What is the anti-war all about?

[yinyinwang]

I guess we heard a lot from the anti-stuff species, is it just about money?

[Axiom_Blade]

No, it's also about all the dead people. And the injured people. And the trauma. And the terrorism. And the fact that an entire library was destroyed, with many irreplacable manuscripts.

There might be other stuff that I've missed, too.

[Travis]

I see a bumper sticker every now and then that reads:

WAR has never solved anything.


It always reminds me of my many arguments and confrontations with radical anti-war protesters back in 2001 and then in 2003.

[Matteo Martini]

I guess we heard a lot from the anti-stuff species, is it just about money?

80000, 100000 or 200000 or more ( depending on the source ) civilian deaths.

[jimtron]

What is the anti-war all about? I guess we heard a lot from the anti-stuff species, is it just about money?

What is the "anti-war"? I don't understand the question.

[Katana]

What is the "anti-war"? I don't understand the question.


And what is the "anti-stuff species"?

[yinyinwang]

80000, 100000 or 200000 or more ( depending on the source ) civilian deaths.
Who killed them?

[yinyinwang]

What is the "anti-war"? I don't understand the question.
For example:
"WAR has never solved anything."

[MelBrooksfan]

He means the general anti-war movement. The group what wants a department of peace added to the presidential cabinet.

[Matteo Martini]

Who killed them?

Mostly Iraqis killed other Iraqis.
But, were Saddam still there, the deaths would ( maybe ) have been less / be contained.
Maybe.

[yinyinwang]

Mostly Iraqis killed other Iraqis.
But, were Saddam still there, the deaths would ( maybe ) have been less / be contained.
Maybe.
you can't just base your claims on maybes, can you?

[yinyinwang]

And what is the "anti-stuff species"?
I guess someone was there to get others' attention, he doesn't care what he is heading into, or just get paid to do so.

[jimtron]

Sometimes war is necessary. The Iraq War, many would argue, was a war of choice. Instead of diminishing terrorism, the invasion and occupation of Iraq might be fanning the flames of terrorism.

I agree that the sentiment of some anti-war activists is misguided. On the other handed I think throughout history we've seen leaders go to war when there might sometimes be other options, that don't involve massive death and destruction, and encourage the cycle of violence.

Regardless of whether you're a dove or a hawk, the Iraq war is an example of a badly handled operation that has arguably made things worse for most parties involved.

[billydkid]

No, it's also about all the dead people. And the injured people. And the trauma. And the terrorism. And the fact that an entire library was destroyed, with many irreplacable manuscripts.

There might be other stuff that I've missed, too.Not to mention the strain it has put on the military the way it has made us tremendously more vulnerable at home having expended such a vast amount of our resources and man power abroad. And not to mention the way it has inspired and motivated a whole new generation of terrorists who now despise us and would gladly destroy themselves in order to harm us. Not to mention the fact that all that money being flushed down the toilet in Iraq could have been used to secure our border and our ports and used in a variety of other ways that would actually go toward protecting us from terrorism. And not to mention the war has been used as a justification for increasing the size and scope and power of the government and particularly the executive branch and has skewed the balance of power in a way the founders never intended and warned us against.

[jimtron]

To me the pertinent question is not "pro-war" or "anti-war," but instead, based on a specific situation, do you think war is a necessary evil. I think there are hawks who are too quick to choose war, and I also think there are peaceniks who are naive in thinking we can avoid all military skirmishes.

I wish the world's leaders were more imaginative and diplomatic less quick to fight. But apparently it's human nature to be tribal and use violence to protect what you think you deserve. Also, according to the Holy Bible, it's godly to kill and take land from others.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naive)

[yinyinwang]

Sometimes war is necessary. The Iraq War, many would argue, was a war of choice. Instead of diminishing terrorism, the invasion and occupation of Iraq might be fanning the flames of terrorism.

this is a point I heard a lot.
Do you think they would hate less without the Iraq war? I doubt.
The culture confrontation is there, there is no way to avoid it, take it early or late, the earlier the more controversial, even though less costly.
Yes, we do have options like wars or talks. I quess we got to have both to get things done.
So I would focus on how to fight a war and who deserves talks. Talks to terrorism? I doubt.
Yes this war is a new challenge and no model to follow, it takes time and creative thinking.

[jimtron]

So I would focus on how to fight a war and who deserves talks. Talks to terrorism? I doubt.
Yes this war is a new challenge and no model to follow, it takes time and creative thinking.

How, specifically, should the U.S. fight Al Qaeda, the group responsible for 9/11?

[Axiom_Blade]

He means the general anti-war movement. The group what wants a department of peace added to the presidential cabinet.

Some anti-war groups want this, others do not. I think the ones that are fighting for this are in the minority, actually.

[Axiom_Blade]

Mostly Iraqis killed other Iraqis.
But, were Saddam still there, the deaths would ( maybe ) have been less / be contained.
Maybe.

Of course. Pure speculation.
MAYBE the US didn't change anything at all in Iraq?
You know, if a US soldier kills a whole bunch of Iraqis, that probably shouldn't count either, because everybody knows that Iraqis just kill each other all the time anyway.

[Hutch]

you can't just base your claims on maybes, can you?

Worked for George...

I tend to side with Jimtron, war is something mankind (onow there's an oxymoron of a word if I ever heard it) has been practicing ever since someone settled down and began producing things and other people decided to take away their things. Don't see it slowing down anytime soon.

But modern war (using modern weapons) is very expensive. Very, very expensive. So for modern nations (who can afford war in our time) quick is good...saves wear, tear and dollars. Which Iraq is not doing at all.

You can still do war on the cheap...see Africa..but the cost in lives tends to be high and the destruction more random..see Africa.

You have to pick your fights. Truman decided Korea was worth fighting for while Kennedy avoided conflict in Cuba and Reagan got us out of Dodge (Lebanon). Shrub got us into Iraq and apparently will leave us there as his legacy. History (which doesn't respect the event-a-minute news and today's headlines, will riddle out if this was good or bad.

Although it ain't looking good for George right now...

[MelBrooksfan]

Some anti-war groups want this, others do not. I think the ones that are fighting for this are in the minority, actually.

I would hope so. But, man, they are a loud minority.


With regards to anti-war sentiments, I defer to John Stuart Mill:

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things: the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth a war, is much worse... A man who has nothing which he is willing to fight for, nothing which he cares more about than he does about his personal safety, is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."

[Matteo Martini]

You know, if a US soldier kills a whole bunch of Iraqis, that probably shouldn't count either, because everybody knows that Iraqis just kill each other all the time anyway.

I hope you are ironic here

[This Guy]

In response to the post above that mention that war has not solved anything I submit the following -

*Was has not solved anything except -

for creating the United States

and for ending:

slavery

Genocide

Fascism

Nazism

and a few other 'unpleasant' institutions and regimes.

On the other hand, I think war should be the means of last resort.

Personally, I was all for the invasion of Afghanistan, but totally against the invasion of Iraq.

There is a time for war. But it must not be the first option considered (IMHO).

* Saw this, or something very close, on a bumper sticker.

[jimtron]

War is cool cause lots of stuff gets blowed up.

[Matteo Martini]

you can't just base your claims on maybes, can you?

You can not really predict what happened if..
But, under Saddam, if we do not consider the Iran-Iraq war, and the probmes with the Kurds ( which could be somehow stopped by the international community ), I doubt there were tens of civilians killed by the day..

[Matteo Martini]

How, specifically, should the U.S. fight Al Qaeda, the group responsible for 9/11?

Were the Al Qaeda members responsible for 9/11 Iraqis?

Nineteen men boarded the four planes, five each on American Airlines Flight 11, United Airlines Flight 175 and American Airlines Flight 77, four on United Airlines Flight 93. Fifteen of the attackers were from Saudi Arabia, two from the United Arab Emirates, one from Egypt, and one from Lebanon.

The group consisted of six core organizers, which included the four pilots, and thirteen others. Unlike many stereotypes of hijackers or terrorists, most of the attackers were educated and came from well-to-do backgrounds

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11%2C_2001_attacks#The_hijackers

[jimtron]

Were the Al Qaeda members responsible for 9/11 Iraqis?

Of course not, and I certainly didn't mean to imply that. I'm curious to hear from Yinyinwang, though, about how the U.S. should deal with Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. See post #13 for some of my views of the Iraq War (in case you thought I was arguing that the IW was a reasonable response to 9/11).

[yinyinwang]

Not to mention the strain it has put on the military the way it has made us tremendously more vulnerable at home having expended such a vast amount of our resources and man power abroad.
spending money abroad making us vulnerable home? What about the trade deficit?

strain on the military? what are they supposed to do, only easy jobs?

[a_unique_person]

spending money abroad making us vulnerable home? What about the trade deficit?

strain on the military? what are they supposed to do, only easy jobs?

Let them go back to civilian life.

[yinyinwang]

Of course not, and I certainly didn't mean to imply that. I'm curious to hear from Yinyinwang, though, about how the U.S. should deal with Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. See post #13 for some of my views of the Iraq War (in case you thought I was arguing that the IW was a reasonable response to 9/11).
I would like to be helpful if I had the necessary intel to make suggestions.

On Iraq war, it is not just responding to 9/11, it is a responding to the whole culture confrontation. You got to look at it within a much larger picture.

[This Guy]

spending money abroad making us vulnerable home? What about the trade deficit?

strain on the military? what are they supposed to do, only easy jobs?

I for one wish that a larger military force had been put into Afghanistan. Then perhaps we would have caught the man we were after.

It would also be nice to have the National Guard at home, where they belong, so they could help with guarding our Southern border, and handling those things that they are relied on for (local catastrophes and stuff).

But that is just my opinion, and others may well disagree (of course, I'm right, and they are wrong;))

[yinyinwang]

You can not really predict what happened if..
But, under Saddam, if we do not consider the Iran-Iraq war, and the probmes with the Kurds ( which could be somehow stopped by the international community ), I doubt there were tens of civilians killed by the day..
Saddam was not going to live for ever, was he?

[yinyinwang]

I for one wish that a larger military force had been put into Afghanistan. Then perhaps we would have caught the man we were after.

what about Pakistan? anyway this is about manpower management, maybe you are saying we should not pick up too many fights that we can not handle together.

[Safe-Keeper]

I guess we heard a lot from the anti-stuff species, is it just about money?We hear a lot from the anti-peace species, is it just about money? [/sarcasm]

Do you think they would hate less without the Iraq war?Who is the 'they' here? The innocent Iraqis like Riverbend getting their lives messed up by a corrupt presidency invading their country on false premises?

Yes, I feel they'd hate us (the West in general) a lot less if we didn't do that.

The culture confrontation is there, there is no way to avoid it, take it early or late, the earlier the more controversial, even though less costly.

On Iraq war, it is not just responding to 9/11, it is a responding to the whole culture confrontation.So when someone hates your culture, you should respond by invading them?

So I would focus on how to fight a war and who deserves talks. Talks to terrorism? I doubt.'The terrorists' (a very wide, very political, very useless term covering everyone from the abortion clinic bombers to PETA to environmentalist fanatics sinking whaling ships to Al-Q'aida) are a combatant group like all other. They just happen to follow unorthodox strategies and tactics which we often find morally repulsive. Why should discussing things over with them be different from talking things over with Kim Jong-Il?

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things: the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth a war, is much worse... A man who has nothing which he is willing to fight for, nothing which he cares more about than he does about his personal safety, is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."I hope you realize the difference between starting offensive wars and fighting to defending yourself?

spending money abroad making us vulnerable home?I find it a fairly basic truth that if you move large numbers of troops and vehicles out of your country and exhaust their resources, said country becomes more vulnerable.

What about the trade deficit?Red herring?

[This Guy]

what about Pakistan? anyway this is about manpower management, maybe you are saying we should not pick up too many fights that we can not handle together.

That figures into it.

I don't think there was a valid reason for the US to have invaded Iraq.

If we hadn't, more troops would be available to help the deteriorating condition in Afghanistan, and more National Guards men and women would be home, where they belong.

[yinyinwang]

We hear a lot from the anti-peace species, is it just about money? [/sarcasm]

Fighting a war is not necessarily anti-peace, maybe just for longer and lasting peace instead of running away and suffer more later.

[yinyinwang]

Who is the 'they' here? The innocent Iraqis like Riverbend getting their lives messed up by a corrupt presidency invading their country on false premises?

Yes, I feel they'd hate us (the West in general) a lot less if we didn't do that.


I am sure someone in some other place will be pissed off by a picture or something and the president of some country will issue a death warrant for somebody. And someone may also gets pissed off by women not wearing something and start to protest or some suicidal mission..... the list can go on and on.
they will hate less if you do this and do that, will you do it?
they will even like you if you kneel down, will you do that?

[yinyinwang]

So when someone hates your culture, you should respond by invading them?

That depends.

[Matteo Martini]

Saddam was not going to live for ever, was he?

Not you are going to live forever.
So, am I authorized to kill you?

[yinyinwang]

Not you are going to live forever.
So, am I authorized to kill you?
Actually i mean somebody else would rule Iraq and the power struggle after Saddam might be bloody too.

[yinyinwang]

'The terrorists' (a very wide, very political, very useless term covering everyone from the abortion clinic bombers to PETA to environmentalist fanatics sinking whaling ships to Al-Q'aida) are a combatant group like all other. They just happen to follow unorthodox strategies and tactics which we often find morally repulsive. Why should discussing things over with them be different from talking things over with Kim Jong-Il?

I don't think they have been treated the same way.
Generally speaking, when there are legitimate ways of expression, extreme measures are not tolerated.
But dealing with international nations is quite a different story because there is no law enforcement.

[gnome]

I can't speak for others... but my anti-war policy is that pre-emptive wars are wrong. There could be hundreds of people that want to kill you--if that's all it takes to justify attacking them, you're in for a lot of fighting.

And yet, one man may defend himself against a crowd with a single gun, if he waits and shoots the first one to make a move. Speak softly, carry a big stick. LET someone else take the first swing, frankly. We can accept a bloody nose, metaphorically, to avoid having to hunt the world for people that don't like us. If most don't dare for fear of our response, we need only fight the ones that do. It's cheaper, and in the end less harmful to yourself.

[yinyinwang]

I can't speak for others... but my anti-war policy is that pre-emptive wars are wrong. There could be hundreds of people that want to kill you--if that's all it takes to justify attacking them, you're in for a lot of fighting.

And yet, one man may defend himself against a crowd with a single gun, if he waits and shoots the first one to make a move. Speak softly, carry a big stick. LET someone else take the first swing, frankly. We can accept a bloody nose, metaphorically, to avoid having to hunt the world for people that don't like us. If most don't dare for fear of our response, we need only fight the ones that do. It's cheaper, and in the end less harmful to yourself.
This was true when the weapon was not that powerful, now you have to go for the most lethal one first.

[jimtron]

Yinyinwang:

Do you believe the Iraq War was justified? Are you pro-war when it comes to that? Do you believe that the U.S. should abide by international laws?

Maybe you could give us some examples of wars or other military actions that were justified, and others (if any) that weren't. Since you started this thread, I'm interested to hear your views.

eta: Also, what did you mean by this: I guess we heard a lot from the anti-stuff species, is it just about money?

I don't know what you mean by "anti-stuff species" and what money you're talking about. I'd appreciate it if you'd elaborate.

[yinyinwang]

Yinyinwang:

Do you believe the Iraq War was justified?

yes

[yinyinwang]

Yinyinwang:

Are you pro-war when it comes to that?
yes

[yinyinwang]

Yinyinwang:
Do you believe that the U.S. should abide by international laws?

yes

[yinyinwang]

Yinyinwang:
Maybe you could give us some examples of wars or other military actions that were justified, and others (if any) that weren't. Since you started this thread, I'm interested to hear your views.

Korea war was justified for the UN forces but not for the commie forces.

[yinyinwang]

Yinyinwang:



eta: Also, what did you mean by this:

I don't know what you mean by "anti-stuff species" and what money you're talking about. I'd appreciate it if you'd elaborate.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2971517#post2971517

[Axiom_Blade]

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2971517#post2971517

Wait...you think anti-war activists are being paid off?
Try saying this a different way. I'm not getting you.

[Gurdur]

yes

Then why aren't you in Iraq now?

[yinyinwang]

Wait...you think anti-war activists are being paid off?
Try saying this a different way. I'm not getting you.
I guess some of them are.

[yinyinwang]

Then why aren't you in Iraq now?
unarmed?

[JoeEllison]

unarmed?

They give you a weapon when you enlist... so when are you signing up?

[yinyinwang]

And not to mention the way it has inspired and motivated a whole new generation of terrorists who now despise us and would gladly destroy themselves in order to harm us.
Do you think they were less motivated before the Iraq war and were unwilling to do suicidal attacks?

[yinyinwang]

They give you a weapon when you enlist... so when are you signing up?
I think you can contribute in many ways but still I would be glad to enlist if I could.

[JoeEllison]

I think you can contribute in many ways but still I would be glad to enlist if I could.
So what's stopping you?

[yinyinwang]

Not to mention the fact that all that money being flushed down the toilet in Iraq could have been used to secure our border and our ports and used in a variety of other ways that would actually go toward protecting us from terrorism.
The money is a kind of issue here. I do think we should stress efficiency and effectiveness in any operations.
But as to border and ports security, it is more like a coordination problem rather than lack of funding, the congress couldn't even find a immigration bill to pass.

[yinyinwang]

So what's stopping you?

Is age a concern?

[JoeEllison]

Is age a concern?

Over 42? Do you have any children you want to give to the war machine?

[Giraffe107]

Originally Posted by jimtron View Post
Yinyinwang:

Do you believe the Iraq War was justified?
yes

Originally Posted by jimtron View Post
Yinyinwang:
Do you believe that the U.S. should abide by international laws?
yes
Ha haha ha haha ha ha

[yinyinwang]

Over 42? Do you have any children you want to give to the war machine?
First of all it is up to them to decide, but I would encourage them to do so. Unlike someone who ran away from the responsibility but still think he is in the position to ask others.

[yinyinwang]

Ha haha ha haha ha ha
what does this mean?
why do you anti-war creature respond in strange ways?

[JoeEllison]

First of all it is up to them to decide, but I would encourage them to do so. Unlike someone who ran away from the responsibility but still think he is in the position to ask others.

Who would that be? And, if you're too old now, did you volunteer before? Desert Storm, maybe?

[Gurdur]

Unlike someone who ran away from the responsibility but still think he is in the position to ask others.

So go to Iraq. GO.

[yinyinwang]

Who would that be? And, if you're too old now, did you volunteer before? Desert Storm, maybe?
I think it is your turn now.

[yinyinwang]

So go to Iraq. GO.
I think it is time for you to leave.

[JoeEllison]

I think it is time for you to leave.

Why, you're the one who supports the war, why won't you put your money where your mouth is? Why should other people die for you?

[Gurdur]

I think it is time for you to leave.

You are wrong. So come on. Tell us why you are so happy to tell others what to do when you won't do it yourself? If you support the Iraq War, why aren't you there? Cowardice?

[yinyinwang]

You are wrong. So come on. Tell us why you are so happy to tell others what to do when you won't do it yourself? If you support the Iraq War, why aren't you there? Cowardice?
Do you think every one should be in Iraq to support Iraq war? Are you out of mind?
But I can tell you anti-stuff I risked my life and even more to do my responsibility.

[Pardalis]

Instead of attacking eachother endlessly, this exchange could lead to something more productive.

What could anyone do to either stop or win the war in Iraq? What are concrete things regular Joes could do?

[JoeEllison]

Instead of attacking eachother endlessly, this exchange could lead to something more productive.

What could anyone do to either stop or win the war in Iraq? What are concrete things regular Joes could do?

I dunno... the Democrats seem too cowardly to cut off funding. I don't see any of the frontrunners being willing to make a stand.

[PogoPedant]

I would hope so. But, man, they are a loud minority.


With regards to anti-war sentiments, I defer to John Stuart Mill:

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things: the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth a war, is much worse... A man who has nothing which he is willing to fight for, nothing which he cares more about than he does about his personal safety, is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."

Do you think his meaning was closer to

'Sometimes you have to stand up and fight for what's right.'

or

'Sometimes you have to sit around and feel okay about somebody else flying halfway across the globe to bomb some cities that could possibly contain some people that might, just might, be considering plans for building a weapon that, hypothetically, could be used against you, if we decide not to consider the almost impossible challenges that they would have to face to actually use the weapon against you or the utter lack of any benefit such an attack would have for the hypothetical weapon-builders.'

[Axiom_Blade]

what does this mean?
why do you anti-war creature respond in strange ways?

You don't know that the Iraq War is in violation of international law?

[kevsta]

You don't know that the Iraq War is in violation of international law?

well is it, or isnt it? I got called woo the other day for saying this.

answers like "what law was broken?" and "when did Desert Storm officially end?" "resolution 678 something or other.."

and talking of the W word take a look at the OP's personal website before you invest too much time or emotion into this ;)

[jimtron]

well is it, or isnt it? I got called woo the other day for saying this.

answers like "what law was broken?" and "when did Desert Storm officially end?" "resolution 678 something or other.."

and talking of the W word take a look at the OP's personal website before you invest too much time or emotion into this ;)

Kofi Annan called it illegal:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3661134.stm

[kevsta]

yea I know but the other side counter argued their point?

who is right?

[yinyinwang]

Kofi Annan called it illegal:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3661134.stm
My dear Koffee is a judge or grand jury or both?

[kevsta]

My dear Koffee is a judge or grand jury or both?

in the US, no. Of the world? well, yes I suppose? We dont appear to have a global legal system that all are accountable to as yet do we?

[jimtron]

My dear Koffee is a judge or grand jury or both?

Neither. Annan was the Secretary General of the United Nations. Earlier in the thread you said that the U.S. should abide by international laws. According to Wikipedia, the U.N. "is an international organization whose stated aims are to facilitate cooperation in international law, international security, economic development, social progress and human rights issues."

[yinyinwang]

Neither. Annan was the Secretary General of the United Nations. Earlier in the thread you said that the U.S. should abide by international laws. According to Wikipedia, the U.N. "is an international organization whose stated aims are to facilitate cooperation in international law, international security, economic development, social progress and human rights issues."
That makes Koffee in the position to say who is legal and who is not?

[jimtron]

That makes Koffee in the position to say who is legal and who is not?

Yes, it's appropriate for him to voice an opinion on the legality of the Iraq War, seeing that he was (at the time) Secretary General of the United Nations. Whom do you think is in a position to weigh in on international law? Should we just ask Bush and Cheney if they thought it was legal?

[yinyinwang]

Yes, it's appropriate for him to voice an opinion on the legality of the Iraq War, seeing that he was (at the time) Secretary General of the United Nations. Whom do you think is in a position to weigh in on international law? Should we just ask Bush and Cheney if they thought it was legal?
So, he was the representative of god on earth and king of the world, we were all judged by him .
Are you insane?

[jimtron]

So, he was the representative of god on earth and king of the world, we were all judged by him .
Are you insane?

Yes, I'm insane. No, I don't believe in god.



Yinyinwang--you said that the U.S. should abide by international law. Whom, in your view, should determine what is legal or illegal in international terms?

[yinyinwang]

Yes, I'm insane. No, I don't believe in god.



Yinyinwang--you said that the U.S. should abide by international law. Whom, in your view, should determine what is legal or illegal in international terms?
Well if you try to set up a fair court international and put every nations on trial, I am sure there are lots of governments that won't be happy and want to kill you. And I am sure US is the last one.

[SpaceMonkeyZero]

well is it, or isnt it? I got called woo the other day for saying this.

answers like "what law was broken?" and "when did Desert Storm officially end?" "resolution 678 something or other.."

and talking of the W word take a look at the OP's personal website before you invest too much time or emotion into this ;)

Desert Storm was a cease fire (of which Saddam violated almost daily) so it would have been legal to just start up at any moment (which even Clinton did some airstrikes against Iraq when they were in violation)

Not to mention the UN resolution DID state for Iraq to "Do this, or there will be serious consequences." So yes, you were participating in woo.

[Axiom_Blade]

Desert Storm was a cease fire (of which Saddam violated almost daily) so it would have been legal to just start up at any moment (which even Clinton did some airstrikes against Iraq when they were in violation)

Not to mention the UN resolution DID state for Iraq to "Do this, or there will be serious consequences." So yes, you were participating in woo.

I'm assuming, if it's a UN resolution, that the "serious consequences" would be decided upon, and carried out, by the UN, NOT the US.

The UN did not decide to invade Iraq. That was decided upon solely by the US.

[Miss Anthrope]

A fair amount of the personal bickering has been split out from this thread and moved to AAH. Continued personalizing will be cause for more mod action.

[jimtron]

yinyinwang, I didn't get your answer to this: "Yinyinwang--you said that the U.S. should abide by international law. Whom, in your view, should determine what is legal or illegal in international terms?"

[yinyinwang]

yinyinwang, I didn't get your answer to this: "Yinyinwang--you said that the U.S. should abide by international law. Whom, in your view, should determine what is legal or illegal in international terms?"
There is no such a person at present.If you want to create one, I hope who is not just responsible for judging the US actions only.

[yinyinwang]

I'm assuming, if it's a UN resolution, that the "serious consequences" would be decided upon, and carried out, by the UN, NOT the US.

The UN did not decide to invade Iraq. That was decided upon solely by the US.
UN does have function flaws and is not good enough for the current world situation.

[jimtron]

There is no such a person at present.If you want to create one, I hope who is not just responsible for judging the US actions only.

OK, when I create this person I'll be sure she doesn't only judge US actions.

[SpaceMonkeyZero]

I'm assuming, if it's a UN resolution, that the "serious consequences" would be decided upon, and carried out, by the UN, NOT the US.

That amounts to a police officer saying to a fleeing thief "STOP! OR I SHALL YELL STOP AGAIN!"

Nevermind that there were so many U.N. officers on the take with the Oil for Food scandal including Kofi's son.

And you have to admit, an invasion sure was a serious consequence.

The UN did not decide to invade Iraq. That was decided upon solely by the US.
The U.N. doesn't vote to go to war. The U.N. can't even provide peace keeping forces correctly. Such as the U.N. peacekeepers raping underage girls in Africa, and the U.N. peacekeepers hiding in hotels and reporting what they saw ON TV to their superiors, while terrorists in Lebanon decided to fire a barrage of unprovoked mortar attacks into Israel against civilian targets.

The U.N. is good for one thing... Providing food to the hungry.

Oh wait, they can't even do that right.

That said, the only thing the UN does that I approve of is UNICEF

[Axiom_Blade]

UN does have function flaws and is not good enough for the current world situation.

This is a good argument for reforming the UN so it is better at doing its job; NOT that the US should be allowed to selectively punish those countries that break their agreements.

Having the US play cop to the world is neither moral nor practical.

[yinyinwang]

This is a good argument for reforming the UN so it is better at doing its job; NOT that the US should be allowed to selectively punish those countries that break their agreements.

Having the US play cop to the world is neither moral nor practical.
I guess we can't wait for 20 years for UN to improve, can we? Everything will be too late.

You can argue if it is moral, but to me there is no better substitute.
I lost you with "practical".

[Axiom_Blade]

I guess we can't wait for 20 years for UN to improve, can we? Everything will be too late.

You can argue if it is moral, but to me there is no better substitute.
I lost you with "practical".

Too late? How do you figure that?
Do you have some kind of special knowledge I don't? What happens in 20 years?

[yinyinwang]

And not to mention the war has been used as a justification for increasing the size and scope and power of the government and particularly the executive branch and has skewed the balance of power in a way the founders never intended and warned us against.
I don't know which war you are talking about? Or just wars in general.

[yinyinwang]

Too late? How do you figure that?
Do you have some kind of special knowledge I don't? What happens in 20 years?
UN hasn't changed much for the last 20 years and I can't see any hope of change in the coming 20 years. Lots of things can happen in 20 years, right? The world is accelerating and moving faster and faster.

[Pardalis]

The world is accelerating and moving faster and faster.

Apparently it is slowing down.

http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/scienceques2004/20050318.htm

:p