| Author |
 Topic  |
|
xstream
Junior Member
242 Posts |
 Posted - 26 September 2002 : 18:22:34
|
quote:
Originally posted by @tomic
Ummm, this is how the US government has referred to Iraq/Saddam since 1991 and the US used weapons of frightening devastation against the Iraqi's in 1991, against the Vietnamese, against the Japanese and to top it off we supplied Saddam with the bio/chemical technology to fight Iran. (Doh!). I would use another argument quick so the rest of the world doesn't come to the USA for a "regime change"
@tomic
Ha! That would be hilarious. The rest of the world trying to do a regime change in the US. The problem is that the UN wouldn't do anything without the US. I guess Bush would have to go to the UN and tell them to come remove him for that to happen.
And the previous statement by me was not silly. The purpose of the first attack on Iraq was not to remove Sadaam.
X |
Edited by - xstream on 26 September 2002 18:26:51 |
 |
|
|
Azaniah
Senior Member
United Kingdom
1004 Posts |
Posted - 26 September 2002 : 18:40:52
|
The thing I find most fascinating about all of these situations. Is the backlash from initial involvement in other countries/states in the first place.
When I was in Bahrain about a year ago, I had some very interesting conversations with people, one of whom was a retiring (and quite drunk / too talkative) officer from a large navy vessel stationed in the area.
|
Eagles fly!, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines. |
|
|
|
@tomic
Senior Member
USA
1790 Posts |
Posted - 26 September 2002 : 19:22:56
|
quote:
The problem is that the UN wouldn't do anything without the US.
The problem with the UN is that the US and the other security council nations have the power to veto anything they want and that is exactly what they do as the record shows. remember, the US has not been paying it's dues. That's gotta hurt some and we all know how hard up the US is for cash. The UN will never be able to do anything if 5 nations can stop the rest from doing anything.
@tomic |
SportsBettingAcumen.com |
|
|
|
xstream
Junior Member
242 Posts |
Posted - 26 September 2002 : 19:48:57
|
quote:
The problem with the UN is that the US and the other security council nations have the power to veto anything they want and that is exactly what they do as the record shows. remember, the US has not been paying it's dues. That's gotta hurt some and we all know how hard up the US is for cash. The UN will never be able to do anything if 5 nations can stop the rest from doing anything.
True. Did you mean the UN is hard up for cash?
But think about. How much money does the US give to countries all over the world to help them out. How much does the US spend having our military being used as police men. Honestly, should the US even pay to be apart of the UN? When Iraq was invading Quwait(sp), would any UN countries have done anything if the US did not go in? If the US did not get involved in WWII most of Europe would be speaking German right now. Iraq poses as a threat to the security of the US. Sadaam gases his own people. Are you honestly going to say that if Sadaam gets a nuke, he will not be using it on the countries surrounding him and eventually US citizens?
X |
|
|
|
dssww
Junior Member
USA
182 Posts |
Posted - 26 September 2002 : 20:21:04
|
| I guess none of you would of also believed that Osama would of never been a threat directly to the US. We can also look back to WWII & see how many americans died for your freedom! |
|
|
|
@tomic
Senior Member
USA
1790 Posts |
Posted - 26 September 2002 : 20:42:34
|
quote:
I guess none of you would of also believed that Osama would of never been a threat directly to the US. We can also look back to WWII & see how many americans died for your freedom!
Wow, a straw man and a red herring.
@tomic |
SportsBettingAcumen.com |
|
|
|
Doug G
Support Moderator
USA
6493 Posts |
Posted - 26 September 2002 : 21:09:45
|
quote:
I guess none of you would of also believed that Osama would of never been a threat directly to the US. We can also look back to WWII & see how many americans died for your freedom!
We can also look back to WW2 and see how many Russians died for our freedoms.
|
======
Doug G
======
Computer history and help at www.dougscode.com |
|
|
|
VodkaFish
Average Member
USA
654 Posts |
Posted - 26 September 2002 : 22:16:58
|
quote:
Originally posted by @tomic
quote:
I just think that there is a matter of self-defense when a country refers to you over and over again as the "enemy" or the "devils" and they are building bio-weapons and trying to acquire other mass-hurting types.
Ummm, this is how the US government has referred to Iraq/Saddam since 1991 and the US used weapons of frightening devastation against the Iraqi's in 1991, against the Vietnamese, against the Japanese and to top it off we supplied Saddam with the bio/chemical technology to fight Iran. (Doh!). I would use another argument quick so the rest of the world doesn't come to the USA for a "regime change"
Sorry, but I wasn't referring to how Iraq refers to the US gov't, I'm talking about the people. The US gov't is not telling you that the Iraqi walking down the street should be harmed in anyway. I have seen and heard a big difference.
I will not argue with the US supplying anything to anyone, they give the whole world too many weapons, money, etc. Aid, when used properly, I support. |
v ø d k â f ï § h |
|
|
|
drirene
Junior Member
USA
129 Posts |
Posted - 26 September 2002 : 23:23:30
|
quote:
Originally posted by bozden
If somebody wants to argue here, please enlighten me on the following and give answers to these questions by Congressman Ron Paul (U.S. House of Representatives):
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2002/cr091002.htm
I'll try to tackle this.
1. Is it not true that the reason we did not bomb the Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War was because we knew they could retaliate? Yes.
2. Is it not also true that we are willing to bomb Iraq now because we know it cannot retaliate Yes! - which just confirms that there is no real threat? Absolutely not! The "real threat" is around the corner.
3. Is it not true that those who argue that even with inspections we cannot be sure that Hussein might be hiding weapons, at the same time imply that we can be more sure that weapons exist in the absence of inspections? Inspectors may or may not find existing weapons; inspectors cannot determine that weapons don't exist. Admitting inspectors unfettered access is simply a means by which we may confirm the existance of weapons - and demonstrates good faith - a willingness to work with the world community vs. fly in it's face.
4. Is it not true that the UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency was able to complete its yearly verification mission to Iraq just this year with Iraqi cooperation? Don't know.
5. Is it not true that the intelligence community has been unable to develop a case tying Iraq to global terrorism at all, much less the attacks on the United States last year? Does anyone remember that 15 of the 19 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia and that none came from Iraq? Does anybody remember how Hitler rose to such power? He was appeased by those who did not want to create waves. He was also a power-hungry melagomaniac.
6. Was former CIA counter-terrorism chief Vincent Cannistraro wrong when he recently said there is no confirmed evidence of Iraq’s links to terrorism? Sadaam has not terrorized and murdered his own people? What about Kuwait? Additionally, according to Rumsfeld, there IS evidence that Al Quada was in Bhagdad.
7. Is it not true that the CIA has concluded there is no evidence that a Prague meeting between 9/11 hijacker Atta and Iraqi intelligence took place? Don't know.
8. Is it not true that northern Iraq, where the administration claimed al-Qaeda were hiding out, is in the control of our "allies," the Kurds? I'm not sure that the Kurds are our allies - save for the protection of the US no fly zone.
9. Is it not true that the vast majority of al-Qaeda leaders who escaped appear to have safely made their way to Pakistan, another of our so-called allies? This is a silly statement. The whole of Pakistan is NOT united in their alliance with the US. BTW, where did Congressman Paul get his statistics: "vast numbers?"
10. Has anyone noticed that Afghanistan is rapidly sinking into total chaos, with bombings and assassinations becoming daily occurrences; and that according to a recent UN report the al-Qaeda "is, by all accounts, alive and well and poised to strike again, how, when, and where it chooses"? The chaos was already there, as were the massacres. The targets have simply changed.
11. Why are we taking precious military and intelligence resources away from tracking down those who did attack the United States- and who may again attack the United States- and using them to invade countries that have not attacked the United States? Because "a country" did not attack the US. A group of fundamentalists from different countries attacked the US.
12. Would an attack on Iraq not just confirm the Arab world's worst suspicions about the US, and isn't this what bin Laden wanted? Perhaps. It's sad because the US can't really win. D***ed if you do; d***ed if you don't.
13. How can Hussein be compared to Hitler when he has no navy or air force, and now has an army 1/5 the size of twelve years ago, which even then proved totally inept at defending the country? He is compared to Hitler because he wants to take over surrounding countries, he has no problem killing people, he hates Jews, and today, in the day and age of biological and long-range nuclear weaponry, the strength of forces are much less significant.
14. Is it not true that the constitutional power to declare war is exclusively that of the Congress? Stricktly speaking, yes. Historically speaking, no. FDR declared WW2 and congress followed.Should presidents, contrary to the Constitution, allow Congress to concur only when pressured by public opinion? Huh?Are presidents permitted to rely on the UN for permission to go to war? No. Bush didn't go to the UN to ask for permission to declare war. He went to the UN to warn them that they are in danger of losing their credibility if they don't enforce their resolutions.
15. Are you aware of a Pentagon report studying charges that thousands of Kurds in one village were gassed by the Iraqis, which found no conclusive evidence that Iraq was responsible, that Iran occupied the very city involved, and that evidence indicated the type of gas used was more likely controlled by Iran not Iraq? One terrorist at a time, please!
16. Is it not true that anywhere between 100,000 and 300,000 US soldiers have suffered from Persian Gulf War syndrome from the first Gulf War, and that thousands may have died? This may be a very sad fact. However, it doesn't mean that their actions were in vain or unwarranted.
17. Are we prepared for possibly thousands of American casualties in a war against a country that does not have the capacity to attack the United States? We just endured 3,000 casualties last year.
18. Are we willing to bear the economic burden of a 100 billion dollar war against Iraq, with oil prices expected to skyrocket and further rattle an already shaky American economy? How about an estimated 30 years occupation of Iraq that some have deemed necessary to "build democracy" there? That's the same argument that Senator Wellstone from Minnesota used in 1991 before going to the Persian Gulf. None of it ever came to pass.
19. Iraq’s alleged violations The violations are not alleged. They are real.of UN resolutions are given as reason to initiate an attack, yet is it not true that hundreds of UN Resolutions have been ignored by various countries without penalty? Yes. Bush's point to the UN was that the UN doesn't stand for anything if they allow various countries to ignore their resolutions.
20. Did former President Bush not cite the UN Resolution of 1990 as the reason he could not march into Baghdad, while supporters of a new attack assert that it is the very reason we can march into Baghdad? Bush senior did not march into Baghdad because at the beginning of the war, he promised he would not.
21. Is it not true that, contrary to current claims, the no-fly zones were set up by Britain and the United States without specific approval from the United Nations? I was under the impression that the UN agreed with the no-fly zone, but regardless, a no fly zone was the price Sadaam agreed to to end the war.
22. If we claim membership in the international community and conform to its rules only when it pleases us, does this not serve to undermine our position, directing animosity toward us by both friend and foe? Perhaps.
23. How can our declared goal of bringing democracy to Iraq be believable when we prop up dictators throughout the Middle East and support military tyrants like Musharaf in Pakistan, who overthrew a democratically-elected president? It is easy to identify mis-steps in retrospect. Difficult before the fact.
24. Are you familiar with the 1994 Senate Hearings that revealed the U.S. knowingly supplied chemical and biological materials to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war and as late as 1992- including after the alleged Iraqi gas attack on a Kurdish village? Yes. We misjudged.
25. Did we not assist Saddam Hussein’s rise to power by supporting and encouraging his invasion of Iran? We did. At the time, he appeared he appeared to be the lesser of two evils.Is it honest to criticize Saddam now for his invasion of Iran, which at the time we actively supported? The fact that he invaded Iran and we assisted him, has nothing to do with this argument.
26. Is it not true that preventive war is synonymous with an act of aggression, and has never been considered a moral or legitimate US policy? Preventive war? The US has received MANY strikes over the years, on US soil and abroad. Are we waiting for a blow bigger than the 9/11 one?
27. Why do the oil company executives strongly support this war if oil is not the real reason we plan to take over Iraq? Oil is one of the real reasons. Always has been. As long as we're dependent on war, it will be a reason.
28. Why is it that those who never wore a uniform and are confident that they won’t have to personally fight this war are more anxious for this war than our generals? I doubt the validity of this statement.
29. What is the moral argument for attacking a nation that has not initiated aggression against us, and could not if it wanted? The moral argument is the fact that they are killing other innocent people: the Kuwaitis, the Kurds, the Iraqi people themselves.
30. Where does the Constitution grant us permission to wage war for any reason other than self-defense? THIS IS SELF DEFENSE!
31. Is it not true that a war against Iraq rejects the sentiments of the time-honored Treaty of Westphalia, nearly 400 years ago, that countries should never go into another for the purpose of regime change? Wars are ALWAYS about regime change. The losers ALWAYS change regime.
32. Is it not true that the more civilized a society is, the less likely disagreements will be settled by war? Yes. However, it takes two to Tango.
33. Is it not true that since World War II Congress has not declared war and- not coincidentally- we have not since then had a clear-cut victory? Unrelated and irrelevant.
34. Is it not true that Pakistan, especially through its intelligence services, was an active supporter and key organizer of the Taliban? Yes. Various factions become very strong in some of these countries. But they've also supported us when we got serious about getting rid of Taliban/Al Queda.
35. Why don't those who want war bring a formal declaration of war resolution to the floor of Congress? The current administration is now developing a statement of what they want the congress to support.
Irene
|
*Trubble* the Cat & Dr. Irene
http://drirene.com |
Edited by - drirene on 26 September 2002 23:25:57 |
|
|
|
seahorse
Senior Member
USA
1075 Posts |
Posted - 27 September 2002 : 02:18:59
|
quote:
33. Is it not true that since World War II Congress has not declared war and- not coincidentally- we have not since then had a clear-cut victory?
I find this particularly entertaining. I know politicians are good at taking credit for things they haven't done, but this is too much. Where is the logic in this? Congress declares war and victories follow? How quaint.
I'm sure Hitler would have been quite interested to know that he lost WW2 becuase the US Congress declared war.
If Congress had declared war on the Soviets in 1950, our clear cut victory would have allowed us to save billions of dollars in Cold war defense spending.
Of course, Saddam lost the Gulf war becuase as a dictator, he really didn't have a proper Congress to declare war and gain ultimate victory. The Fool. If he had brains at all he'd be building a Congress in secret instead of weapons of mass destruction. Then again, Saddam owes his very existance on the fact that Congress did not declare war during the Gulf war and therefore the US did not score a clear cut victory.
|
Ken
===============
Worldwide Partner Group
Microsoft |
|
|
|
VodkaFish
Average Member
USA
654 Posts |
Posted - 27 September 2002 : 03:30:06
|
Sarcasm is fun!  LOL
* edited to actually say LOL as I rarely LOL when I type LOL and can't belive I forgot to type LOL since I really did LOL  |
v ø d k â f ï § h |
Edited by - VodkaFish on 27 September 2002 03:31:23 |
|
|
|
@tomic
Senior Member
USA
1790 Posts |
Posted - 27 September 2002 : 04:05:21
|
I just couldn't let these go by:
quote:
2. Is it not also true that we are willing to bomb Iraq now because we know it cannot retaliate Yes! - which just confirms that there is no real threat? Absolutely not! The "real threat" is around the corner.
Prove it.
quote:
5. Is it not true that the intelligence community has been unable to develop a case tying Iraq to global terrorism at all, much less the attacks on the United States last year? Does anyone remember that 15 of the 19 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia and that none came from Iraq? Does anybody remember how Hitler rose to such power? He was appeased by those who did not want to create waves. He was also a power-hungry melagomaniac.
This is a classic "red herring"
quote:
6. Was former CIA counter-terrorism chief Vincent Cannistraro wrong when he recently said there is no confirmed evidence of Iraq’s links to terrorism? Sadaam has not terrorized and murdered his own people? What about Kuwait? Additionally, according to Rumsfeld, there IS evidence that Al Quada was in Bhagdad.
Being in Bagdad and being financed or supplied by Bagdad are completely different things. You should read up on al-Queda and Saddam Hussein. It's a torrid story of a man called Osama bin Laden that thinks Saddam Hussein is a heretic. There has never been any love between these groups. Some al-Queda are Iraqi nationals and that is without a doubt at least part of the reason any al-Queda are in Iraq. Some al-Queda are US citizens. What is the US connection in aiding al-Queda?
quote:
15. Are you aware of a Pentagon report studying charges that thousands of Kurds in one village were gassed by the Iraqis, which found no conclusive evidence that Iraq was responsible, that Iran occupied the very city involved, and that evidence indicated the type of gas used was more likely controlled by Iran not Iraq? One terrorist at a time, please!
This is a very scary thing to say. So you think this is how to make friends? I read an interesting story about Ashcroft aiding a terrorist group that has operated inside Iraq. Quite an interesting group. They often cross the border into Iran to assasinate and generally kill people with the blessings of many members of the US government. Some might call that terrorism. I know I would.
quote:
11. Why are we taking precious military and intelligence resources away from tracking down those who did attack the United States- and who may again attack the United States- and using them to invade countries that have not attacked the United States? Because "a country" did not attack the US. A group of fundamentalists from different countries attacked the US.
Another painfully bad argument. We can't get the terrorists so let's just hit someone? I recommend anger management courses.
quote:
20. Did former President Bush not cite the UN Resolution of 1990 as the reason he could not march into Baghdad, while supporters of a new attack assert that it is the very reason we can march into Baghdad? Bush senior did not march into Baghdad because at the beginning of the war, he promised he would not.
Not an easy one to answer is it?
quote:
21. Is it not true that, contrary to current claims, the no-fly zones were set up by Britain and the United States without specific approval from the United Nations? I was under the impression that the UN agreed with the no-fly zone, but regardless, a no fly zone was the price Sadaam agreed to to end the war.
quote:
19. Iraq’s alleged violations The violations are not alleged. They are real.of UN resolutions are given as reason to initiate an attack, yet is it not true that hundreds of UN Resolutions have been ignored by various countries without penalty? Yes. Bush's point to the UN was that the UN doesn't stand for anything if they allow various countries to ignore their resolutions.
The sad fact is that the United States has flexed its muscle to block actions and now you want to blame the UN for what we did? Gimme a break.
Hardly. The war was over weeks before the no-fly zone was established. Go check out a calendar.
quote:
28. Why is it that those who never wore a uniform and are confident that they won’t have to personally fight this war are more anxious for this war than our generals? I doubt the validity of this statement.
This is more than valid. It's a matter of public record. Can you say "draft dodger"?
quote:
29. What is the moral argument for attacking a nation that has not initiated aggression against us, and could not if it wanted? The moral argument is the fact that they are killing other innocent people: the Kuwaitis, the Kurds, the Iraqi people themselves.
An extremely poor argument and if it is an actual moral argument we might as well change the regimes of half the nations in the world including the US which has executed innocent people. No that's not a good argument either but this as a moral reason to invade Iraq is quite a reach. Invading Israel would be just as moral.
quote:
30. Where does the Constitution grant us permission to wage war for any reason other than self-defense? THIS IS SELF DEFENSE!
In school we learned that you do not define a word with the word itself. It's self defense because it's self defense? Surely you can do better than that and I sure hope someone does eventually but I have been waiting a while for it.
You see, I like sracasm, too. But really, check your facts.
@tomic |
SportsBettingAcumen.com |
Edited by - @tomic on 27 September 2002 04:06:15 |
|
|
|
Azaniah
Senior Member
United Kingdom
1004 Posts |
Posted - 27 September 2002 : 04:37:29
|
Surely self defense would have to include not selling weapons or components to those countries in the first place?
Both the US and the UK are guilty of that.
|
Eagles fly!, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines. |
|
|
|
HuwR
Forum Admin
United Kingdom
20595 Posts |
Posted - 27 September 2002 : 06:24:51
|
| Well, since you are all bringing up references to WWII and how many people died, perhaps you should remember how it started and how many innocent people were put to death by a Mad man who people ignored until it was too late. |
|
|
|
pdrg
Support Moderator
United Kingdom
2897 Posts |
Posted - 27 September 2002 : 07:13:04
|
Hi all,
Really pleased this is a mature discussion of such an important issue :)
If anyone is interested there is a anti-war march through London tomorrow meeting Hyde Park at 12:30.
2 of our national tabloids are coming out against unilateral attack (which is unusual - they're usually all gung-ho), so the maturity of debate is generally high across the country, very different from previous conflicts.
A recent poll (yeh I know a lot depends on the questions asked) shows around 70% of the UK population oppose attacking Iraq without the UN's lead.
Just some thinking points :) |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
