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.

We'll see. I think that are two different things. On the one hand, there is an UN resolution forcing a country to have its country inspected for weapons. On the other hand, it's an action of some states (headed and led by the US) invading another country. That's why I think it is different whether Iraq disobeys resolutions of the UN regarding the weapon inspectors etc (i.e. regarding its own territory) and whether the US et. al. attack a country (i. e. not their own territory). It's the same you are saying all time: national security. By disobeying the UN resolutions regarding its country the Iraqi government in a way protects its country. You do so as well. You fight a preventative war (!) against a country thousands of miles away in order to allegedly secure your nation thus protecting your country as well. So, Iraq's acting some time before your attack is very similar to your acting now. However, there is only one difference: Your accountance for this war by national security does not seem that perfect an argument. So, ask yourself a question: What is more "legal" (and please don't come up with any background stuff [especially not with your top secret information] since this is meant to be a general question): defending your own country from an aggressor or attacking a country thousands of miles away in order avoid an attack on your own country (whose likeliness may be doubted as well) without having really convincing proof?

But you can fight a war without the UN's approval. But you can kill thousands of innocent people in aiming at one person's death (which won't be reached anyway). But you can let companies bid for the rebuilding of country not even in any kind of legal possession. And you can think you are the only country in the world with no reason to thing about things that others do.

Why not appropriate? It's their country and they can do what they want as long as no one is hurt.

But this does not justify throwing cluster bombs on civilian houses whcih by the way is quite senseless.

From the pictures I see on TV and the things I hear this war is not as "human" as was promised I think by the US and GB. I mean, one of Bush's main intentions was to "free" the Iraqi people. I do not know what he means by this but as I think freeing people does not include to kill them (even if they might be freed in a way as well). What do you think about it?

Even if some sites are not to be accessed by them there is still a whole country they could have searched for these weapons. When they don't search they won't find anything. And even if they left due to a lack of cooperation of the Iraqi giovernment they were not thrown out of the country and this is thus something very different.

Hm, depends whether the UN gets involved or not. When the state is rebuild by the US and their companies there will be no real state. I think there won't be even peace. When UN controls this process this might work a bit better, but still that's speculation. I think it will be very hard to establish a new state and this will also start with new problems in the whole region, i.e. Turkey, Iran etc.

Ok, for one time, I was wrong, but what about the other time? Does not sound like they were forced to leave Iraq.

Give them time. That's way it kight have worked. And don't forget the inspectors were withdrawn for some time, so don't take this time and accuse Iraq of not cooperating then.

That was the impression I had. I think I remeber some of these reports etc. Of course, a level of total cooperation was not reached and that's the reason why I chose the term "started". However, a level acceptable for the UN might have been reached and thus the war would have been senseless (in a way it is by now as well).