Liar.
Oh, sorry. Hussein gassed Iranian civilians, not Iraqi civilians during the Iran/Iraq war, which the Security Council condemned. It was afterthis that Hussein initiated genocide against the Kurds.
You know, this guy has done so many bad things, it’s hard to keep them straight.
That would be true if he wanted them for a deterrent. If he actually wants to kill a lot of folks quick, then he kinda wants that nobody knows about them till it’s too late.
As was already said, if Sadam gets a nuke, it’s most likely target will be Isreal.
You are a liar for saying that the west condemned the gassings.
Liar.
Now I see my mistake. For this topic, my context was ‘the real world’, whereas yours is some fantasy construct. In the real world, in a democracy, the civilian leadership of a state determines if and when said state goes to war. In your fantasy construct…I don’t even want to guess.
In a totalitarian state the rulers simply announce when the state will go to war, and everybody marches in lock-step to their leaders.
Perhaps you have some different definition of democracy, but I always thought of democracy as a system whereby the people have the final decision over such things as when the country goes to war.
Chumpsky, that is not really a good debating tactic. It would have been more effective to provide a cite proving your point. Attacking someone who disagrees with you (instead of attacking his facts) is not good form. It is also a good way to get the moderators to jump on you. Doingthings like that too often may get you banned. Just a word to the wise.
You know, I find this funny. Here you are comparing the US to a totalitarian country, and forgetting that in a totalitarian country the boys in the dark clothes would right now be knocking down your door to take you away forever for daring to speak against the will of the dictator.
Rant and rave if you must, but please remember that you live in a democratic country where you have the freedom to dissent.
Oh, and just for the record, although I post from (and live in) Germany, I am an American. I agree with what President Bush is doing, and I do think he is much more competent than a lot of people would like to believe. I’m not terribly concerned with the prospect of war. Not that I like the idea of war, I just don’t think that war is President Bush’s goal.
Before you start carrying on about me not being on the front lines, I served four years in the US Air Force at the time of the Gulf War. My specialty field was not called in to service down there - mainly becuase the US kicked ass too quickly and thoroughly for us to be needed in great numbers.
1> Not Just Amercans and Iraqis. Brits, French, Dutch, Italians etc. THe reason that so many countries are prepared to put their troop’s lives on the line ie “pay the blood price” (Tony Blair) is that they think its the right thing to do. Are they all wrong?
2> THis is US isolationism, a very unpleasant characteristic. Saddam has proved that he is a serious threat to his neighbours. Ask Iran or Kuwait, not to mention the Kurds. Whilst the US is out of his range Greece, Turkey, Italy etc will soon be within range.
3> So what? Neither has the Zimbabwean government and I think they’re a bunch of evil bastards too.
4> Maybe. Only time will tell. But the status quo could hardly be called “stable”.
5> Sorry, but they already hate you. THey can’t really hate you more.
6> Dangerous to whom? Also they have no oil and as such no strategic significance. US involvement in the Korean peninsula is an accident of history that should have ended with the Berlin Wall. Leave them to the Chinese.
7> I’m not qualified to argue. But international law tends to be made by those who wield big sticks.
Welcome to the boards, nani. The search engine is your friend. In this thread, most of the reasons you set forth were extensively hashed out.
The only two new ones you set forth are ##6-7.
Number 6 isn’t a reason not to go to war with Iraq, unless your position is that we should attack North Korea first.
Number 7 is a supposition on your part. An invasion and regime change will be legal under international law if the UN Security Council approves such. We shall see if the UN Security Council approves same.
Sua
Dear Chump:
I know how you appreciate the truth so please read the following.
"In the series of Anfal operations, the Iraqis used chemical weapons and heavy bombardments to decimate civilian populations, due in part to the unavailability of troops who were at the Iranian front. The strategy also included the destruction of villages, mass executions, and deportations of civilians including women and children. In a particularly cruel practice, those who sought medical attention in the urban centers for the treatment of exposure to chemical agents were rounded up and disappeared.
In all an estimated 182,000 Kurds lost their lives and/or disappeared in this organized reign of terror. In addition, hundreds of thousands of Kurdish civilians were displaced from their homes as an estimated 4,000 villages were destroyed and a process of Arabization was enforced. The most notorious and widely publicized incident occurred in Kurdish town of Halabja, where on March 16, 1988 an estimated 5,000 men, women, and children lost their lives. Over 10,000 were wounded and to this day suffer the effects caused by exposure to chemical agents"
Now check out the ‘rest of the story.’ www.imisite.org/iraq.php
Now, are you still willing to call someone a liar?
Yesterday on an NPR radio show, I heard from a former congressman that the US condemned the use of biological weapons during the Iran/Iraq war. I decided to take his word for it. After you so eloquently called me on it, I decided to look it up. I then modify my response to fit the truth, and you proceed to call me a liar again? What gives?
And someone should make the obligatory point that the USA is not a democracy. It’s a democratic republic, meaning the people elect representatives to the legislature who are then, in principle, supposed to act in majority interest. This has been done. The congress of the United States overwhelmingly a resolution giving the president power to act militarily against Iraq.
So, Chumpsky, just what portion of the democratic process, as outlined by the constitution, do you think has been violated? I understand the outcome of the vote by our duly elected federal legislature doesn’t meet your wishes (I’m not sure it’s in agreement with mine either), but tough shit. That’s the nature of a representative democracy. Or even a direct democracy for that matter.
I’ll bet you’d have been a fun guy to have around here back in December 2000.
Watch out, Soup_du_jour. If you get him really riled up, he may upgrade your status to “Pants on Fire”.
Jeff
**6. North Korea is far more dangerous than Iraq… but it has no oil. **
This is just a reason to attack North Korea too, not a reason ‘to not make war on Iraq’.
Chumpsky
Again, if you are not willing to die for the cause, you have no right to consign others to die for it.
People in this country choose to serve in the military, knowing full well they may have to die for a cause while government officials and civilians stay home.
Eh? Why would that be (is it an American thing?)
UncleBeer was probably referring to the American presidential election, and Chumpsky’s possible reaction to it. Given his statements on the American political system in this thread, UB is assuming that his posts regarding that issue would be “fun” - that is, similarily hysterical.
Chumpsky, even if the claim that soup_du_jour made was false, his argument stands. You, by eloquently calling** soup** a “liar,” only attacked an aside to his argument. It was in parenthesis, for crying out loud. This is the epitome of the straw man.
Back to the argument made about Saddam’s slaughter of the Turks. One of the reasons Hitler has gone down in history as an evil lunatic and not just a power-hungry politician is that he killed quite a few of his own people simply because of their ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation. To put it plainly, Hussein has done the exact same thing to the Turks. We cannot let this slide. If he has done it once, he will do it again. The slaughter of the Turks may well be reason enough to remove him from power, even if he weren’t so aggresive and blatant. (I also hear he is a poor novelist to boot.)
Attack arguments.
Hey, that’s some trick - reversing history - that you’ve got there. As I recall, Saddam was using chems back in the early '80’s as well, and the U.S. kept supporting him.
The U.S. lets a lot of things slide, simply because if we righted every wrong we’d eventually either bankrupt the nation or get our asses handed to us from being stretched thin.
Why is this one so important right now? It wasn’t important enough 14 years ago in 1988. Only Kuwait in 1991 was the point of no return. Six-figure Iraq dead for stepping out of bounds, but Saddam kept control.
The line can’t be terrorism, as there’s no link between Saddam and al-Qaida. It can’t be nonexistent nukes - Israel would beat us to the gate taking them out if Iraq got close, and Korea is more dangerous.
The reasons that are left are political - pretty much the same reasons the U.S. turned a blind eye to Saddam during the '80’s. Russia was the designated baddie then.
Now, I admit I have a weakness for the ‘finish the job’ agrument, but just by looking at Afghanistan, I know the job isn’t going to be finished - but it will be spun as victory.