not an option, is it?

Originally posted by Ziggurat
We're not in a literature class here. Talking about a deeply flawed human is useless in this context, because there is no hope to repair the "flaw". Insisting that we not view him as thoroughly evil is the first step in rationalizing not doing anything about the danger he posed
So the necessary first step is to surrender the option of objectivity? We must be certain of our own rightness? To me, that sounds a whole lot like an evangalist ranting about Satan.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Ziggurat


WHAT? Are you SERIOUS? What do you think the civilian-to-combatant kill ratio was? Do you have a source, and any real analysis that shows that this ratio implies what you're claiming? You are aware that Iraqi troops were basically using the civilian population as shields, aren't you?
At least three-two-one, according to most sources. Here's one. (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/07/14/1058034953059.html)

I am aware that Iraqis were using civilians as human shields. That is why bombing is so bad. But if you think that it is okay to kill civilians in order to get to combatants, then you should not object to Saddam using poison gas to get to the Kurd rebels.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
From Mr Manifesto:

Why not try to achieve the same by howling at the moon, or sticking pins in dolls? Why would anyone believe that bombing civilians achieves the surrender of the enemy? It's been tried many times and failed. The strategists behind the recent bombing campaigns are perfectly well aware of that. What sort of logic would it take to think that the Saddam regime would surrender because civilians are being bombed - with the results broadcast to the world? Military strategists are not slavering kill-crazies. They're assigning limited, expensive munitions to the task of defeating the enemy. This involves defeating his forces by destruction or by robbing them of their means to continue resistance.

You would have to ask the American military why anyone would believe that bombing civilians achieves the surredner of the enemy. They seem to be unaware that this strategy doesn't work. If they are perfectly aware of that, what was behind the 'shock and awe' which killed so many civilians?
Yes, I've heard the limited munitions argument so many times before. About a year or so from now, you'll see statistics showing how 'precision' these munitions really are, ie, not much at all. It should be in time for the next war that America wages. When people will say, "Oh, but that was then... this time we're using precision munitions that only target blah blah blah..."

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Tricky

That is a ludicrous objection If that were the case, then he would have never used gas against the Kurds. If that were the case then he would never have even bothered to make WMDs if he was afraid to use them.


The chemical weapons dropped on the Kurds were from aircraft - didn't you know? That makes it a hell of a lot easier to avoid the problems associated with chemical weapons attacks. Seeing as how they weren't engaged directly, they never had to worry about this issue of gas blowing from the target back to their positions. So it's not a ludicrous objection at all, if you actually know your facts. The target was also a stationary civilian population - those weapons worked great for killing civilians, but wouldn't be nearly as effective against a mobile invading military force.


Of course, we know now that he did not intend to use WMDs against the invaders, or even to really put up a fight. By simply running away, he probably saved a lot of lives. Of course, to suggest that he cared about saving lives is not an option, is it?


That would be a silly conclusion, for a number of reasons. Saddam himself didn't simply run away until he had no choice. His army didn't abandon him because they were told to stand down, they just had no interest in risking their lives on a losing battle for someone many of them probably hated more than us. And the defense of Bagdahd was a disaster largely because it was handled incompetently. How could anyone reasonably attribute any of that to Saddam wanting to save lives? Is that what you actually think? Or are you just suggesting absurdities without actually laying claim to believing them?


So the necessary first step is to surrender the option of objectivity? We must be certain of our own rightness? To me, that sounds a whole lot like an evangalist ranting about Satan.

You choose what you want to hear. Saddam was a danger to the world, and no amount of "understanding" could ever change that. I see a whole lot less objectivity in claims of our own guilt (stuff like Dr. Chinese's statement that we killed more civilians than any country other than Germany this century).

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Tricky

At least three-two-one, according to most sources. Here's one. (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/07/14/1058034953059.html)


Your link shows no ratio. Did you forget to read the footnotes? They give a total civilian casualty figure and a PARTIAL military casualty figure from a subsection of fighting. Total Iraqi military casualties were much higher. In other words, you really don't know what the real civilian to combatant death ration is. Come back when you actually get some facts for a change. I'm getting bored with people making factual claims that turn out to have no basis in reality.

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by Ziggurat


I insulted you because you basically said that our actions are equivalent to Iraq's. That is simply false. If you can argue against our policies and actions without resorting to saying that we're as bad as Saddam, I will happily refrain from calling you an appologist. Nothing we have ever done in the last century even compares to what Saddam has done, repeatedly, and would have continued to do if able. To suggest otherwise is not an offense against America, it is an offense against humanity. This is not a matter of being pro-Bush (I'm not) or anti-Clinton (I'm not, and a lot of the left would do well to listen to what he has to say about Iraq), or even simply pro- or anti-American. I wouldn't care so much if it was. I have attacked you harshly because the sentiments you express refuse to distinguish true barbarity from simple military conflict. The true danger of fundamentalist islamic terrorists, for example, doesn't come simpy from their willingness to use any means possible. It also comes from the ends they hope to achieve, which are equally horrific. That aspect of our current conflict is something you seem to refuse to accept.


First: I never compared us to Saddam. I said we have done some pretty bad things in our history, and Bush was not part of most of those things. That is a true statement. Since you mention it, I would in fact say that the US has inflicted far more harm on foreign nationals in the last 100 years, and even the last 50 years, than Saddam has.

But that doesn't change the fact that Saddam is a lowlife and I am not defending him in any way. If you want to bury your head in the sand and pretned that the US did not use the atom bomb against civilians, go ahead. If you want to pretend that we didn't use napalm in Vietnam, then go ahead. And if you think we are saints in Iraq, you really show your ignorance. Saddam is still a SOB. Too bad some people deny their own country's actions instead of acknowledging what everyone else knows.

You - like Bush - can justify your actions because - IN YOUR HEART YOU KNOW YOU'RE RIGHT. That justifies going over the line to do anything. That is exactly the problem I have with the current administration: they won't stop when they approach the line.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Ziggurat
Your link shows no ratio.
Excuse me. I assumed you could do high school math. I will endeavor not to make such assumptions in the future.

Originally posted by Ziggurat
Did you forget to read the footnotes? They give a total civilian casualty figure and a PARTIAL military casualty figure from a subsection of fighting.
Did YOU read the footnotes? The civilian casualties were based on at least two media sources. The military casualties are based on only US Military estimates. Given the military's tendency to count everyone as a combatant and their tendency to overestimate, I would say those numbers are quite generous. Nevertheless, I used only the numbers given. I have seen similar numbers in other places. If you want to provide numbers to the contrary, please do so.

Originally posted by Ziggurat
In other words, you really don't know what the real civilian to combatant death ration is. Come back when you actually get some facts for a change.
Of couse I don't know the exact numbers. I'm using the best sources I can find. Come back when you can provide better info.

Originally posted by Ziggurat
I'm getting bored with people making factual claims that turn out to have no basis in reality.
And I'm getting bored with people who start with an unshakable belief, like "We had to invade" and perform the most incredible tap dancing act to try to show that that statement is true.

You have never shown a single reason why the invasion was absolutely required. Saddam was not commiting mass murders. No WMDs were found. Terrorism was not abated. Your whole case is based on what Saddam wanted to do, and you can't even support that.

Have a seat Z, and let Kodiac, Capel Dodger and Segnosaur defend the pro war faction. You are doing them more harm than good with your single-minded ranting.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Tricky
Did YOU read the footnotes? The civilian casualties were based on at least two media sources.

But the media sources they used aren't media claims. Often they are based on the media reporting Iraqi claims which have (even now) not yet been verified.

If the BBC and New York Times say that the Iraqi Information Minister claimed 100 deaths at location x, then Iraq Body Count reports 100 minimum and 100 maximum, even if the Coalition denied that the event even happened.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Tricky

Did YOU read the footnotes? The civilian casualties were based on at least two media sources. The military casualties are based on only US Military estimates. Given the military's tendency to count everyone as a combatant and their tendency to overestimate, I would say those numbers are quite generous. Nevertheless, I used only the numbers given. I have seen similar numbers in other places. If you want to provide numbers to the contrary, please do so.


I'm amused that you somehow think the civilian casualty numbers are more accurate than the military casualty numbers. But that's not the point. Let me quote:

"# = US military estimates relating only to fighting in or near Baghdad."

Do you have ANY information about military casualties outside of Badhdad? If you do not, then clearly you have no supporting evidence for the claim you made. Whether or not that number is overestimated, it is an INCOMPLETE number. Iraqi soldiers were killed in many places other than Baghdad. If you don't include those, then you can't come up with a civilian-to-military casualty ratio. That SHOULD be a simple concept. :rolleyes:


Of couse I don't know the exact numbers. I'm using the best sources I can find. Come back when you can provide better info.


My point isn't that you didn't have exact numbers. My point is that the numbers you DO have do not say what you claimed they said. YOU made the claim, so YOU have the responsibility to back it up. And you quite simply did not. Not with rough numbers, not even with estimates. So, do you want to retract your claim and wait for real information to surface? Or do you want to go another round of claiming that your source says something completely different than what it really says?

[subgenius]

I'm not following this "debate" but maybe this can help: can we agree on an indisputable number of totally innocent civilians killed that would make the "point" moot.

How many children killed would make the "point" irrelevent?

Is one enough? Is two too many?

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by subgenius
I'm not following this "debate" but maybe this can help: can we agree on an indisputable number of totally innocent civilians killed that would make the "point" moot.

How many children killed would make the "point" irrelevent?

Is one enough? Is two too many?

I'm not sure we can agree on a number, but we need real numbers if we want to debate the specifics. Here's my "point": Tricky asserted the number of Iraqi civilians killed to the number of military personel killed was 3-to-1, and claimed that this demonstrates that we weren't careful about not killing civilians. I pointed out that he pulled this ratio out of his rear end. The only numbers he provided were three Iraqi civilians killed in ALL of Iraq for every one Iraqi soldier killed in Baghdad. That's simply not a meaningful comparison. If he wants to conclude that we were reckless with civilian lives based on some OTHER evidence, fine, but I'm not going to let him use a completely invalid comparison to back up his claim.

[subgenius]

Yeah, one, two, three lives pretty soon that adds up to real people.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by dsm

Two countries negotiate treaties on how they want to behave with each other (economically, militarily, politically, etc.). A third country negotiates to gain access to some part of the previous treaties. Eventually, this becomes a three-way negotiation as all parties try to find acceptable grounds for treaties involving the new party. With each successive country attempting to come into the treaties, current treaty signatories become less and less inclined to re-negotiate the treaty yet again and simply say that the new party must accept most (all?) of the rules of the current treaty. You now have a defacto UN where the treaties are concerned.

The idea of the UN, although 50-75 years old, is still a relatively new one in the annals of the world. Besides, I'm not saying that the UN should replace ALL direct interaction between nations, just that it can supplement that interaction and provide a more stable world picture.


Basically, you're saying saying that there is a role that the UN can play in international diplomacy.

I'm saying that the UN is not a required component, as the nations of the world can easily interact without a centralized bureaucracy in this day and age.

Oh yeah..."more stable world picture"??? You're kidding right? :D



Originally posted by dsm
Agreed, although this could come under the auspices of the UN to ensure that negotiations between the parties conform to internationally agreed rules (I'm assuming here that the UN has powers to enforce international laws). That doesn't mean that the UN artificially imposes rules on the negotiations -- just that it can be called upon if negotiations break down.


Again, the UN is unnecessary here. Rules violations can be addressed by the aggrieved country and their allies by using any of the current practices of sanctions, ceasing aid, limiting trade, modifying tariffs, or threatening/implementing military involvement. Any brokered peace could also be arranged by a commonly selected third party nation. Again, no UN is necessary.



Originally posted by dsm
Whether you have a body of ambassadors in New York or a virtual body of people on the Internet (or vid-phone or...) is immaterial. In the long run, you (hopefully) wind up with a constitution(?) that everyone buys into as the way to run the world.

No one-world government for me, thank you! (Unless that Constitution is the Constitution of the United States...) :cool:

Which brings me to another advantage of not having a UN: No loss or transfer of national sovereignty to some central international overseeing body.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by subgenius
I'm not following this "debate" but maybe this can help: can we agree on an indisputable number of totally innocent civilians killed that would make the "point" moot.

How many children killed would make the "point" irrelevent?

Is one enough? Is two too many?

Sorry, but war is hell.

You have to weigh the loss of civilians ("totally innocent" or otherwise... :rolleyes: ) against the target(s) destroyed in the attack(s).

Again, it seems to me that many of you are just not capable of understanding the necessary harshness and brutality of modern warfare.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Kodiak


Sorry, but war is hell.

You have to weigh the loss of civilians ("totally innocent" or otherwise... :rolleyes: ) against the target(s) destroyed in the attack(s).

Again, it seems to me that many of you are just not capable of understanding the necessary harshness and brutality of modern warfare.

I am tempted to find that irony meter and bring it out.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Kodiak
Sorry, but war is hell.

You have to weigh the loss of civilians ("totally innocent" or otherwise... :rolleyes: ) against the target(s) destroyed in the attack(s).

Again, it seems to me that many of you are just not capable of understanding the necessary harshness and brutality of modern warfare.
Then why do you care about Saddam's war against the Kurds or Iran. Why should you care what tactics or weapons he used? If war is necessarily brutal, then we have no business claiming we needed to oust Saddam because he was brutal.

My feeling is that if the US wanted to have a hand in Iraq, then troops should have been sent in to protect the citizens, not to kill them by the thousands. Yes, that would be more dangerous to our troops, but that should be the price of running an empire. What we did was show that we can be every bit as brutal as Saddam. Not that anyone ever doubted it.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


I am tempted to find that irony meter and bring it out.

Here you go...


:i:


:id:


Take your pick.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Tricky

Then why do you care about Saddam's war against the Kurds or Iran. Why should you care what tactics or weapons he used? If war is necessarily brutal, then we have no business claiming we needed to oust Saddam because he was brutal.

My feeling is that if the US wanted to have a hand in Iraq, then troops should have been sent in to protect the citizens, not to kill them by the thousands. Yes, that would be more dangerous to our troops, but that should be the price of running an empire. What we did was show that we can be every bit as brutal as Saddam. Not that anyone ever doubted it.

The Art of War, though harsh and brutal, has rules.

I in fact do not care about the Iran-Iraq War. Where did you get this?

As far as the Kurds go, what Saddam did (the well documented and reported gassing of Kurdish villages), though savage and evil, was not an act of war, but punishment handed down for trying to topple Saddam's regime from within.

We needed to oust Saddam because he flouted international law and terms of surrender, treated his citizens cruelly and savagely, was a proven threat to his neighbors, and was a perceived threat to the US as a sponsor of terrorism with likely/possible WMD's available.

US troops were not sent to Iraq to kill citizens by the thousand... :rolleyes: Evidence?

The US is not an empire... :rolleyes: Evidence?

The US is not as brutal as Saddam's regime... :rolleyes: Evidence?

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Kodiak


Sorry, but war is hell.

You have to weigh the loss of civilians ("totally innocent" or otherwise... :rolleyes: ) against the target(s) destroyed in the attack(s).

Again, it seems to me that many of you are just not capable of understanding the necessary harshness and brutality of modern warfare.
Understanding harshness and brutality is different than being indifferent to them.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by subgenius

Understanding harshness and brutality is different than being indifferent to them.

I resent the implication...

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Kodiak


I resent the implication...

I do not know why, for I have found you to be indifferent to the harshness and brutatilty of war.

If you find this resentful, then you only have yourself to blame for that.

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by Kodiak


Sorry, but war is hell.

You have to weigh the loss of civilians ("totally innocent" or otherwise... :rolleyes: ) against the target(s) destroyed in the attack(s).

Again, it seems to me that many of you are just not capable of understanding the necessary harshness and brutality of modern warfare.

There is a lot of irony, as AUP says. We are there to liberate the Iraqis, and so we kill them.

Reminds me of another place and time in which the saying was: "better dead than red". In Vietnam, we also killed the people we were there to "liberate".

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Tricky

Then why do you care about Saddam's war against the Kurds or Iran. Why should you care what tactics or weapons he used? If war is necessarily brutal, then we have no business claiming we needed to oust Saddam because he was brutal.

My feeling is that if the US wanted to have a hand in Iraq, then troops should have been sent in to protect the citizens, not to kill them by the thousands. Yes, that would be more dangerous to our troops, but that should be the price of running an empire. What we did was show that we can be every bit as brutal as Saddam. Not that anyone ever doubted it.

I notice you neither retracted nor defended your earlier claim about civilian to military death ratios. Is that now just going to be an unstated assumption on your part? Do you even KNOW how many of his own civilians he killed? Do you have an idea of the devastation he caused not only to his own country but also to his neighbors? Can you honestly not see a difference between what we did and what Saddam did?

[Mr Manifesto]

The difference, Zig, is 'we're' supposed to be the good guys.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Crossbow


I do not know why, for I have found you to be indifferent to the harshness and brutatilty of war.

If you find this resentful, then you only have yourself to blame for that.

I don't look at the harshness and britality of war with indifference. I look at it as a fact, something many here seem unable or reluctant to grasp...

The difference is subtle, but I still thought you'd be able to see it. I was wrong...