GameBanshee Forums

Originally posted by HighLordDave
"He should go away from the presidency and let the Americans lead an ordinary life with other nations, not a life of aggression, a policy of aggression against other nations," [Iraqi Foreign Minister Naji] Sabri said. "This policy has brought about disasters to the U.S. So for the U.S. to live properly with the world and for the world nations to live in peace, this crazy man should go."

Bush, not Saddam, should quit

I think saying that "Bush, not Saddam" should quit, is a bit more than I can agree with. I am all for removing Saddam from power, and I in no way want to imply, that in not supporting his position on Iraq, I do not stand behind our president in other matters. It is not a matter of all or nothing. I think he has been a good president during one of the most unspeakable of times this country has ever had to face. I admire him for the job he has done. It is only in this, the impending war with Iraq, that I find areas which I feel he may be acting unwisely.

Originally posted by at99
Most views here seem to represent the emotional rather than facts (fair enough in times like these).

At99, I have many times on this forum seen you critisise other posters with generalised comments, but when asked to present factual and logically valid arguments for your own position, you have never delivered. Will this time be any different? What are your factual and not emotional arguments, that are based on objective, empricial fact and not your own personal opionions?

I know people dont want war but the argument is a little weak.

The anti and pro war arguments have been discussed in several threads here recently. I have not seen a single person who have used "I don't want it" as an argument against war. This is a strawman argument, you put words into other people's mouth. Instead, you should make yourself familiar with the arguments for and against the war, as they have been presented in various threads. There are several lines of arguments around, for instance

1. that the US&UK does not have the right to invade Iraq, since it has not been demonstrated Iraq violate the UN resolution
2. that even if the Iraq should violate the UN resolution, no country has the right to impose a regime shift on Iraq or any other country
3. that the UN resolution was unjustified to start with
4. that a war against Iraq would destabilise the region and make the world a more unsafe place for everybody and increase rather than decrease suffering

at the 'end of the day' the anti-war people were against going to war against a 'mass murderer' who violated the UN several times with a thing against the US and no amount of 'tortured logic' can seem otherwise .

So why not invade Israel, China, North Korea, the US, Russia, Saudi Arabia, France...and many, many other countries? And overthrow their regimes?

"A thing" against the US? Is that supposed to be an argument for war?

Blair will lose his job because of this, supporting the war.

As most of you know my stance on the war, I won't bother going into details.

Seems like Bush is gonna bring hell upon the world.

Originally posted by Weasel
My faith in the human race is at the lowest point ever. Maybe it would be better if we did wipe ourselfs out.

Think? Then I wouldn't have to worry about my midterm tomorrow...

Just so this post isn't pure spam...Does anyone have a link to a full transcript of Cook's resignation speech? I looked but couldn't find one.

The real threat of this conflict, though, won't be the Iraqi regular army, but rather the dissidant groups inside the middle east. Even though Saddam is not all that well liked within the Middle East, people would rather side with one of 'their own' then side with the US. Now that it is almost, now, a matter of when, not if, it happens, I feel for the people who will caught within the dissidant groups that rise up to either help Iraq, or capitilize on this American bully tactic.

If you go to http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2858957.stm and click in the right hand Watch and Listen column on the "Robin Cook MP" video selection, you can see Cook's resignation speech.

I wonder what North Korea will be doing during all of this.

Originally posted by Nightmare
I wonder what North Korea will be doing during all of this.

Probably holding their finger idly over the nuke button... I wouldn't be surprised if they do something that the Americans don't like.

Originally posted by Aegis
Probably holding their finger idly over the nuke button... I wouldn't be surprised if they do something that the Americans don't like.

Unfortunitly, I think you're right. One aimed at Seoul, one at Tokyo.

Thanks Fable

Originally posted by C Elegans


The anti and pro war arguments have been discussed in several threads here recently. I have not seen a single person who have used "I don't want it" as an argument against war. This is a strawman argument, you put words into other people's mouth. Instead, you should make yourself familiar with the arguments for and against the war, as they have been presented in various threads. There are several lines of arguments around, for instance

1. that the US&UK does not have the right to invade Iraq, since it has not been demonstrated Iraq violate the UN resolution
2. that even if the Iraq should violate the UN resolution, no country has the right to impose a regime shift on Iraq or any other country
3. that the UN resolution was unjustified to start with
4. that a war against Iraq would destabilise the region and make the world a more unsafe place for everybody and increase rather than decrease suffering



So why not invade Israel, China, North Korea, the US, Russia, Saudi Arabia, France...and many, many other countries? And overthrow their regimes?

"A thing" against the US? Is that supposed to be an argument for war?

C elegans
Have you got any idea of the reality of the situation?

Do you know how angry people in Australia and US /UK are about recent terrorist attacks ? 9/11 & Bali

Do you know how ridiculous you sound when you are against removing a mass murderer from power who has violated many UN resoultions and refuses to comply with 1441 with cites (serious consequences with failure to comply)

Have you got any idea of how angry people are with France in UK/US and Australia. Do you know about Frances diplomatic actions against English speaking countries since WWII?
What about the French claiming how well their weapons work when the Argentine forces used French weapons against Britain in Falklands?

Why do people defend this sadam guy or claim not to like sadam but still put up with him being in power?

Tortured logic this seems.

How many people does sadam have to kill before nations (like france, Sweden) get off the lazy behinds and show some moral courage. It seems human rights is not a big deal for some people and it does not matter how many people rogue nations kill because the UN wont stop you?

And why cant the UN outlaw rogue nations everywhere.
How many conversations late at night have to happen about the human rights abuses of people in dictatorships and shouldnt 'someone do something'.

How many people have to die C Elegans in rogue nations before someone does something. How many UN failures can we stomach C elegans? How much does France have to obstruct UN diplomacy so war happens C Elegans. How many weak responses must English speaking countries endure from Eurpean countries about rogue nations CElegans?

You want facts (I got them but do you want them?)
Why has you arguments failed to stop nations from attacking Iraq C Elegans, maybe you should try to convince Blair and Bush.


When is enough enough C Elegans!

@at99: Calm down a bit. That last post almost sounded like a bit of a jab at CE, which she is really not deserving off. If you want to debate this, great, but do so in a mannor that won't falir tempers.

Originally posted by fable
If you go to http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2858957.stm and click in the right hand Watch and Listen column on the "Robin Cook MP" video selection, you can see Cook's resignation speech.

Cook had a falling out with Blair before he resigned and I dont see this effecting Blairs position. If you know anything about UK the BBC tends to put a pessimistic spin on anything and everything but the BBC are still entertaining even if they have a bias against certain issues.
Everything is a disaster of epic proportions before events take place in the eyes of the BBC.

@Everyone

*sticks sign in ground*

Please do not feed the Trolls.

@at99, Please do not flame other members.

Originally posted by Weasel
My faith in the human race is at the lowest point ever. Maybe it would be better if we did wipe ourselfs out.

I cannot think this. One look at the faces of my two little girls convinces me that we must create a better world.

at99, please...

Originally posted by at99

Do you know how ridiculous you sound when you are against removing a mass murderer from power who has violated many UN resoultions and refuses to comply with 1441 with cites (serious consequences with failure to comply)

You are threading on thin ice here... better watch your step.

at99,

As other members have pointed out, you have gone too far with your last reply towards C Elegans. Please pay attention to the following rule:

#1 - Flaming, humiliating, ridiculing, or belittling other members will not be tolerated. If you have an issue with another member, take it to private messages or email.

This is the last time you will be warned.

Originally posted by at99
Do you know how angry people in Australia and US /UK are about recent terrorist attacks ? 9/11 & Bali

I thought we agreed that emotional arguments were less valid than factual arguments? How angry people are is neither an argument for, nor a measurement of, how morally or legally correct their behaviour is. I am sure Osama was very angry at the US seeing he planned the attack, does that justify the attack? If I am very angry at you, does that justify my hitting you in the head with a sledgehammer? I am sure you see that degree of anger, just or unjust, is not an argument for the rights to start wars.

Do you know how ridiculous you sound when you are against removing a mass murderer from power who has violated many UN resoultions and refuses to comply with 1441 with cites (serious consequences with failure to comply)

That is your personal opinions, there are other people who have other opinions as I have examplified and as you can find in other threads about the war here on this board. Many of the international news websites also have different analysis of the situation where different opinions are presented. Many contries have weapons of mass destruction. Many contries suffer from having a cruel regime that kills the population en masse. What makes it more right to invade Iraq than those other countries, especially now when the weapon inspectors have made progress? Note that there is no international consensus whether Iraq is violating resolution 1441. On the contrary, the UN inspectors have recommended that inspections continue.
Also note that even if there was a consensus regarding the resolution, everybody does not agree with the content and even the existance of the resolution - and also note that "serious consequences" does not necessarity need to equal invasion war and exiling the regime.

Have you got any idea of how angry people are with France in UK/US and Australia.

Again, degree of anger is not an argument. Anger is a human emotion that are triggered in many different situations, rightfully or not. As such, it cannot provide basis for the question if something is morally and legally correct or not. You do realise that people in Germany, France, Spain, Sweden or Hungary are angry at the US, UK and Oz for wanting this war? Again, anger is an emotional reaction, not a part of the toolset used for judging the ethical issues of war.

How many people does sadam have to kill before nations (like france, Sweden) get off the lazy behinds and show some moral courage. It seems human rights is not a big deal for some people and it does not matter how many people rogue nations kill because the UN wont stop you?

And why cant the UN outlaw rogue nations everywhere.

What is a rouge nation, at99? Do you buy in to the present US administration of the concept? What is the difference between the nations with mass destruction weapons that violate human rights and who have been branded rogue nations by the US, and those who haven't? Why is Israel not branded a rogue nations when they are the country who have violated most human rights the last 50 years? What are the justification for the concept and on what fundation shall the right to act against the said nations rest? And who shall judge?

How much does France have to obstruct UN diplomacy so war happens C Elegans. How many weak responses must English speaking countries endure from Eurpean countries about rogue nations CElegans?

Please explain to me how you reason to arrive at the conclusion that France's protests have caused the US and UK to start this war? I do not understand what you mean by your last sentence, please describe more in detail what you mean, or illustrate with an example.

You want facts (I got them but do you want them?)
Why has you arguments failed to stop nations from attacking Iraq C Elegans, maybe you should try to convince Blair and Bush.

Do have a fixed view against the US C Elegans in which no amount of facts can sway you?

Please do present your facts because I found a very sparse amount in your last post. You are of course entitled to your opinions, but as I stated previously, you often critise others posts in generlised, unspecified manners and you also use ad hominems.

I cannot speak for Bush and Blair but in this and other threads there are a fair amount of arguments for a war and also thoughts about the motives Bush and Blair have for the war, so I refer you to read that.

My view of the US or the UK as nations is irrelevant as to why I am opposed to this war. It wouldn't matter if it was Sweden or India or Tanzania who was about to invade Iraq, my opnions are a question of principles, not specific countries.

EDIT: I see you have been warned, at99...I really do recommend you to do some reading on how to debate properly, how to express ones opinions even when they are strong, without name calling and incorrect generalisations, but with the use of valid arguments. Here is a good site.

Originally posted by at99
Cook had a falling out with Blair before he resigned and I dont see this effecting Blairs position. If you know anything about UK the BBC tends to put a pessimistic spin on anything and everything but the BBC are still entertaining even if they have a bias against certain issues.

With respect, it seems to me that you're the one who seems to be putting a spin on this issue in your comments above, not the BBC. I've watched Cook's resignation speech, and he received a standing ovation in the Parliament which happens very, very rarely. On top of which, Blair had a very poor showing when he put the matter of the Iraqi invasion to a vote last time, with many members of his own party turning on him: it was the biggest rebellion with his own party since Blair became PM six years ago. (This is quite rare in British politics, where party loyalty is rated above all other virtues.) That's not entertainment. That's fact.