To those against war on Iraq

[Deslaar]

Originally posted by Radical Edward

yeap... camp x-ray. a fine example of lawful detention and human rights if I ever saw one.

 

 

incidentally, It is not americans I have a problem with, it is the government and its foreign policy.... heh.

 

Me too, however I do have a problem with Americans who support their governments actions. There seems to be a large number of them.

[greg1917]

it pleases the US to attack? I suppose it would please Iraqi mothers if their children werent killed by American smart bombs, or maybe it would please muslims all over the world if America didnt attack iraq just because if a nation isnt white then it aint right. If Americas national security was threatened by iraq (which it isnt) then this war might be partly justified. Iraq wasnt responsible for 9/11, wasnt responsible for the anthrax attacks and has no proven links with al quaeda. Im convinced it does have weapons OMD but so does israel, in my view a bigger threat to world peace. or then there's north korea which recently threatened nuclear strikes with the weapons it DOES have.

 

I hope britain pulls out of this so we dont get labelled with this war, because i certainly dont support a single invading soldier except those fighting for the union jack, and id like that to continue.

 

WW2 was justified. the falklands war was justified. the american bombing of afghanistan was, i felt, justifed. this isnt. Africa is littered with dictators with a worse human rights record than saddam, but they arent sitting on the gulf oil field are they. if george bush is to believed, a war will pull us out of recession. I despise tony blair for siding with a war mongering illiterate and hope he gets booted out of the labout party for ignoring the majority of the populace of the country hes supposed to represent.

[fafalone]

Originally posted by greg1917

it pleases the US to attack? I suppose it would please Iraqi mothers if their children werent killed by American smart bombs, or maybe it would please muslims all over the world if America didnt attack iraq just because if a nation isnt white then it aint right.

 

I don't think Iraqii mothers are pleased to live in poverty because of a dictatorship. I don't think Iraqii mothers are pleased when their husbands killed for speaking out against saddam. You go live in Iraq for a while, and try convincing them saddam should stay in power.

 

Oh, and they wouldn't even be killed by american bombs in the first place if they weren't being used as human shields.

[Deslaar]

Originally posted by fafalone

I don't think Iraqii mothers are pleased to live in poverty because of a dictatorship. I don't think Iraqii mothers are pleased when their husbands killed for speaking out against saddam. You go live in Iraq for a while, and try convincing them saddam should stay in power.

 

I think that if you asked them to choose between Saddam and death they'd choose Saddam....then again they have what's happening in Afghanistan to look forward to. Lawlessness, revenge killings, terrorism, starvation, disease.....lucky Iraq.

[PogoC7]

Originally posted by Sayonara³

Pogo, some thoughts:

 

* Attacking Bush's policy on Iraq does not mean that one supports Hussein. You can't just cry "If you're not with us you're against us" in a situation as complex as this and hope that sorts things out.

 

* France jumped on Russia's bandwagon, not the other way around.

 

* Don't assume Tony Blair's promises to be analagous with the support of Britain. Polls show 70% of Britons oppose going to war, and Blair only has 11% support in his own cabinet.

 

hahahahahaha:

 

Bush's policy on Iraq - Removing Saddam

 

*rance Humping Russia - Thats why France is alway the first to throw a spaz whenever someone mentions Saddams removal of power." I never hear Putin speaking.

 

Britons public opinion - Soldiers working side by side in Iraq.

 

 

 

Let me see some Resolutions to Iraq PEOPLE. All I see is The Bush Bash Revolution.

 

We can let Saddam rule his people until he decides he's had enough. For that time, we can let him continue to have his country sanctioned, have inspectors visit (live there), and whatever else crazy things his mind comes up with (raping GOATS).

 

 

From Yahoo News: France, Russia Germany: No Case for War http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=535&ncid=535&e=5&u=/ap/20030315/ap_on_re_eu/france_iraq_7

"Chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix is to present his latest report on Iraqi disarmament on Monday and lay out his plans for upcoming inspections. He is expected to present the U.N. Security Council with his list of top priority questions that Iraq must answer about its chemical, biological and missile programs as early as Tuesday."

 

What Questions? He must have a very long list.

Blix: Whats your favorite color?

Random Iraqi scientist, soldier, General or official: Red, white, and black.

[fafalone]

Originally posted by Deslaar

I think that if you asked them to choose between Saddam and death they'd choose Saddam....then again they have what's happening in Afghanistan to look forward to. Lawlessness, revenge killings, terrorism, starvation, disease.....lucky Iraq.

 

Defend Saddam or have Saddam kill you, nice choices. Iraq is already like that.

[Deslaar]

Originally posted by fafalone

Defend Saddam or have Saddam kill you, nice choices. Iraq is already like that.

 

At least they'd get to live there lives in relative peace....or at least they would if America stayed the hell away.

[fafalone]

The peace of the gun.

[PogoC7]

Originally posted by Deslaar

At least they'd get to live there lives in relative peace....or at least they would if America stayed the hell away.

 

A week out of their Daily Hellish lives won't make too much of a difference. The real issue is what happens after Saddam's is removed from power. This will take the cooperation of many countries. The "mistake" America made in Afghanistan was that they let extremist control the public (after Sept. 11th). Which lead to continued rape, beating, and moral crimes. I believe America will not let this happen (especially in Iraq) and the government plus the public will be controlled under thigh, safe, and humane conditions.

Has anyone on this site ever spoken to an Iraqi Doctor or immigrant who now lives somewhere else. They support America's stance to Remove Saddam (the reason they left). They are afraid of innocent people dieing (friends or family), but those worries are caused by protesters false claims. Many Iraqi people are very smart and at one time they did have good educatinal systems and citizens were happy. E-mail some professors and ask them what they think. Although the e-mail will probably be monitored, ask the professor to use encryption. http://search.yahoo.com/search/dir?p=University+Iraq&o=&g=&n=20&h=C&r=Regional *One can only Dream* MUST SEE: Baghdad University - Saddam University - About The University. FUNNY STUFF!!!! http://www.salun.org/general.htm ---NO LIKE SADDAM.

 

America should drop flyers saying:

"Iraqi citizens: Please do not mind the loud explosions on *date* at your nations capital and weapon facilities. This will only be temporary. We appreciate your cooperation. Thank you."

[Skye]

I think my main problem with it is that I don't think america has the capacity to control the situation in Iraq. They may be able to get rid of Saddam, that's not a given, but after that influence would only continue as long as they occupied it. Saying it will be different from Afghanistan, or Vietnam or Cuba or Libya or North Korea or Iran or anywhere else they have had issues with, isn't enough considering how difficult it obviously is. Destabilising a country without knowing if you can control it afterwards just doesn't seem to be acting in the interests of national security.

 

Iraq seems to be one of the few Islamic countries that has had little to do with al Quaeda, I would think that Saddam would almost be an ally.

[Sayonara]

Originally posted by PogoC7

hahahahahaha:

 

Bush's policy on Iraq - Removing Saddam

 

*rance Humping Russia - Thats why France is alway the first to throw a spaz whenever someone mentions Saddams removal of power." I never hear Putin speaking.

 

Britons public opinion - Soldiers working side by side in Iraq.

You're a fucking moron.

 

You've already demonstrated in other politics threads that you don't have a clue what's going on and you continue to uphold the trend with avid enthusiasm.

 

Everything else you posted there was irrelevant.

Originally posted by fafalone

Well, we're a sovereign nation who can do what it pleases too, and right now it pleases us to attack.

Ooooh very clever.

 

Unfortunately you still haven't explained how an invasion without the second resolution will be legal, or how any invasion will be morally justified.

[PogoC7]

Originally posted by Sayonara³

Unfortunately you still haven't explained how an invasion without the second resolution will be legal, or how any invasion will be morally justified.

 

Ummmmmmm, because we are AMERICA. America defending itself is legal. Don't see your personal feelings about "law" stopping the U.S.

 

Sayonara³ a.k.a. Losa Boy.

So you want Saddam Removed or not? Don't understand your ways little man. What are you trying to say? Are you just mad at the world? Don't see any intelligence in ignoring the fact that Saddam is a criminal.

 

I have a resolution. On our way to Iraq, stop by Sayonara³ place and give him a taste of American Reality in the ASS. On second thought, you would probably enjoy it. So, maybe a trip outside your room would be more appropriate. Unless seeing where you live makes you vomit. Hey, it happens.

[blike]

play nice

[Glider]

This is what I see all over the place. On an international level, sometimes I wonder who is really against war, and who is on the bandwagon against america.

This is sadly true. Every time there is opposition to something with demonstrations and so-on, the appearance that all those demonstrating are united is an illusion. They may all be united by their stance agains war, but each individual and individual nation has their own particualr agenda.

 

What frustrates me are the dubious rationalisations for the relative stances. Those nations opposed talk of law and morals, whilst anything which might highlight a conflict of interests (e.g. their investments and dealings with Iraq) is carefully avoided. Those for war talk of national security and morals, whilst anything which might highlight a conflict of interests (e.g. oil and the promise of a cure for recession) is carefully avoided. Is it any wonder that the people on the streets are becoming cynical. Trust in politics and politicians is at an all time low, and I can see why.

 

I am not opposed to Americans (or America) in general, but I am opposed to this war, pricipally on ethical grounds:

 

1)

The issue I am making is that if we are prohibited from taking action we feel is necessary to ensure national security, the law be damned.

There is still no evidence that Iraq present a threat to the national security of the USA or the UK. Nonetheless, Saddam Hussein is accused of braking the law, but if to engage in this war, we also break the law, then our very action undermines our rationale for that action.

 

2) Being against the war is not the same as being against America or for Saddam Hussein. Personally, I think he is is a @*$&% who "£($@&@ *%^£@ and &@££*!"@ with trained goats. I think he should be %$@£" )*!&%£$ *^£ using hot scalples and &^£%$@@ with his &£^%"@:£$ and should have his *$@@"* *£&^$%@ by rabid weasles.

 

Nonetheless, I think it's worthy of note that of the hundreds or thousands of people who will die, be maimed or have their lives utterly destroyed in this war, the people it's least likely to happen to are Saddam, George and Tony.

 

I hope britain pulls out of this so we dont get labelled with this war, because i certainly dont support a single invading soldier except those fighting for the union jack, and id like that to continue.

There have been a small rash of programmes on UK TV recently, talking about public support for 'our boys' in the gulf. I strongly suspect this is a cynical move to engage support for the war (and Blair) by pulling the guilt/sympathy/jingoism card. This pisses me off, because it assumes people can't tell the difference between supporting the troops, and supporting the war.

 

I do not support this war. Nonetheless, the troops are there because they have been mobilised and they do not have the choice. If senior officers said to the government "Nah...bad decision...we're not going", that would be counted as treason. If the men under the command of those officers said the same, that would be counted the same. I support the troops fully.

 

However ill equipped they are, due, by the way, to chronic cutbacks and 'downsizing' initiated by the very government who put them in the Gulf in the first place (brilliant move Blair: give them cheap-shit micky mouse equipment and personal weapons by airfix and then ask them to fight your damned wars....you @&%£(*@ dummy!), the British army consists of some of the most highly trained and motivated soldiers in the world. When asked to do the job, they will do it and they will do it well. If history records this as an unjust war, then I will still support the troops and no blame should be attached to them for the misguided whimsy of the governments that mobilised them.

 

Perhaps the troops shouldn't be over there, but it's not their fault that they are. Making policy is not the role of a soldier, it is the role of a politician. If a man points a gun at another man, and pulls the trigger, I blame the man, not the gun. If a government points an army at another country and gives the order to engage, the same principle applies.

[Matzi]

I am really wondering who someone actually can feel threatened by Saddam. Especially when you live thousands of miles away, on a different continent. I mean, to all of you who actually feel threatened, did you see Saddam around your house? Did he actually threaten you? How do you feel threatened? Explain this to me, that's something I'm still not able to understand.

 

Of course, Saddam might have biological weapons. These are dangerous if they were used. But others have biological and nuclear weapons as well. These also include the US. So I have to feel threatened as well or what?

[Sayonara]

Originally posted by PogoC7

Ummmmmmm, because we are AMERICA. America defending itself is legal. Don't see your personal feelings about "law" stopping the U.S.

No, it's not.

 

That's the point of this thread, you dribbling loon.

 

And even if you can't get your head around the fact that America has rules to play by, Blike asked if the invasion was morally justifiable, which is what the rest of us normal people are trying to discuss.

So you want Saddam Removed or not? Don't understand your ways little man. What are you trying to say? Are you just mad at the world? Don't see any intelligence in ignoring the fact that Saddam is a criminal.

The fact that you don't understand does not mean there is not a coherent process behind this. My feelings and opinions on this situation are by no means strange or unique, so you aren't going to get anywhere by pointing at me and shouting "pinko commie bastard" I'm afraid, as I expect you would if you really thought you were "losing". Sad really.

I'm not "just mad at the world" thank-you very much. I'm mad at the US administration, and you should be too. I very much doubt you have looked into the history of the US's interference in Iraq as I suggested.

What makes you think that anybody wants to ignore Hussein? Can I make this quite clear to you all right now - FEELING THAT AN INVASION BY THE USA IS IMMORAL DOES NOT MEAN THAT YOU SUPPORT HUSSEIN OR WANT TO IGNORE THE PROBLEM.

There seems to be this culture of black-and-white thought in America, 'if you're not with us you're against us', clear divisions. Maybe that's why you keep getting your asses kicked - you refuse to acknowledge the grey that makes up 99.9% of the world political and diplomatic arena.

 

But, if you want to continue playing the "lol ure gay lol" card, or the "you don't support Bush therefore you love Saddam" card, you go ahead. You go right ahead and spout shit like you did in that last post, and I'll delete your crap on sight.

[Sayonara]

Originally posted by Sayonara³

If the US invades Iraq without UN sanctioning they will be committing an illegal act.

 

This will make you terrorists.

 

Furthermore, it will create a state of war legitimising any of Hussein's counterattacks.

 

 

For America to lay aside the ideals it has subscribed to for so long simply because it is impatient for the UN to come to a decision is ludicrous. The message Bush is sending out is "We are Amercia. We can attack anyone, at any time, for any reason".

Nobody has successfully dealt with these points yet.

 

Or are you unwilling to face the reality now it's staring you in the face?

[Sayonara]

Originally posted by fafalone

Oh, and they wouldn't even be killed by american bombs in the first place if they weren't being used as human shields.

I just saw that and it made me laugh out loud.

 

The fastest way to get killed by a US Helicopter Gunship is to try and look like an Australian soldier or a Red Cross medical center.

[blike]

If the US invades Iraq without UN sanctioning they will be committing an illegal act.

 

Is it illegal, or are we breaking agreements? If it is illegal, then yes, we are committing illegal acts, and yes, we are terrorists.

 

This will make you terrorists.

 

Indeed, by definition it will. Though this title is being used as a catch-all group to put us on the same level as Al-Quaeda. We do not intentionally target civilians, which would set us apart from known "terrorist" groups. I do not have a problem, morally, with being called a terrorist in this context. If the government were to fund someone to attack my home and my children, and I struck the funder and the attacker, then yes, I am a terrorist, and a very proud terrorist for doing my best to protect my home and my children.

 

Furthermore, it will create a state of war legitimising any of Hussein's counterattacks.

 

I'm not sure I understand the relevance of this. Even with the UN's approval of war, this would still legitimise an Iraqi counter-attack. I've never heard of an illegitimate counter-attack.

 

For America to lay aside the ideals it has subscribed to for so long simply because it is impatient for the UN to come to a decision is ludicrous. The message Bush is sending out is "We are Amercia. We can attack anyone, at any time, for any reason".

 

What is ludicrous is the American government allowing a nation that is a threat to national security continue to exist while nations who are not directly threatened sit around and argue over whether we have the right to remove threats. That being said we should wait until a decision is reached, that way we can at least say we did.

[blike]

It should be noted that I ONLY support this war if Iraq is connected to Al-Quaeda, directly or indirectly, or Iraq is somehow a direct threat to our security.

 

IF there is no connection, then I cannot support this war. At this point, I have to take my government's word for it that they are a threat. I lean towards the side that they know way more than we armchair politicians do.

[Matzi]

So, blike, what is your opinion now? Bush starts war right now, would you be with him or not?

 

To the war supporters:

Who of you will go to war, I mean, personally? That's just a thing I am interested in.

 

PS: Thanks, to Sayonara for making the situation clear. I think some people here do not accept an opinion between bush and saddam.

[Matzi]

Originally posted by fafalone

I don't think Iraqii mothers are pleased to live in poverty because of a dictatorship. I don't think Iraqii mothers are pleased when their husbands killed for speaking out against saddam. You go live in Iraq for a while, and try convincing them saddam should stay in power.

 

Oh, and they wouldn't even be killed by american bombs in the first place if they weren't being used as human shields.

I have not lived in Iraq, but you seem to have.

 

I think there might at least be the possibility that some mothers in Iraq do actually like there country and their system. This - of course - seems unlikely due to Saddams dictatorship.

I mean, dictatorship is worse, of course. But this does not justify a war, I think. I mean, the Iraqi mothers would certainly be happy that you freed them after a war - if they survived. Civil victims can not only be accounted for by Saddam forcing them to act as human shield. No, instead the bombs killing, mother, children and the elderly are still yours, and they are not that perfect in destroying only their programmed aim, as seen in Afganistan.

[blike]

So, blike, what is your opinion now? Bush starts war right now, would you be with him or not?

 

Well, even though I think its retarded that we have to wait for the UN, I think we should in order to do things properly, and not be so hypocritical.

 

Who of you will go to war, I mean, personally? That's just a thing I am interested in.

 

I will enlist if I'm drafted.

[Sayonara]

Originally posted by blike

I'm not sure I understand the relevance of this. Even with the UN's approval of war, this would still legitimise an Iraqi counter-attack. I've never heard of an illegitimate counter-attack.

The relevance is that it will be a private and recognised war between Iraq and the US (and probably the UK too, thanks for that Tony), instead of joint intervention by the UN, and you will not receive anywhere near as much support or co-operation from your allies.

[LuTze]

Originally posted by fafalone

Well, we're a sovereign nation who can do what it pleases too, and right now it pleases us to attack.

Fantastic argument, truly inspiring.

 

You can't just go around invading any country you please, that is how world wars are started. How would you feel if Russia and China got annoyed with US imperialism, and felt like invading Florida because it happened to 'please' them at the time?

 

Originally posted by PogoC7

Ummmmmmm, because we are AMERICA. America defending itself is legal. Don't see your personal feelings about "law" stopping the U.S.

 

Just go away and be quiet please. How exactly is it defence? They haven't attacked you!

 

Originally posted by blike

Is it illegal, or are we breaking agreements? If it is illegal, then yes, we are committing illegal acts, and yes, we are terrorists.

Yes, it's illegal. International law is decided by the UN, and is (partly) centered around the UN charter. According to the charter, there are two legal ways to go to war.

 

1) You have a UN resolution, authorising it.

2) It's self defence.

 

Neither are currently the case.