GameBanshee Forums

As for Saddam, I give him three days until those M1 Abrams beasties roll in and spray his butt into the next time zone! I heard that the first 48 hours would be a massive bombing by 3,000 cruise missiles, then ground forces enter Baghdad by 72 hours. Then capturing or dispatching Saddam himself within two weeks. But, on the other hand, Iraq wants to delay the war as long as possible and draw anti war sentiments from both within and outside the US when the US seems unable to conclude the war in a definite manner, thus providing a more favorable grounds for an offer of armistice.

Seriously though, I think it's meaningless to discuss whether or not the US has the "right" to invade Iraq. A great power can do whatever it wishes to do, no matter how ethical the matter at hand is. Not all invasions has to be justified; after all, the US has the strongest military in the world. And you know that the US military is extremely loyal to the president. What are YOU going to do about it? Besides, the Bush administration really wants to win this war to get a better position, namely against North Korea. Leaders do whatever is the best for the interests of their nations.

If I may say so, France, Germany, and other anti-war nations know very well that they will be much better off without Saddam and his Iraqi missiles. What they are worrying about is the US dominace; when Bush wins the war, he'll have a greater influence, and therefore more control over global affairs. If I were a French I would be worried about that too.

But think about how the US helped them all in the two world wars. We supported the Allies and helped rebuild Germany, all the while containing communism. Even today, the US is very important to all of them in terms of economy and politics. So... I think the French are being a little snobbish here.

The only way this war will be averted, I think, will be if Americans stop supporting the campaign. That is, domestic protests. Nobody will be interested in a protest in Indonesia. Recall that during the Vietnam War, Bush senior was forced to call it off because the public no longer supported the war.

Otherwise, it seems pretty clear that war will erupt. I guess when Saddam realizes he will be defeated, he will unleash everything he has. At that point, whether or not Saddam has weapons of mass destruction will be pretty clear.

Honestly, I'm kind of pro war. It's because without the war, things would be worse. So say Bush calls off the whole thing. Saddam goes, "Hmm, well! That wasn't so bad!" and every terrorist group in the world will gain enough confidence to launch attacks on US mainland. Then the US would have no choice but to go through Afghanistan again in retaliation and se defendendo; my point is, the US will fight sooner or later. But say we go to war now and end the Iraqi threat, along with al Qaeda and everything. It's actually a load off for everyone. I admit this war is unpredictable, but I think delaying the war would cause even more problems.

However, I don't think this war against Iraq is going to weed out all terrorists. Survivors will conduct attacks against the US like September 11th, something the US security can't keep up with, I think.

It's regrettable that the United Nations is losing its grip on things, just as the League of Nations did nothing while Hitler took Austria, etc. Bush is almost ignoring the UN and the rest of the world: "I'm going to war by myself!"

By the way, about those suicide bombers - what are they thinking? I wouldn't question their rantionale because they were brought up that way. Rather, common sense - don't they ever think about the violence they commit against harmless pedestrians? Why don't they fight the "infidel" soldiers face-to-face and earn victory or die trying, like true warriors? By blowing up bombs in the streets and thinking they scored a point, they're just being cowards. They're not going to heaven. If Bin Laden asked me to go blow up myself, become a martyr, and go to heaven, I'd say to him, "Well, you want to be a martyr too, right? Why don't you go?"

I have something to say to Elegans: Degree of anger is certainly an influential element of argument. This country is run by the people, and if people express anger, they'll do something about it. When the people are angry, politicians notice, and they make decisions accordingly at Washington. Not true every time, but it happens a lot.

What I am really worried about is that we might be making a mistake we made years ago in Vietnam. Say we bomb Baghdad and everything. What is Saddam going to do? His soldiers will scatter north and south to blend in with the populace and wage a guerilla war against the US, the same thing that caused so much difficulties for the US during the Vietnam War. Or take Lebanon, for example. It took two months for the US to clear out the rebels from the city because each building had to be destroyed by artillery or rocket, one by one. It takes long, costs a lot, and weakens resolution. As I said, when the US backs off, it'll cause more problems.

Sorry, I said too much and I really don't know what I'm taking about. I hope I didn't offend anyone and pray that this crisis works out peacefully so everyone can go home and you guys can stop arguing.

@AGAPE: Welcome to SYM. The halls are padded here - just like the rooms - so don't worry about expressing your opinion. If you get out of line, never fear - someone will be sure to come along and administer your "medication" to you.

Just be sure it isn't a purple pill.

Originally posted by AGAPE
I have something to say to Elegans: Degree of anger is certainly an influential element of argument. This country is run by the people, and if people express anger, they'll do something about it. When the people are angry, politicians notice, and they make decisions accordingly at Washington. Not true every time, but it happens a lot.

Hello Agape and welcome to the board.
In my post to at99 I did not mean anger is not influential, what I meant what that degree of anger cannot provide an ethical justification for anything, since the existance of anger or amount of anger does not say anything about whether the cause is just or nor, moral or not, correct or not.

That degree of anger influence policitians a lot is obvious, in many cases unfortunate in other cases good. However, that something is influencial does not make it right.

PS: Debate between people with different opinions is one of the great things with this board. As long as debating does not deteriorate into personal attacks, or contain discriminating values or wordings, any opinion or thought is welcome

Welcome AGAPE...

...I approve of the way you present your opinion. Sure, it may conflict with others' opinions but definitely your post is nowhere offensive.

Hope to hear more from you.

@CE: Kudos for being level-headed.

Originally posted by fable
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.

Time will tell about this. I think that Blair is safe and the last vote was actually a success given Blair is a labor leader.
I will just have to wait and see.

Originally posted by C Elegans



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.
[/URL] is a good site.

Why C elegans did the anti-war movement fail? just askyourself if I am so right why did most of the English speaking world leaders fail to see it my way. Can you admit your reasons failed to stop curent outcomes.

After this is all finished just look at this through our eyes who are against non-action.
Maybe you need to convince the people in power of your arguments. This should not be hard for you to do since your arguments you believe are right.



The thing that really irks me (and a lot people) is the attitude of France/ Germany which is clearly motivated by 10's of billions of self interest reasons.

Remeber WWII when english speaking countries had to help in the removal of a dictator. European countries failed to stop the rise of Hitler and strangely enough we see the same today with sadam. I now know why Hitler succeded to rise in power because too many European countries failed to do anything. Today we see the same thing and 'tortured logic' seems to prevail.
France/Germany failed to stop a dictator then and now today. They really owe the english speaking world.

@At99, I am glad to see you are now discussing the subject and refrain from ad hominems at me. However, you did not address any of the central questions I posed to you in my last post. I repeat them here again briefly:

Originally posted by C Elegans
I am sure you see that degree of anger, just or unjust, is not an argument for the rights to start wars.

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...and also note that "serious consequences" does not necessarity need to equal invasion war and exiling the regime.

What is a rouge nation, at99? 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?

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?

Originally posted by at99
Why C elegans did the anti-war movement fail? just askyourself if I am so right why did most of the English speaking world leaders fail to see it my way. Can you admit your reasons failed to stop curent outcomes.

The language spoken of the leaders who are pro war, is irrelevant to me. It is a fact that a majority of the world's leader who have voiced an opinions, are against an invasion of Iraq at this moment.

The anti war moment did not manage to affect Bush and Blair. That is tragic, but says nothing on who is right or wrong, it only says who has the power.

Remeber WWII when english speaking countries had to help in the removal of a dictator. European countries failed to stop the rise of Hitler and strangely enough we see the same today with sadam. I now know why Hitler succeded to rise in power because too many European countries failed to do anything. Today we see the same thing and 'tortured logic' seems to prevail.
France/Germany failed to stop a dictator then and now today. They really owe the english speaking world.

What on earth are you talking about at99, are you drawing a parallell between Hitler's invation war in Europe and Saddam's Iraq? And are you implying that France and Germany should support the US/UK war against Iraq because they owe your "English speaking world" something since the WWII?

Is this seriously what you mean?

Originally posted by AGAPE
A great power can do whatever it wishes to do, no matter how ethical the matter at hand is.

True, even the Vikings acknowledged that "true power" lies in the "tip of the spear" so to speak. The ones with the biggest guns are in charge.

Damn, normally this would have been a splendid day. The sun is shining, birds are singing and it's even slightly warmish outside. Instead there's a war coming, a new "superflu" evolving and God knows what else....
You'd think people would learn of mistakes in history....

And welcome to SYM AGAPE....

Originally posted by AGAPE

Honestly, I'm kind of pro war. It's because without the war, things would be worse. So say Bush calls off the whole thing. Saddam goes, "Hmm, well! That wasn't so bad!" and every terrorist group in the world will gain enough confidence to launch attacks on US mainland. Then the US would have no choice but to go through Afghanistan again in retaliation and se defendendo; my point is, the US will fight sooner or later. But say we go to war now and end the Iraqi threat, along with al Qaeda and everything. It's actually a load off for everyone. I admit this war is unpredictable, but I think delaying the war would cause even more problems.

@ AGAPE: I sincerly hope that if we go to war, this logic is enough to justify it. I have untill recently supported Bush in this endevor, but as of late, I have begun to have serious doubts that it will have any truly positive outcome. I have the sinking feeling, that whoever takes Saddam's place will be as hostile as he is, and it will all be a futile excercise in death. *sigh* I wish I still held the optimism I did only a few weeks ago.

On a happier note, welcome to SYM. I enjoyed reading your post, and look forward to hearing more from you.

Originally posted by C Elegans
[B


What on earth are you talking about at99, are you drawing a parallell between Hitler's invation war in Europe and Saddam's Iraq? And are you implying that France and Germany should support the US/UK war against Iraq because they owe your "English speaking world" something since the WWII?

Is this seriously what you mean? [/b]

If nothing else then yes they do owe us! (why keep a mass murderer and war criminal in power?)
The french apparantly agreed with Powell to military conflict if Iraq did not comply with 1441(before 1441 was passed) . They stabbed the US in the back...this is beyond contempt at this level of human affairs and France IMO should be punished.

The debate is over C Elegans, cant you see that action is about to take place. Again arguing the rights and wrongs should not have taken place. The argument should have been how can we change the action the US/UK threatened by a logical alternative and the French could not see this ( and a lot of Europe) and just became objectional and encouraged a war. The US was legally in the right to want to use conflict as a last resort.

People have fixed views in this matters and it is near pointless IMO to have lengthy debates. I think war will be successful but who knows.

The diplomacy that had taken place as well as anti-war movement failed and should have done better

The question is whether the American people will accept body bags. This isnt Afghanistan. They will be some casualties of war, and they wont be from friendly fire. You just one jackass to screw the world. Whose Sig says "The Gods themselves contend in vain against stupidity?" Well he is right.

If nothing else then yes they do owe us! (why keep a mass murderer and war criminal in power?)

That point of view might be more convincing had the US administration and others adopted the same stance towards savory notables such as Auguste Pinochet or Ferdinand Marcos... to say nothing of continued apathy towards the Chinese occupation of Tibet....

This war criminal gassed the Kurds and Iranis in the 80s. What did the US do then? He was their darling then. Now he is a tyrant. I suggest you watch the Rory Bremner spoof on this war. Download it off Kazaa. Funny and you learn the history of the region.

Originally posted by dragon wench
That point of view might be more convincing had the US administration and others adopted the same stance towards savory notables such as Auguste Pinochet or Ferdinand Marcos... to say nothing of continued apathy towards the Chinese occupation of Tibet....

True....and why on earth was there no intervention in Rwanda just ten years ago?!? The "genocide" that took place there was far worse then what Saddam has done.

The only thing IMO that can justify a war is when defending your country, your home and your family and friends.
What does Bush expect?!? That if no action is taken Iraq will secretly build up a huge army and invade the U.S.A?!? That's certainly what it sounded like in his speech. Also the fact that there are no proven ties between Saddam Hussein's regime and Al-Qaida makes this reason even more strange.
Sure something has to be done about Saddam. But as far as I know resolution 1441 stated nothing about a "regime change" merely a disarmament. Weapon inspections were making progressive, (even though it was slow it was still progress). And thus were getting closer a "break-through". Why spoil this?!?

Originally posted by at99

The debate is over C Elegans, cant you see that action is about to take place. Again arguing the rights and wrongs should not have taken place. The argument should have been how can we change the action the US/UK threatened by a logical alternative and the French could not see this ( and a lot of Europe) and just became objectional and encouraged a war. The US was legally in the right to want to use conflict as a last resort.

It does have a point to take a stance for or against an action even if you can do nothing to stop it. And when I look at your posts you do seem to be able grasp this (by having an opinion on the nazi regime for example) So why argue otherwise in the case of Iraq?

And why jump from thread to thread trolling about peoples "emotional arguments" without answering their points?

Just to make sure I'm following things here

Originally posted by C Elegans
What on earth are you talking about at99, are you drawing a parallell between Hitler's invation war in Europe and Saddam's Iraq? And are you implying that France and Germany should support the US/UK war against Iraq because they owe your "English speaking world" something since the WWII?

Is this seriously what you mean?

Originally posted by at99
If nothing else then yes they do owe us! (why keep a mass murderer and war criminal in power?)
The french apparantly agreed with Powell to military conflict if Iraq did not comply with 1441(before 1441 was passed) . They stabbed the US in the back...this is beyond contempt at this level of human affairs and France IMO should be punished.

Thats quite an offensive remark you placed. I may be living in Australia, but my parents are of French heritage and still that comment of yours gets on my nerves.

If you honestly want to know, how immature that remark of yours sound like to me. People in France, the more irrational ones have been saying for years that the US are actually in Frances debt because of the role they played in the Revolutionary War and they never intended to liberate France, it was just in the way of getting to Berlin. I for one don't buy that argument and frankly I don't think you should be viewing that France should owe any favours to the US either. World diplomacy has never worked that way in the past, and it surely won't work that way in this day of age.

@at99: You started this discussion by complaining that people osted emotional arguments rather than facts. Since then, you have not addressed a single one of the issued I have asked you to reply to. Instead, you keep repeating that "Saddam is a mass murderer who violates resolution 1441" and that anti war opinions are "tortured logic". Furthermore, you have claimed that France caused this war, for some reason you dragged in that people in the US/UK/Oz are angry, you say that rougue states (whatever that is) should be outlawed, you sat that Saddam is like Hitler and now you have arrived at the argument that France owes the US/UK to support their war.

Originally posted by at99
If nothing else then yes they do owe us! (why keep a mass murderer and war criminal in power?)
The french apparantly agreed with Powell to military conflict if Iraq did not comply with 1441(before 1441 was passed) . They stabbed the US in the back...this is beyond contempt at this level of human affairs and France IMO should be punished.

Please explain to me how you reason to come to the conclusion that France owes you anything at all. If one country give support to another for some reason, is that receiving country bound to follow the helping country forever then, whatever they do good or bad? If I trip and you help me up, am I them bound to help you rob a banK?

And what about all the very bad things the US/UK and other countries have inflicted on other countries? Does a country only owe something to you if you have helped them, whereas you do not owe something to countries even if you have commited mass murder of their populations or overthrown their elected government?

Also, you again refer you case to resolution 1441, and again I must point out that the UN does not think Iraq is presently violating it but that inspections should continue. That the US and UK repeatedly claim Iraq violates it, does not make it more true.

The debate is over C Elegans, cant you see that action is about to take place. Again arguing the rights and wrongs should not have taken place. The argument should have been how can we change the action the US/UK threatened by a logical alternative and the French could not see this ( and a lot of Europe) and just became objectional and encouraged a war. The US was legally in the right to want to use conflict as a last resort.

People have fixed views in this matters and it is near pointless IMO to have lengthy debates.

Logical alternatives were presented, as was discussed to lenght in a previous thread where you claimed anti-war side had no alternatives.
Have you already forgotten that? If so, here is a link to that discussion.
http://www.gamebanshee.com/forums/showt ... genumber=3

That a war many people find immoral and wrong is taking place, is certainly no reason to stop debating, quite the opposite. It seems to me you have an ad hoc reasoning here, that if something happens it is automatically right?

Also note that you are incorrect in saying that the US is legally right, on the contrary experts debate this very minute whether an attack on Iraq is legal or not, and whether it could be classified as a war crime.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/2826331.stm

Seeing how you repeat the same opinions without supporting them with valid arguments, and continue to make the same factual errors regardless of what information is presented to you, I'm sort of curious what you refer to when you say people have fixed views and discussion is pointless?

Originally posted by AGAPE
So say Bush calls off the whole thing. Saddam goes, "Hmm, well! That wasn't so bad!" and every terrorist group in the world will gain enough confidence to launch attacks on US mainland.

There has yet to be a terrorist attack on the United States that was sponsored by Saddam Hussein. Until we invade Iraq, there probably will not be, and in the extremely unlikely event that we call this whole thing off, there probably won't be. Saddam Hussein is a thug, not a terrorist. Iraq has never been a state sponsor of terrorism and the only link between Iraq and Al-Qaeda et al is their mutual hatred of the United States.

It is my opinion that a war in Iraq will bring on terrorist attacks. Whatever the spin, it will be negative in the Islamic world. Invading a Muslim country for a "regime change" is a giant recruiting advertisement for Al-Qaeda, Jemaah Islamiah and other anti-American groups.

Dubya wants people to believe that Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein are buddy-buddy; they're not, and never have been. Osama bin Laden is a religious fanatic and Saddam Hussein is a despot who is just as likely to go after his own people as Americans. If they were not both staring down the barrels of American rifles, they would not be allies; if anything they are natural adversaries. The only thing that binds them together is Islam (even if Saddam Hussein only pays lip service to his religion).

The links between Iraq and terrorist groups are shaky at best and there is no evidence that Iraq poses an imminent threat to anyone, unlike North Korea which is developing nuclear weapons and medium-range ballistic missile capability.

IOriginally posted by CM
This war criminal gassed the Kurds and Iranis in the 80s. What did the US do then? He was their darling then.

Do you know why we did nothing? We sold him the gas.

Originally posted by at99
Why C elegans did the anti-war movement fail?

The people who could have put the brakes on Dubya were frozen by inaction or subdued by Dubya's "either you're with us or against us" rhetoric. After having been out of power for eight years, Republican leaders feared having any dissention within the ranks that they followed blindly behind whatever the hell Dubya wanted to do for fear of being chewed up by the party machine. The Democrats acquiesced for fear of looking weak on national security and because the public was buying into the "either you're with us or against us" crap.

Dubya has brought Texas politics back to the White House. It goes back to the Lyndon Johnson administration, who used bullying and intimidation tactics to push its agenda through. Johnson, who grew up in rural Texas as part of the Democratic party machine, was famous both in the Senate as majority leader and in the White House for using the "Johnson treatment" on people who didn't agree with him. This consisted basically of him getting into the dissenter's face (in addition to having a lot of charismatic presence, Johnson was a physically imposing figure) and verbally beating them into submission until they kow-towed to his will.

Dubya has done the same, only he gets guys like Trent Lott and Tom Delay to do the dirty work for him. This is what drove Jim Jeffords from the party a couple of years ago.

I also think a lot of moderate Republicans who went along with Dubya for the sake of party unity never though he'd go as far as he has. I think a lot of Democrats who granted Dubya extended war powers didn't think things would go as far as they have. However, the fact that over 50% of the American public (according to a Gallup poll I saw on CNN this weekend) do not believe that the US should go to war without UN approval or without a new UN resolution show just how far out of touch Dubya is with the constituency that "elected" him.

Originally posted by at99
If nothing else then yes they do owe us! (why keep a mass murderer and war criminal in power?)

Because blowing the **** out of his country really isn't going to acheive anything other than kill innocent civilians but I suppose once there dead they are out of harms way. Since most of France and Germany are against the war effort wouldn't it be political suicide and down right undemocratic to go for this war effort?

The french apparantly agreed with Powell to military conflict if Iraq did not comply with 1441(before 1441 was passed) . They stabbed the US in the back...this is beyond contempt at this level of human affairs and France IMO should be punished.

What they disagreed with was the US bullying other countries into a fight that most don't want for whatever reasons.

The debate is over C Elegans, cant you see that action is about to take place. Again arguing the rights and wrongs should not have taken place. The argument should have been how can we change the action the US/UK threatened by a logical alternative and the French could not see this ( and a lot of Europe) and just became objectional and encouraged a war. The US was legally in the right to want to use conflict as a last resort.

Most of Europe actually, at the moment there are very few countries joined behind them, doesn't that suggest something to you?

People have fixed views in this matters and it is near pointless IMO to have lengthy debates. I think war will be successful but who knows.

Successful at what, securing more work for Halliburton or killing off loads of civilians?

The diplomacy that had taken place as well as anti-war movement failed and should have done better

I am sure you could have made twice the impact at99 especially with the worlds largest military force breathing down your neck telling you that you only have a few weeks to inspect a country!

If there's anyone interested in Blair vs backbenchers, you can listen to the Commons' debate online on BBC Radio Five Live at this moment.