I for one will not be surprised at all if they find that upon which Bush is gambling his political livelihood.
You know what I think I’ll be inclined to say at first? “Give this administration an enema and you could fit it into a shoebox.” He’d better find Saddam’s wanker plugging the anthrax vat for me to believe him now.
The UN must not know about the WOMD. If they do, they are not doing what they promised to do in Res 1441. BTW, Chirac said today that if Iraq “did” use WOMD, France would help us in the war. What a hypocrite.
Saddam used chemicals on his own people 15 years ago. Why would he not use WOMD on the US? Think, people!
Some of you need to move to Iraq. You seem to have more faith in Saddam’s regime than you do in our Govt.
Well, no use debating anymore. I repect your opinions. I just don’t agree with all of you.
He didn’t use chemical weapons in 1991, ThoughtPolice, with his armies being steamrollered like circus midgets.
Screw the french people. We bail 'em out of wars and do they help us? Oh, hell no. This war is just. Saddam was supposed to have gotten rid of his weapons in 1991. But he didn’t. We don’t need to do anymore inspections or such. We’ve been doing that for that past decade. I think it’s time for war, and yes I believe it will be a just war. We are saving ourselves from danger and other people. We’re starting this war to stop from something by far more terrible. We are doing the world justice whether they will help us or whether some cowardly countries will not until it’s them being harmed or threatened.
“Circus midgets.” Heh.
This may come as a shock to you, but last time I checked, we live in a democracy, which means the leaders are responsible to us the people, not the other way around.
From UN SC res 1441
As far as i can tell all the UNSC “promised to do” is “to remain seized of the matter.”
What are you talking about? Can you qoute/ cite the promise that you’re talking about?
Then democracy is a sham and the US is a dictatorship just like Iraq. The keystone of democracy is an informed and empowered populace. I won’t take it lying down, even if you believe I should. It saddens me to know that you feel so disenfranchised that you are not demanding this information for yourself. These people derive their power from YOU. Government by consent. I don’t sign things that I haven’t read, I don’t approve of wars when I haven’t seen evidence of a threat.
Enjoy,
Steven
What danger are we saving ourselves from specifically?
And
What other people are we saving ourselves from specifically?
What “by far more terrible” thing are we starting this war to stop from?
And,
How can you tell that this is the case?
Here’s a hypothetical question:
Let’s say that Hitler had never attacked other countries, but instead just stayed home and set up ovens to slaughter 10 million Jewish people.
Would a war to stop that be ‘just’?
By what morality would you accept the notion that if a thug manages to kill enough people to take over a country by force, that suddenly he is ‘sovereign’, and we must all stand by and watch while he slaughters millions and plunders the wealth of a subjugated people?
Mugabe
Kim Il Jung
Where are the “just” wars to stop these animals?
It’s all bullshit.
err… no,… obviously.
Mmm, those thousands of nuclear tipped intercontinetal missiles the U.S has, are obviously there for the tourists.
Ummm… This is how almost all the world leaders came into power. The numbers slaughtered and amount of wealth plundered vary, but for thousands of years, including the modern era(albeit to a lesser degree in many cases), this is exactly how “sovereign” powers got into power. Now if you want to make “peaceful rise to power” some sort of pre-requisite for recognizing a government then we better cut ties with pretty much the entire planet.
Oddly enough, your description could well be how history describes what the US is planning right now. Mr Bush as the “thug” and the force being the US military. Killing enough Iraqis to claim sovereign rights, which will then be handed over to someone else as long as they promise to play nice with the US in the future. If you don’t believe there will be slaughter and wealth plundered then I’m not sure we live in the same reality.
Enjoy,
Steven
—Has Iraq threatened anyone or made any aggresive moves since the Gulf war?—
Well, the no-fly zones he agreed to in the treaty haven’t exactly been peaceful. They’d be pretty agressive.
—Let’s say that Hitler had never attacked other countries, but instead just stayed home and set up ovens to slaughter 10 million Jewish people.—
Ok, let’s say that: and then let’s ask: what would have happened back in the day? Almost certianly: the Greatest Generation would have whistled Dixie. They certianly didn’t roll into action when the Armenians were being slaughtered. Rwanda didn’t see any troops coming its way. Nobody attacked Stalin or Mao in the name of humanity. Cambodia had a pretty unfettered road to Onion jokes about their economy being based on the use of human skulls as currency. I seem to remember some people called “the Kurds” who didn’t see hide nor hair of a war to help them.
I agree that if there WERE such wars, they would have been just. But what happened in WWII wasn’t such a war. Saving the Jews was, at best, a last-minute benefit (and at worst, FDR and his planners deliberately avoided taking rather minor actions that could have saved countless Jewish lives: even just one extra bombing mission to disrupt the train lines to the camps could have saved thousands).
Indeed, I support this war because freeing Iraqis will definately be AN outcome: something I’ve wanted for a long time (on a long list of countries that need definitive ultimatums). I think anti-war people are foolish for not seeing that as being a greater good.
If you really want a good example, I’d suggest Kosovo: though even that was ultimately premised just as much on the “warring, splintering nations could destablize the entire region” as the slaughter of the Muslims, it was at least recognized as a war based on a newfound feeling that genocidal dictators and their actions are everyone’s business.
Could you further explain this arguement to me, I’m not sure I understand. Are you saying that because N Korea is a brutal dictatorship, we should leave Iraq alone? Are you saying, if we attack Iraq, we need to attack every brutal dictatorship in the world at the same time? Are you saying every dictatorship should be attacked regardless of the cost in human lives?
You picked an appropriate username, ThoughtPolice.
Why is this hypocrisy? The world does not see Iraq as the dire threat you and the Bush administration try to portray, but France and just about every other nation on Earth would join ranks with the US immediately if Iraq made use of WMD against the US. This is not hypocrisy.
What a simplistic approach to the problem. First, there is no direct evidence that Iraq possesses WMD. Second, Iraq does not possess the means to deliver WMD to the American people. Third, Iraq had ample opportunity in 1991 to use WMD against allied troops AND against Israel, but it didn’t. Why? Think!
If we examine their output objectively, both Iraq and the US have dishonest governments, although to be sure Iraq’s is rather worse than the US’s. There is nothing wrong with pointing such things out.
You haven’t done very much debating, and what little you did was harmed by the two sentences quoted above.
Its a situation where irony lies thick upon the ground.
In the name of spreading democracy, we want war. France, a democracy whose people oppose war, is reviled by us for doing precisely what her people will.
Does Saddam have WMD? I suspect he does. But I don’t know that he does. Will we find them? No doubt. We will find them even if they aren’t there, because there is no chance whatsoever that we will say “ooopsy!” in front of the entire world. Everybody knows this. Everybody has seen us offer utter bullshit as incontrovertible proof. So nobody, but nobody, is going to believe us. Even if we’re telling the truth.
Soon, Al Jazzera will be streaming videos of dead Iraqi women and children to every Muslim TV set in the world. Of course we will try not to, I’ve no doubt that our soldiers are professional and humane. But it is impossible - impossible- to conduct a war without civilian casualties. We are conducting a world wide recruiting program for Osama and his ilk.
And, of course, when the terrorist attacks start, some of us here will point and say “See! Told you so! Told you Saddam and Osama were best buddies!” Thats like sneaking up behind a bull, kicking him in the balls, and when he turns on you, screaming “See! Told you he was dangerous”.
Condition is orange. We will not see green in our lifetime.
greetings from Australia, news downunder tonite tells us that Malaysia has just told us we are committing a very dangerous error in supporting the US, future implications for us dont look too good.
will you help if we are invaded?
sorry, we are not so sure, it doesnt seem all that clear just when the US 'helps ’ those in need,
like, theres not much here to give you, to help sustain your hi energy needs.
plz forgive my doutb, ( no offense intended ) but tell me, where where the guardians of the ppl when Tibet was overrun, its ppl slaughtered, land pillaged.? it just doesnt seem consistant.
please clarify for me, i desperately want to understand.
Zan
After just 6 posts to the thread you started? Why’d you post to GreatDebates if all you were interestde in was tiny/ meager debates?
It’s so very sad that I think you are correct about this.
This would describe the early United States of America, though in that case it was a team of thugs, not just one thug. Funny how things work.
Saddam Hussein is certainly a nasty dictator. However, in the next few weeks I suspect the government of the United States will kill a great many more Iraqi citizens than the government of Iraq would in a bad year.