Matzi

Thanks.

Hi! I just wondered where those threads on whether a war on Iraq was justified or not are. I just heared that Congress is going to analyze Bush's declaration of war. That would have fitted to those threads - but they somehow have been deleted or am I just searching in the wrong subforum.

I'd say: paradoxon. Anyway, is it really so easy to get a gun in the US? I think its quite hard here in Germany (at least if the administration works as supposed to which does not apply to Erfurt last year) to get a weapon. You need a license for weapon use and I thinks it's not that easy to get. To buy a weapon you must be a licensed hunter as well. Besides, I think getting a driver's license here in - as many people say - not that easy as in the US.

Just a question for you two (or everyone else who votes yes): Why do you want to have your own weapons?

You are right. Thus an UN involvement would have been justified if decided. However, the US mostly accounted for this war with "national security".

1) Can you prove the opposite? 2) Such things happen when you emphasize something, that's the use of an emphasis and everybody does so. I mean, was the world (and especially American national security) really threatened by Saddam's alleged ABC weapons?

Did I do so? No. You're definitely wrong, faf. However, there is something I have to criticize: Wasn't obvious right from the beginning on that the Iraqi people would react in that manner? So why didn't the coalition forces get prepared for a situation like this? Of course, these masses of people are certainly enormous, but I still think that at least some of the Iraqi would react differently and stop rioting if their is a greater presence of military forces. I mean, they probably do not even have to kill some of the people if they are just present. On the other hand: The coalition forces wanted to free the Iraqi people in order to let them live a better life. But why are only so few of Bagdad's hospitals under observation of these forces? These hospitals are certainly of great importance in this situation.

Hm, then they have been acting in this manner for some time? That's not really that good. I mean imagine, a state would decide to do something which is against important regulations in the country's constitution (human rights etc). Wouldn't be that great, I think.

Ok, but then there still is some discrpancy which I find very paradoxical. I mean, 1441 should certainly not disregard the regulations of the UN charta regarding this.

Isn't it mentioned in the UN charta that preventative wars are not allowed? I've seen reports on use of cluster bombs more than once. But anyway, I want use this only as example.

Right. And did the UN forbid any preventative wars? I mean, the coalition forces freed the Iraqi people, that's really great. Saddam's deeds and his cruelty might justify such a war. But the other reasons accounting for a war fought by the US do not seem to apply. I mean, if this war was really thought in order to secure national security of the US this was an preventative war and that is not jstified, it's even worse. Thus the US is in the same situation the Iraq was in: Disobeying UN decisions. What I am trying to say is that the many reasons the US used as accountance for a war are mostly senseless and some even worse. The only, really applying reason is the intention to establish a freed Iraq. This is - in my eyes - justified, I mean, we did so in Kosovo and other countries as well. However, this does not really justify the means. Cluster bombs are certainly not that perfect weapons for freeing a state.

1) I'm not presenting any kind of propaganda. 2) look at atinymonkey's posts 3) Even if this plan was not published, don't you think there is one. I mean, I do not think that Bush invades Iraq without having plans for the future. That would really be nonsense and you have certainly will agree with me in that point.

Read it in my newspaper. The plan including the formation of four governmental districts in Iraq under leadership of some Americans. There were at least two generals and one former ambassador of ... don't remember that. Even if this were wrong: What would your government do? Having an Iraqi leading the state? From which ethnic should he be? There are many problems to solve and that certainly won't be possible without UN involvement as far as I see this.

I wouldn't exclude that. I think its rather the opposite. I mean, have you heard of the plans the US government has? Having Iraq organized by American leaders would certainly not be liked and wished by every Iraqi. Just one example.

@blike: The analysis you posted is really great. It's right, weh cannot stop the war, that's sad, but it's the way we have to accept it by now. But how this war will be accounted for in future is really an interesting question.