To those against war on Iraq

[Skye]

What is UN policy on these breaches?

[Glider]

Originally posted by greg1917

I agree with fafalone here, there is absolutely no question Saddam has WOMD. He's already used them!

Weapons are like matches, you can't set them off and still have them.

 

WE SOLD HIM anthrax and if we're finding shells with empty chemical warheads he must have the chemicals to put in them...

I have a wallet, specially designed and built to hold money. Therefore, I must have money to put in it?

 

I am not saying Saddam doesn't have WMD, I am just pointing out that the reasoning you use to reach the conclusion that he does is flawed, and so any conclusion based on it will be unsound (i.e. open to alternatives). If we are to go to war, I would like it to be based on sound reasoning and (preferably) sound evidence. I certainly would not wish to launch a strike on the evidence of empty shells, whatever they were designed to hold.

[aman]

If Saddam goes to the store and buys silverware, tinfoil, spices, plates, and measuring cups, and I see a receipt for groceries, I'll bet he's got food. If he says his wallet is empty but has been seen spending cash then it's hard to believe he's broke just because he shows me his wallet pocket is bare. He still has 3 other pockets.

 

There are a lot reasons to believe he's a liar. You don't turn your back on an ass that says he's not going to hit you when you face him.

War will start, scuds will fly, and Saddam will be shown for who he is.

Just aman

[Radical Edward]

sadly it is still conjecture, there is no proof that he has anything. if it is so obvious that he has womd and he´s not declaring them, then why are three permanent members of the security council lining up to vote against a war? Furthermore, the whole situation is far more complex than merely iraq

[Glider]

And that's the point: It is largely still conjecture. Whilst I agree with Aman in principle, especially the part about not turning our back on a known backstabber, the problem is that whilst we know he (Hussein) is a liar we are, under our own laws, obliged to prove it.

 

It's the same thing that prevents courts from convicting people on the basis that "we believe you are lying, principally because you have done so before".

 

The contention that it's ok to break the law to bring a law breaker to justice is, at the very least, problematic.

[blike]

Weapons are like matches, you can't set them off and still have them.

 

..and theres always more where they came from

[aman]

Remember the war never really ended and we are still under the terms of the cease fire. It's like he was arrested and is now on probation. He has no rights and can be searched or rearrested just on suspicion of hanging around the wrong crowd. Here in the US if your on probation, you have no choice but to follow the guidlines exactly or go to prison.

 

The other countries that don't support the ultimatum have a lot of other interests besides justice influencing their behaviour.

 

I think Saddam has blown his probation.

Just aman

[greg1917]

If he has no rights why did he forcibly eject inspectors from iraq in 1998? he still commands the iraqi republican guard, still controls his country, could order an attack on a foreign nation whenever he wanted (not that i think he will but he has the capability) and he also still sits at the head of one of the most oil rich countries in the world. Id say coalition forces left iraq and forgot about it. Forgot about the anti Saddam movement and let it be wiped out by his secret police, forgot about the weapons that were nvere confiscated, forgot about the sanctions they imposed on him and most of all forgot about HIM.

[atinymonkey]

Ah, the confusion is not in the capabilities, or even the intent, but the due process before an invasion.

 

America cannot hold itself up as the world police and expect the world to follow its lead, as has been pointed out before, if it ignores the law. The American legal system is regarded as a flawed (to be polite) system, but to ignore even the rules that the US laws would require ( the provision of proof) is severely undermining the position of the pro war stance.

 

America holds no legal right, or the ability to create a legal right, to instigate a war based on the breaking of rules set by the UN. Only the UN can say that the rules have been breached. It is the most important point about this conflict, it simply is not legal.

 

That's before going into why the reasons for the war are also flawed. It might be easier to think about this from a different point of view, what would America think if Germany decided to start a war and Bush did not support them? I think the US is finding it hard to separate national pride from common sense.

 

I do see Sadam as a threat, but I see threats in a many other places. I'm not about to support breaking the law to fix problems that may only exist in my head.

[blike]

The American legal system is regarded as a flawed (to be polite) system, but to ignore even the rules that the US laws would require ( the provision of proof) is severely undermining the position of the pro war stance.

 

Quite true in a sense, and a very good argument, but the provision of proof is merely a formality. Even if Iraq provided proof, I'm still sure we'd be marching into war.

 

America holds no legal right, or the ability to create a legal right, to instigate a war based on the breaking of rules set by the UN. Only the UN can say that the rules have been breached. It is the most important point about this conflict, it simply is not legal.

 

The reasons that are being given regard national security, not necessarily breach of rules (see above). Our president feels national security comes before the United Nations, and that we don't need to ask to protect ourselves from potential threats.

 

I do see Sadam as a threat, but I see threats in a many other places. I'm not about to support breaking the law to fix problems that may only exist in my head.

 

I think we should be looking more towards a North Korean smackdown right now. They at least have long range missle capabilities (or soon), functional reactors, and are threatening us.

[Radical Edward]

a north korean smackdown?!? do you want wars all over the place or something?

 

rather than fighting fire with fire all the time, why not come up with a way to stop these countries from hating you all so much.

[LuTze]

Originally posted by blike

The reasons that are being given regard national security, not necessarily breach of rules (see above). Our president feels national security comes before the United Nations, and that we don't need to ask to protect ourselves from potential threats.

"National Security"? What exactly has Saddam ever done to threaten the USA? We are talking about a pre-emtive strike here, which is a whole different ball game. The UN charter is quite clear, you either have a Security Council resolution authorising force, or it's self defence.

 

I think we should be looking more towards a North Korean smackdown right now. They at least have long range missle capabilities (or soon), functional reactors, and are threatening us.

That would be interesting. North Korea have over one million ground troops, and China are treaty-bound to protect them. Good luck.

[Sayonara]

Originally posted by blike

...the provision of proof is merely a formality. Even if Iraq provided proof, I'm still sure we'd be marching into war.

And you still support this war, morally, politically and strategically?

 

FOR SHAME.

Originally posted by LuTze

That would be interesting. North Korea have over one million ground troops, and China are treaty-bound to protect them. Good luck.

[Glider]

Originally posted by blike

..and theres always more where they came from

 

True enough...sadly.

[Radical Edward]

the national security argument is a fundamentally flawed one, unless the old 'the saudi ambassador asks George Bush: why are there no arabs in star trek?*' joke is true

 

 

*George Bush replies: Because star trek is set in the future.

[Matzi]

Originally posted by atinymonkey

I think the US is finding it hard to separate national pride from common sense.

Yeah, I think so, too. Actually, I'm aksing myself quite often when I hear some "American" arguments whether there is any logic or any reasonable thinking behind it.

 

National security is of course important. This is certainly valid for every country. However, it's still national security and not international security, as the US - in my view - seem to take it.

I mean, why do they have to march into Iraq or into Korea (both will have a devasting impact)? Because they have been threatened...

[blike]

That would be interesting. North Korea have over one million ground troops, and China are treaty-bound to protect them. Good luck.

 

It would be quite bloody.

[LuTze]

Originally posted by blike

It would be quite bloody.

Yes, on both sides.

[blike]

So then, why are we going to war?

[Sayonara]

Originally posted by blike

It would be quite bloody.

Based on his current behaviour, and his apparent lack of respect for non-US lives, I can honestly see Bush waiting until the majority of the NK army is in one place and then just nuking them.

 

Sounds appalling but to be quite frank judging by what I've seen of his diplomatic and tactical insight so far it would not surprise me in the least if that was his solution.

 

That's the impression your president gives people outside the US, and in turn that's why you're stomping off to 'war'.

[blike]

if Al Quaeda did have some connection with Saddam, would this be enough to call it "defending ourselves"?

 

(not making any claims, just asking).

 

What about this war on a humanitarian level? Where are the protests against Saddam's genocide? What about his plans to kill Iraqis and blame it on the US if there is an invasion? How can you not want to remove this guy from power? You may not agree with the means, but does anyone agree that he needs to be removed?

[Sayonara]

Originally posted by blike

if Al Quaeda did have some connection with Saddam, would this be enough to call it "defending ourselves"?

No.

 

It would still be 'guilty by association', which is a pretty lame accusation from a country that claims to be civilised.

 

Of course, if Iraq actually attacked you then I'm sure you'd have full UN support in any retaliatory efforts. However since they don't appear to be planning an invasion of the US any time soon it must be obvious why GWB's motives are being called into question.

What about this war on a humanitarian level? Where are the protests against Saddam's genocide?

Worldwide.

 

Possibly why you guys in the US haven't seen or heard them (j/k)

 

It's not very fair to sideline the ongoing efforts of organisations such as Amnesty International and their supporters just because it suits your argument.

What about his plans to kill Iraqis and blame it on the US if there is an invasion?

If your troops aren't there, it won't happen. And you don't have to be there. So it will be your fault.

 

The key is to not invade.

How can you not want to remove this guy from power? You may not agree with the means, but does anyone agree that he needs to be removed?

Absolutely.

 

But the US was looking for a quick fix when they helped install him as dictator, and now he's stopped playing ball you're looking for a quick fix to remove him again.

 

It's about time the US learned that some issues outside its borders can't be fixed by hurling ammo until the problem goes away.

[blike]

It would still be 'guilty by association', which is a pretty lame accusation from a country that claims to be civilised.

 

Its not like Saddam wouldn't know where the funds were going if he was somehow monitarily involved. "Gee, wonder what they'll do with that money". The ONLY reason he would give funds is because we are their sworn enemy, and they are probably planning something on our soil. Kinda like hiring a hitman, which most civilized countries would claim is a crime.

 

just because it suits your argument.

 

Wasn't really part of my argument, just an observation. In the US its hard to sort out what is anti-americanism and what is anti-war. In other words, its hard to sort out who is really against war, or who is just against america, and hence, against war because its trendy and America is leading it. Pointing out the lack of million-man worldwide protests against Saddam's oppression was an attempt to sort out those who are really protesting for humanitarian reasons, and those who want to be trendy. If all these people were really concerned for the Iraqi people, wouldn't they be organizing world protests against Saddam's regime? This is something I have not seen. Perhaps it has happened in the past around the time of the gulf war, but my only memories from that time are of a 3rd grade classroom.

 

If your troops aren't there, it won't happen. And you don't have to be there. So it will be your fault.

 

I disagree.

 

It's about time the US learned that some issues outside its borders can't be fixed by hurling ammo until the problem goes away

 

Just like North Korea, close our eyes and they will disappear!

[LuTze]

Originally posted by blike

So then, why are we going to war?

You'd have to ask your President that one.

 

I'd suspect it has something to do with "Rebuilding America's Defences" - a report by The Project For The New American Century, written in 2000.

 

One of the more 'disturbing' objectives is "fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars".

 

It was written by a number of people, six of which have since taken up key defence and foriegn policy within Bush's administration. It also seems to form the blueprint for Bush's National Defence Strategy.

 

You can read it for youself here: http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

[Radical Edward]

Originally posted by blike

Its not like Saddam wouldn't know where the funds were going if he was somehow monitarily involved. "Gee, wonder what they'll do with that money". The ONLY reason he would give funds is because we are their sworn enemy, and they are probably planning something on our soil. Kinda like hiring a hitman, which most civilized countries would claim is a crime.

 

where are you heading with this conjecture?