Is there a valid reason on going to war?

[atinymonkey]

I thought Japan owned America now. Isn't that why they are classed as Allies? I think there diplomatic routes may be a little more direct than Iraq can manage, seeing as Japan could cripple US economy. Mind you, that's a threat to the US isn't it? Best bomb them again:-p

 

Hopefully, this should be the last time the boys have to show off their big guns. The next time there is none co-operation the US will be the first to see a none violent solution. Take into account all the other instances of the US using a diplomatic solution in, er, well, um, somewhere I'm sure.

[Matzi]

Originally posted by fafalone

[...]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.[...]

Actually, I think diplomacy started to work shortly before you went to war. Diplomacy is based on negotiation and negotiation is connected to time. If you had waited some time longer you would not have lost anything (the opposite: no killed soldiers etc.).

[Matzi]

Originally posted by atinymonkey

[...]Hopefully, this should be the last time the boys have to show off their big guns. The next time there is none co-operation the US will be the first to see a none violent solution. Take into account all the other instances of the US using a diplomatic solution in, er, well, um, somewhere I'm sure.

They are skilled in diplomacy. Look at Israel and Palestina. The US diplomacy really made a great job down there.

[atinymonkey]

Hmmm, America has vital strategic interests at stake in the Middle East which is why they are involved. It was Clintons attempt to reach an Barak-Arafat accord that cemented Americas involvement in Israel and Palestine. It annoys Bush that he is forced to be involved in Israel and Palestine, and is looking for a quick fix. You can't really cite diplomacy by proxy, it wasn't effective even when it was being actively pursued (religion is in the way, as well as gross arrogance of the leaders).

[fafalone]

Originally posted by Matzi

Actually, I think diplomacy started to work shortly before you went to war. Diplomacy is based on negotiation and negotiation is connected to time. If you had waited some time longer you would not have lost anything (the opposite: no killed soldiers etc.).

 

Really?? It did???

 

no.

 

If the UN gives you a final demand to cooperate 100%, and you cooperate 10%, that is NOT succesful diplomacy unless you're a spineless liberal.

[blike]

Actually, I think diplomacy started to work shortly before you went to war. Diplomacy is based on negotiation and negotiation is connected to time.

 

It did? how?

[Matzi]

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).

[fafalone]

Iraq did cooperate to a limited extent with weapons inspectors.

 

However, Mr. Blix himself said that they should have been doing much much more, and they certainly were not "actively" cooperating, it was more of letting the weapons inspectors go on an Easter egg hunt than helping them prove destruction of the weapons.

 

This has been going on for over a decade, how much time should they be allowed? Saddam knew full well that he'd be facing military action by the US if he did not fully cooperate with 1441, and he chose not to.

[Matzi]

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.

[atinymonkey]

Originally posted by fafalone

If the UN gives you a final demand to cooperate 100%, and you cooperate 10%, that is NOT successful diplomacy unless you're a spineless liberal.

 

I think you are confusing diplomacy with dictating. A diplomatic solution will never result in one sides capitulation 100% with the other, diplomacy is about compromise on both sides.

 

In order to set yourself aside from a dictator, you cannot dictate yourself.

 

Mind you, I think it is just a poor use of the word in this case. We were not really in a diplomatic situation with Iraq, it was more of a combined policing of Iraq. The situation was undermined by the decision of factions to take the 'law' into their own hands and become a body of international vigilantes.

 

Besides, how can you on one hand say that Iraq has ignored the UN, and not see the conflict of interest when the US and UK ignored the UN?

[blike]

And don't forget the inspectors were withdrawn for some time, so don't take this time and accuse Iraq of not cooperating then.

 

July 1, 1995, Iraq admits it has bio/chem weapons.

 

June 12, 1996, UN passes resolution 1060 denouncing Iraq's refusal to allow access to sites.

 

June 21, 1997, Un passes resolution 1115 condemning the repeated refusal of Iraq to allow weapons inspectors to inspection sites.

 

Oct 23, 1997, UN passes resolution 1134 which reaffirms Iraq's obligations to cooperate with weapons inspectors after Iraqi officials announce that "presidential sites" are off-limits to inspectors.

 

Nov 12, 1997, UN passes resolution 1137 which rejects Iraqi government's announced intention to prohibit weapons inspections.

 

Nov 13, 1997, Iraq kicks weapons inspectors out of Iraq.

 

Nov 20, 1997, Iraq lets weapons inspectors back into Iraq.

 

Sep 9, 1998, UN passes resolution 1194 condemning Iraq's decision to cease cooperation with UN weapons inspectors.

 

Nov 5, 1998, UN passes resolution 1205 again condemning Iraq's decision to cease cooperation with UN weapons inspectors.

 

Dec 16, 1998, UN weapons inspectors leave Iraq again due to Iraq's refusal to cooperate with the UN.

 

Nov 8, 20002, the UN unanimously approves resolution 1441 demanding that Iraq provide immediate, unconditional accounting

 

Thats a track record of cooperation if I ever saw one! (http://www.rini.org/countdown.php)

[Matzi]

Ok, for one time, I was wrong, but what about the other time?

Dec 16, 1998, UN weapons inspectors leave Iraq again due to Iraq's refusal to cooperate with the UN.

Does not sound like they were forced to leave Iraq.

[fafalone]

Why would they stay with Iraq blocking access to sites they wanted to go to?

[Matzi]

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.

[fafalone]

A very large country. Like I said, weapons inspectors were there to verify claims of disarmament, not go on an easter egg hunt.

 

If they wanted to search the entire country, it would take decades. This time frame is not appropriate.

[Matzi]

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

[fafalone]

Not quite. They agreed to the terms of the cease-fire.

 

And this is not a world where you can do whatever you want as long as no one gets hurt. You cannot threaten people, you cannot possess illegal materials, and you cannot simply decide to stop honoring a legally binding contract.

[Matzi]

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.

[fafalone]

Thousands? No.

 

Those who take up arms against us are not innocent, which leaves the civilians. And voluntarily acting as a human shield is not innocent either.

 

And don't use UN approval as a justification, because according to you a nation doesn't have to do what the UN says, and countries don't have to abide by treaties that they have entered into.

[Matzi]

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?

[Sayonara]

Originally posted by fafalone

Thousands? No.

 

Those who take up arms against us are not innocent, which leaves the civilians. And voluntarily acting as a human shield is not innocent either.

 

And don't use UN approval as a justification, because according to you a nation doesn't have to do what the UN says, and countries don't have to abide by treaties that they have entered into.

You conveniently disregard the fact that US and UK bombs and guns are killing innocent non-combatants on a daily basis.

 

You conveniently disregard the fact that most human shields are involuntary.

 

You conveniently disregard the fact that the US is a member of the UN security council and bound by the rules of the UN, rules it is currently ignoring, whereas Iraq is not a UN member and is not bound by those rules.

 

It's inconvenient, but you can't have an answer for everything.

[fafalone]

You conveniently disregard the facts that Iraq is executing POWs in cold blood.

 

You conveniently disregard the fact that if people really didn't want to be human shields they'd move.

 

You conveniently disregard the fact that Iraq is bound to the terms of the cease-fire agreement they signed to end the gulf war.

[Sayonara]

Originally posted by fafalone

You conveniently disregard the facts that Iraq is executing POWs in cold blood.

 

You conveniently disregard the fact that if people really didn't want to be human shields they'd move.

 

You conveniently disregard the fact that Iraq is bound to the terms of the cease-fire agreement they signed to end the gulf war.

No I didn't. I was talking about you, not the war.

 

So they can be shot in the back while doing so? You're still wrong.

 

No I didn't. I was talking about you, not the war.

[blike]

faf, I'm not sure where you got the idea that saddam was an evil dictator but he lets people volunteer to be human shield and leave the country at will....

 

-------------------

 

Anyhow, I read a great analysis of this whole situation:

 

Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. Unless they don't. If they do, they were planted. If they don't, we told you so. But it's not about weapons of mass destruction, it's about liberating Iraqis.

 

Unless it's not. If it's not about liberating Iraqis, it's about retribution for 9/11. Unless Iraq didn't have anything to do with 9/11. Which they did. And we know they did. Unless they didn't.

 

And if it's not about retribution for 9/11, it's about oil. Unless it's not. Because we don't get much oil from Iraq. Unless we do. In which case the prices should be going up, since a bunch of Iraq's oil has been burning up or not being pumped out of the ground for the last few weeks. But gas prices are going down. So maybe it's not about oil.

 

Then it's about getting Haliburton a big reconstruction contract. Unless it's not. Because Haliburton makes a pretty good living anyway, even without wars tearing up Iraq. Unless they don't. In which case it's just about Dick Cheney getting a few million in under-the-table kickbacks from Haliburton because he launches a $70 billion war at taxpayers' expense. Unless it isn't because Cheney's a multimillionaire anyway and wouldn't live long enough to spend anything Haliburton would give him. Unless he would.

 

Then it's about Yankee imperialism. Unless it's not. Because if there's one piece of land you want, it's one right smack in the middle of the most God-forsaken land you ever saw, where you'd run the risk of getting blown up every day. Unless you wouldn't.

 

So it must be about sending a message to North Korea. Unless it isn't.

 

The only thing I know for sure is this: regardless of how you feel about it, the war's not stopping anytime soon. The reasons behind it are immaterial now, and only what happens in the few years after Sadaam is out of there will give us an idea of what really was behind this.

 

Unless it doesn't

[fafalone]

Originally posted by Sayonara³

No I didn't. I was talking about you, not the war.

 

So they can be shot in the back while doing so? You're still wrong.

 

No I didn't. I was talking about you, not the war.

 

What are you talking about?

 

You're wrong, sorry.