Is there a valid reason on going to war?

[the GardenGnome]

Is there a real reason for war? Besides this whole "weapons of mass destruction" and "axis of evil". Bush told the people of Iraq not to destroy the oil and stuff so is he just after the oil? So what is it that that Bush's wants and why?

[Radical Edward]

there are a number of reasons. Iraq being irritating, money power and votes. to name but a few. note how billions of dollars of reconstruction contracts are ALL going to US companies.

[Matzi]

I think there are many reasons. But none of the ones presented to us by the American government is the real major reason. I think it's mainly the profit the US might have from this war and the advantage Bush gets from this.

[atinymonkey]

To sum up:-

 

Yup, there are valid reasons for war against Iraq.:bravo:

 

Nope, none of them instigated the war.:nono:

[rahul_rudani]

I think George. W. Bush just wants to throw out Saddam Hussein and build a new government that will work for the US. This way, the US will have to pay less price for oil. So, this profits the US economically.

 

:owned:

[DocBill]

Some will be against the war for political reasons, the opposit is also true;

 

Some will be against war on moral grounds, this is true on BOTH sides;

 

Some will be against bloodshed for various reasons.

 

The final eq. is simply this: for whatever reasons, will the world be a better place with or without Saddam in charge of Iraq?

 

This is the one question no one seems to want to ask..or answer.

[fafalone]

Tomorrow there's going to be an anti-war protest on my campus. I intend to make a sign out of the pictures of executed POWs with the questions 'Is this a regime that should be allowed to stay in power?' and incite a riot.

[Ryoken]

And show those non-violent protestors what they are really made of.

 

Bill, I agree with your assesment, also its not like the USA is not getting anything in return for their efforts otherwise why make such a large effort?

[fafalone]

Just because we get benefits does not make the true reason we're doing it. We'd get benefits from conquering many other countries that would be even more of a pushover than Iraq, and you don't see us doing that.

[Radical Edward]

more benefit from iraq though, as you can do it under the guise of altruism. It becomes painfully obvious that the US is trying to make money when you look at all the contracts for reconstruction that it is handing out. It will be interesting to see how the US reacts once they have won this thing, as many Iraqis are saying "once you kill saddam, we want you to pack up and leave"

[Matzi]

Originally posted by DocBill

[...]The final eq. is simply this: for whatever reasons, will the world be a better place with or without Saddam in charge of Iraq?[...]

The answer to this question is certainly clear. But this is no reason for making war on Iraq. There are many other means and it just shows incompetence to start such a war.

[Matzi]

Originally posted by fafalone

[...] We'd get benefits from conquering many other countries that would be even more of a pushover than Iraq, and you don't see us doing that.

At the moment I'd say not yet. I mean what is going to follow for the rest of the axis of evil?

 

Just some interesting link: This is a list of military involvements of the US after WWII. I think this one is long, too long. (Sorry, it's in German, but I think most of it clear)

[fafalone]

Don't forget how WWII started. By giving an insane dictator chance after chance after chance to stop agressions, until the war machine got too big to stop without a major conflict.

[Matzi]

I have not forgotten that. WWII started differently: Germany attacked Poland first. This, as I think, justified a military action against Germany.

[fafalone]

Iraq attacked Kuwait in the Gulf War. They have refused for over a decade to honor the demands of the the cease fire agreement.

[Radical Edward]

if Japan revoked it's constitutional objection to war, should we bomb them?

[fafalone]

"Constitutional objection"

 

They don't have much of an army because of the terms of surrender in WW2. If they started breaching that agreement and developing WOMD, I'm sure we would deal with them.

[Matzi]

Originally posted by fafalone

Iraq attacked Kuwait in the Gulf War. They have refused for over a decade to honor the demands of the the cease fire agreement.

Man, that's history. This does not justify an attack now (even if you say you are just a bit late).

[Matzi]

Originally posted by fafalone

[...]They don't have much of an army because of the terms of surrender in WW2. If they started breaching that agreement and developing WOMD, I'm sure we would deal with them.

I. e. you would accept this as justification for war?

 

One question: How many not necessary wars do you want to fight? I mean, haven't there been enough by now?

[fafalone]

If they continually violated new UN resolutions and diplomacy was making no progress, then a war would be justified.

[fafalone]

Originally posted by Matzi

Man, that's history. This does not justify an attack now (even if you say you are just a bit late).

 

So countries only have to abide by surrender terms for a few years?

[Matzi]

Originally posted by fafalone

So countries only have to abide by surrender terms for a few years?

For a few years? In case of Japan it's almost 50 years. What about the relationship between Japan and other countries (I'd say especially yours)? What about Japan's role in the world's economy, industrie, science etc.? You really want to loose all this at once just because they draw some declaration back without any kind of aggresion?

 

I mean, in case of Iraq, this might be different, but I got the impression you would attack every country regardless of any of the consequences as you stated in your post in regards to Japan.

[Sayonara]

Military action should always be the last resort, regardless of whatever 'justification' one can manage to scrape together.

 

Particularly where the country or government in question poses no threat to anybody in particular.

 

As far as Japan goes, I would have thought that the US would be planning on keeping a useful ally against North Korea as sweet as possible.

[fafalone]

Originally posted by Matzi

For a few years? In case of Japan it's almost 50 years. What about the relationship between Japan and other countries (I'd say especially yours)? What about Japan's role in the world's economy, industrie, science etc.? You really want to loose all this at once just because they draw some declaration back without any kind of aggresion?

 

I mean, in case of Iraq, this might be different, but I got the impression you would attack every country regardless of any of the consequences as you stated in your post in regards to Japan.

 

 

It's highly unlikely Japan would spit in the UN's face like Iraq did.

[fafalone]

Originally posted by Sayonara³

Military action should always be the last resort, regardless of whatever 'justification' one can manage to scrape together.

 

Particularly where the country or government in question poses no threat to anybody in particular.

 

As far as Japan goes, I would have thought that the US would be planning on keeping a useful ally against North Korea as sweet as possible.

 

 

The alliance with Japan works both ways. It is important to them too, and that said, they would cooperate with diplomatic measures to resolve any issues.

 

Iraq poses a threat to its own people and its neighbors, as well as Israel. Military action IS a last resort, people just don't seem to realize that with Iraq, after 12 years of attempted diplomacy, we have indeed come to the last resort.

 

Saddam's regime is executing POWs. Any regime who would carry out such acts is clearly not otherwise peaceful.