The Iraq Ultimatum

[Sayonara]

ROFL.

 

A lot of thought obviously went into that.

[Matzi]

Originally posted by fafalone

Because of diplomatic pressure from countries like yours. We finally got tired of waiting for the world to agree on preemptive actions after our failure to act on Al Qaeda resulted in 9/11.

Finally? Iraq has not been mentioned for years... And with 9/11 you could certainly account for war with every country... Wonderful world we are living in...

[fafalone]

Not mentioned for years? Wow, that's pretty ignorant. Apparently only what the mass media is talking about matters to you.

[Sayonara]

Right, so 3000 people die in 9/11 attack, more than half of whom were non-US citizens, and in response to this attack from an organisation who aren't bound to any one country, the US decides to invade Iraq and kill a few thousand people, just about the time most governments would be getting impatient waiting for their oil-for-food agreement to come out of its suspension period.

 

Suddenly I see your point of view, I am converted. We shall solve our problems by killing people. Let none stand in our way!

[Dudde]

O_o

suddenly I feel this thread has nosedived...

[fafalone]

Originally posted by Sayonara³

Right, so 3000 people die in 9/11 attack, more than half of whom were non-US citizens, and in response to this attack from an organisation who aren't bound to any one country, the US decides to invade Iraq and kill a few thousand people, just about the time most governments would be getting impatient waiting for their oil-for-food agreement to come out of its suspension period.

 

Suddenly I see your point of view, I am converted. We shall solve our problems by killing people. Let none stand in our way!

 

I love how you pacifists take one part of our argument and accuse us of acting solely on its merit. The war with Iraq is about disarmament, NOT terrorism.

[Matzi]

Originally posted by fafalone

[...]The war with Iraq is about disarmament, NOT terrorism.

Ah, ja, sure. So why disarm Iraq? They have not done anything bad and they won't. You really think it's not about terrorism? I think it was - among others - exactly you who stated that Iraq's possible links to Al Kaeda are one reason for an ultimatum. So, this does not have to do with terrorism?

If this had not to do with terrorism, your wish for disarmament of Iraq whould be really a great joke. I mean, just disarming a country possibly in possession of abc weapons would certainly be great. But there are actually other countries which have these weapons for sure, including your country. SO WHY NOT DISARM YOUR COUNTRY (if it was not about terrorism)? Sure, Saddam is a dictator, but that's no argument in this case as well. By the way, Bush's behaviour does not seem very wonderful in my eyes either. But instead of really trying to disarm the world, you break up with Russia which actually as Putin stated has bad effects on negotiations on further disarmaments of Russia and the US.

So, terrorism, besides money and oil, is what this is all about. Your government is using 9/11 to make you panic to make you agree with an hostile movement against Iraq. Your government uses this argument of national security (YOU mentioned this earlier as reason for war as well, so don't tell me it's not about terrorism) in order to satisfy you people (in order to lie at you, I could say as well, which would be a bit more radical). What their real aims are, that's what they don't tell you. And don't tell these aims are reaching humanity and freeing these people in Iraq. That's really ridiculous, especially regarding thier means.

So, stating the war in Iraq is not about terrorism, is really a joke and just persuades me (and certainly others as well) of the arbitrainess by which you choose your arguments for war.

It's really sad.

[Sayonara]

Originally posted by fafalone

I love how you pacifists take one part of our argument and accuse us of acting solely on its merit. The war with Iraq is about disarmament, NOT terrorism.

I am not a pacifist.

 

I have already stated plainly that the war is necessary, and the that the issue I have is with the way it is being conducted and the motives behind it.

 

Dismissing my perfectly valid points by tarring me with the simple-minded hippy brush is not going to work.

 

In all the Iraq threads you have side-stepped or ignored valid points and arguments you cannot answer, so think about the stability of your own conclusions before you try to undermine the ones I have arrived at.

[fafalone]

Originally posted by Matzi

Ah, ja, sure. So why disarm Iraq? They have not done anything bad and they won't.

 

Killing thousands and thousands of your own people isn't bad? Hiding WOMD from weapons inspectors isn't bad? Torturing people isn't bad?

[fafalone]

Originally posted by Sayonara³

In all the Iraq threads you have side-stepped or ignored valid points and arguments you cannot answer, so think about the stability of your own conclusions before you try to undermine the ones I have arrived at.

 

Actually it's the other way around.

[Sayonara]

I said valid points, IE the ones that were relevant to the discussion, not the ones that came as part of the soapbox speech package.

 

It appears to me (and this is not a criticism as such, more of an observation) that you are so busy defending your own opinion that you aren't that interested in why the rest of us come to the conclusions we have.

 

If you read the threads as one long conversation you'll see that most of us actually modify our positions as new or more accurate information becomes available. I'm fairly shocked that you don't.

[fafalone]

I'd hardly call dismissing US intelligence about WOMD as wild speculation a good point.

 

No one has said anything that factually refutes any of the points I have made.

[Sayonara]

Jesus Christ.

 

I'll let you know when Opera Braille Edition gets released.

 

In the meantime I am off to bed, nn.

[fafalone]

Why are you acting like such a cretin

[Radical Edward]

Originally posted by fafalone

If he uses them, or our troops find the stockpiles, would that change your attitude towards war?

 

possibly, it depends on the circumstances. However I have seen nothing that suggests that he does have WOMD. and even if he does, he has not used them for a long time, and probably would never have used them anyway, because he knows what would happen if he did.

 

as I have constantly said, my problem is in the way that this war has come about, and also the timing of the war. I find it fascinating that at the same time the US is going on about trying to create peace and prosperity in the region, and starting up a "road map" for peace in the Israel Palesting conflict, they are still handing over huge wads of cash to the Israelis, in so called "aid"

[Matzi]

Originally posted by fafalone

Killing thousands and thousands of your own people isn't bad? Hiding WOMD from weapons inspectors isn't bad? Torturing people isn't bad?

Yeah, sure, he has used them once (or maybe some more times). That is bad and I can only critizice this.

However, this is more than a decade ago. How long are you going to bring this argument any more? I mean, your ancestors have killed thousands of native Americans. That's more than a hundred years ago. Don't you think things can grow old and be forgotten?

Besides, I think - as does Radical Edward - that an attack with biological or chemical weapons by Iraq is very unlikely. I mean, Hussein is not stupid and is certainly in knowledge of the impact this might and will have if he uses these weapons. Otherwise you can - with your justification for this war - attack many countries, including your own, which have these weapons as well and will - hopefully - never use them because they known what that would mean for them and the rest of the world.

 

Anyway, your answer was a perfect example for what Sayonara mentioned. You cited my first two lines but never said anything about my main argument (the one with terrorism). Don't you want to justify your opinion? I wonder whether you have read the rest of post. I mean, this is your right not to do, but would just persuade me of some kind of ignorance and incompetence of discussion (again, this was meant as observation, not as attack on yourself, fafalone. Please don't misunderstand me)

[Matzi]

Originally posted by fafalone

[...]No one has said anything that factually refutes any of the points I have made.

Your points are mostly the one's of your government meant to justify the war, right?

Then I think this should go the other way round. We do not have to prove your arguments to be wrong, but you have to convince us. It's like in court, I think. You are innocent till the opposite has been proven.

[Glider]

Originally posted by fafalone

I love how you pacifists take one part of our argument and accuse us of acting solely on its merit. The war with Iraq is about disarmament, NOT terrorism.

 

You really have to be careful with them there blanket terms. I'm against this war (for reasons I've expressed in other posts), and I agree with Sayonara, but pacifist? I served five years in the British Army (Royal Artillery). I was well trained and prepared to fight (kill) to defend this country, as were all my oppos.

 

The problem is, it's never as simple as that any more. It stopped being simple with Viet Nam. The so-called war against terrorism has similarities to that. Who is the enemy? Terrorists. Yes, but who and where are they? They move around. They mix with innocents. They don't wear particular uniforms that allow us to tell them apart from civilians. We can't easily identify them; apparently we can't even find them. Are we defending our country? Not by attacking a country which presents no specific threat to us.

 

We were sent to Cyprus shortly after the Turkish invasion. We were based on the Greek Cypriot side, in Dekelia. But for peace keepers on the line between the Turkish and Greek Cypriot forces, who was the enemy? Were we defending the Greek Cypriots? Were we defending Britain? Or were we defending a militarily useful tactical base we may have lost if the Turks had overrun the island? It's never as simple as taking up arms to defend your country against an invading force any more. War is mostly politics now; manoeuvrering for political, tactical and (particularly) economic advantage.

 

There is a large difference between 'National Security' and 'National Interest', and it seems to me that open warfare is usually used now simply as a lever to achieve some other (less well publicised) agenda. We only ever get involved if there is something to gain; if there is 'something in it for us'. We never seem to worry too much about the millions who are suffering under similar or worse despotic reigimes. We trot out the same old "We cannot interfere with that country's sovereign right to inedependent government" or some such crap, which, it seems to me, usually translates as "there's nothing in it for us". This demonstrates double standards and is unethical. This is the core of my objection.

[Sayonara]

Originally posted by fafalone

Why are you acting like such a cretin

FYI

 

I am an extremely well-educated person with an absolutely immense capacity to take information onboard and cross analyse it with past experience and knowledge. I am not some backwards yokel from the Styx.

 

I work. I pay my taxes. I take a particular interest in where that money goes. I keenly observe both British and International politics. I have interests in geopolitical history, military strategy and information control.

 

I am more than capable of reading between the lines in the oh-so-rousing war speeches that come from both of our Governments, just as I am quite capable of slicing the rubbish away from the anti-War dogma before attempting to take any of it in. I am not going to accept anything from Blair without evidence, just as I would expect evidence from anybody on here making important claims, and I demand the same from the president you people seem to deify as some kind of infallible fountain of purity.

 

Let's be very clear here that America does have economic motives for this war. It's not difficult to cut through all the crap coming from the Oval Office and Number 10 that's designed to sway the sheep and see the real isues, and I can't believe that you are so adamant in your belief you are right that you are willing to ignore what's right in front of you.

 

The fact is that your statements have been disproven many times in both the Iraq threads, but like your government you have simply disregarded those inconveniences. In fact, you seem to be parroting all of GWB's reasons for going to war and the 'facts' he is using to defend the decision - I had no idea you were so weak minded.

 

Why don't you come down from your Ivory Tower and actually listen to what people are saying? I happen to know a few of the members involved in the Iraq discussions personally and I can tell you they are some of the smartest people I have ever met. Seeing you come back to their posts with some sweeping one-liner that has nothing to do with the issue is very disappointing, especially after they have given you links, information and a new perspective you may not necessarily have considered. If you continue to talk to people like they are stupid or act as if they have no access to any good information and should just listen to you, the invariably correct one, then you're going to start losing quality members fast.

 

There's a reason why scholarly pursuits are called Academia, and you're beginning to demonstrate it quite well. Get some life experience and worldly wisdom (note: worldly, not USAly) behind you, and do not presume to talk down to me unless you can back it up.

[fafalone]

For your information, I watch coverage on Iraq 8 hours a day and gather information from websites in dozens of countries, including directly from Arabic networks. I highly doubt you've devoted more time to studying this than I have.

 

My statements have NOT been disproven. No one here has evidence that the WOMD were destroyed or that Saddam has become a nice person.

 

And it's not like the USA/UK are the only countries that support war, so just stop presuming we're the only ones.

 

You're clearly ignoring whats in front of you also, so don't accuse me of that. If I've not addressed so many points, refresh my memory as to what they are.

 

For some one who claims to be so damn smart you've got huge gaps in your logical reasoning abilities and reading comprehension.

[Matzi]

Originally posted by fafalone

For your information, I watch coverage on Iraq 8 hours a day and gather information from websites in dozens of countries, including directly from Arabic networks. I highly doubt you've devoted more time to studying this than I have.

8 hours a day? For what? I mean, if you want to do so. But watching TV and searching the web for additional information does not make you an absolutely informed person. It's all relative.

 

By the way: When watch TV on Iraq for 8 hours a day, why don't you go to Iraq yourself and try to find the weapons you accuse Iraq of having not disarmed.

[Sayonara]

Originally posted by fafalone

For your information, I watch coverage on Iraq 8 hours a day and gather information from websites in dozens of countries, including directly from Arabic networks. I highly doubt you've devoted more time to studying this than I have.

I take it this is when you aren't studying, sleeping, playing golf or doing whatever else it is teenagers do in Florida.

Nobody else on here is bothering, because we don't care about the world we live in. In fact we have never watched the news (on account of it being so dull, and the Dukes of Hazard being on the other channel) or used the web and therefore don't even have any sort of recent historical context in which to view the current situation.

My statements have NOT been disproven.

If I can find two, ie - plurality, will you admit that that was incorrect, or just keep arguing?

No one here has evidence that the WOMD were destroyed or that Saddam has become a nice person.

Nobody here has even attempted to prove that any WOMD were destroyed. What they are saying is that there is little compelling evidence they weren't destroyed, or existed at all, and that finding such evidence is almost impossible. So you're obviously taking care to read and understand all our posts, aren't you?

Likewise nobody has claimed that Saddam has become a nice person. Not one forum member in this discussion is in any doubt as to what that man is capable of, so AGAIN a reminder - this is not the issue.

Also, stop using WOMD as some sort of umbrella term, because it's not. Scud missiles are not WOMD, Anthrax is not a WOMD, mustard gas is not a WOMD. If Hussein has any WOMD at all it will be smallpox, and he'd be a very stupid man indeed to try and deploy it now. He might be sadistic but he's not a fool.

And it's not like the USA/UK are the only countries that support war, so just stop presuming we're the only ones.

I haven't presumed that at all.

Unlike you I am capable of seeing the political savy in the behaviour and posturing of other countries. In this situation, where we are already at war, the onus is on the countries who say they support the war to put their money where their mouth is. So far only the UK, USA and Australia have done so.

You're clearly ignoring whats in front of you also, so don't accuse me of that. If I've not addressed so many points, refresh my memory as to what they are.

I'd like to know what I'm ignoring exactly, seeing as we seem to be discussing different situations entirely. For my part, and most of the other members in the thread, we are debating the moral justification behind the war. You seem to be talking about the physical neccesity.

If you can't be bothered to read what people write before you reply to them I'm not going to recap it for you - afaik the thread does actually still exist, so I don't see why you can't re-read it.

For some one who claims to be so damn smart you've got huge gaps in your logical reasoning abilities and reading comprehension.

I did not claim to be smart, I said I was well-educated.

My logical reasoning works just fine, as does my reading comprehension. You see things differently because you are arrogant enough to presume that everything you think is right, and therefore the problem must lie with me. Well news flash - if your argument was so flawless, you wouldn't feel the need to fall back on insults or belittle people so much.

 

This is beginnning to get tiresome now. I don't want to be having this pointless argument with you, but you're being an absolute blockhead.

 

Why do you think you're arguing with almost everybody in the Iraq threads? Do you think they all have inferior brain processes to you? Do you think you're the most qualified person here, or the one who has seen the most media coverage? Has it occured to you we might know things you don't? Have you never considered there might be even the smallest possibility you have got a key piece of information that is wrong?

 

I stayed on this forum to get away from futile arguments with infallible teenagers who assume nobody older than them has ever picked up a book or studied past grade school. Don't make me regret it.

[fafalone]

a) I'm not saying you don't watch the news, I'm just saying I watch it more. You invoked the "experience" argument with your age, so I invoked it with I've read more on the topic.

 

b) If you have objective evidence clearly disproving the idea behind what I said (i.e. if I said 140km range and the range was actually 150km, it's trivial) then I will admit that particular point is wrong.

 

c) They did exist. He used them. He admitted he had more of them. The burden was on Iraq to show evidence of their destruction ("active cooperation"). They provided no such evidence.

Saying WOMD is easier than saying chemical and biological warheads, when I refer to WOMD I am generally referring to those and other weapons he is not supposed to possess under UN resolutions.

I agree that it is highly unlikely that he would deploy them, but we should not take the chance like we did with Al Qaeda before Sept. 11. Also, it is also possible for weapons to make it into the hands of other parties. This is slightly more liekly than him using them.

 

d) No. Other countries have contributed people trained in operations with chem/bio weapons. They aren't going into combat, but they are chem/bio specialists who are working with our forces. Other countries are giving remote support. Italy is allowing us to use their bases. Turkey authorized overflights. Kuwait is obviously letting us use their bases.

 

e) The reasons behind the physical necessity inherently establish morality.

 

f) You're being far more dense than me.

 

 

Yes I've considered one of my facts is wrong, but you haven't provided any legitimate evidence of it.

 

 

If you're pissed off that you're losing this argument to a teenager whose arguments are clearly better than yours, than maybe you shouldn't stay around.

[Sayonara]

a) The age thing is not disputable. Your claim is.

 

b) If I can be arsed I will do it tomorrow then.

 

c) Again, point missed. Because he had weapons, and has not provided proof that he destroyed them, we cannot simply conclude that he still has them. It's not possible to prove something does not exist, hence the need for weapons inspectors working in a reasonable time frame.

If he did hand weapons to another party, and like you I think it's fairly likely some of that went on, then he doesn't have them does he?

 

d) Yes, you're right. They have. The reason I don't count them in the "putting their money where their mouth is" category is because of the blatant political motives behind offering remote support. If you can't see those reasons, then that would seem to be a lacking in your understanding, not mine.

 

e) No, they don't.

 

f) Perhaps you think I'm naive, ignorant, a pinko commie, a tree hugger, whatever. I am employing a reasoned analysis of imformation that cannot be used to political advantage. By your own admission you are working on what the various available medias feed you. People can draw their own conclusions from that, I'm sure.

 

The last bit:

 

Since you are parroting dogma I don't see that you have an argument.

 

I have actually considered leaving before, specifically when you started your campaign of Blike-bashing. But to be honest I don't have any problem with you at all apart from your tendency to behave like a bulldozer.

[fafalone]

The information I'm looking at comes from far more than the mass media.

 

You're still ignoring the UN demand the Iraq ACTIVELY COOPERATE in providing evidence of their disarmament.

 

They had them. They did not destroy them. Where'd they go????

 

It's far more likely they're still there than magically vanished without a trace.