| Is the war in Iraq really necessary? | |
|
Lord Exar Kun - Student  |
Hey, with a war in Iraq comming up, I just wondered what you guys have got to say about Bush and his war-politics. I personally think Bush is goin way too far with his war-on-terrorism. _______________ -Retired april the 19th 2004 |
| < Recent Comments | Login and add your comment! | Previous Comments > |
| Comments |
|
Hector Thrawn - Ex-Student 
|
ah thank you ulic, brining up the age old "do the ends justify the means?" question. this is almost always a difficult question to answer with any specificity, especially when human lives are at stake. however i practice a philosiphy that helps me deal with killing at least a bit, although i will agree (b/c i know someone is going to say it) that this is probably no the best way of dealing with things here it is:
there are only two cases where killing is justified 1)when the "victim" is a killer of humans. because when one kills a human (imo) the cease being human all together and are on the same level as very rabid, dangerous animals. (killing them obviously would not count as killing a human since they forfited that status). 2)in a case of defense of one's self or others in a mortally dangerous situation. it is the thought that counts; if you are planning on killing someone for somthing less destructive than death you are only making things worse and like the person who kills a human you also cease to be human. the only real problem i have found with this (other than killing in general)is what do you do with people who order someone to be killed, but are incapable of killing by their own means? so far the best i can think of is prove the connection and cut their guns out from under them. if you have a better idea im interested. |
|
Ulic Belouve - Student 
|
Hmmmm...
Well, thanks for apoligizing for the 'tits' comment. The thing that got me on that was the fact that that was your counter-argument, when I knew you could put out a good argument like what was shown below. So now I have a task to answer all of your questions (and you are lucky that I had a discussion with people over lunch over this same topic. Many of them felt I was better than the President at articulating things, and that I sould take some sort of political office. I think I know diddly, but if you think otherwise, let me know. Not to boost an ego or anything, but if you really feel that I should pursue something in that area, even though I think I'm no good at it, let me know.) Now, to the point at hand: (I apologize if all of this is not cited, I'm just taking things from my personal discussion/reading) <<<Why does the US government (UK just shadow US and dont count as having an opinion) seem to be the only governent actively pushing for a pre-emptive strike on Iraq?>>> Well, the issue with this is the fact that Iraq violated UN Resolutions. These were signed by a UN Security Council, of which France and Germany are members of. When Iraq breaks these resolutions, the members who signed need to hand out the appropriate response. However, France and Germany just don't want to do this. This has gone on for many years, where the resolution is broken, but others (US, UK, France, Germany) do not hold THEIR end and punish Iraq. So, Bush is a moral pragmatic. He wants to do what is "prudent" and what is "right". In his mind, handing out all the punishment that is accumulated in the violations is what seems right. And it makes some sense, to give Saddam all the punishment that he agreed to take, should he violate the agreement. Realistically, all the added up punishments call for a regime change. So why AREN'T France and Germany on board? No one really knows with France. Tony Blair described them as being like "cats, not very loyal and nowhere to be found when called." Germany, however, has another issue. In terms of "high politics" and "low politics", the US has the war "high" and the economy "mid" or "low". Germany, has the economy "high" and war "low". The economy of Germany is doing well, with the Euro supposedly rivaling the US Dollar. But many say it is still on shaky ground. If Germany were to enter into war, making war "high" and the economy "low", it could rapidly devalue the Euro, which would just suck (to keep the explanation short.) Also, gah! don't know exact name-- Schroeder? (just checked news, and YES! was correct!) Anyways, he also pledged in his campaigning to NOT back war with Iraq, and also to help out the economy. Going to war would really cause him to lose support, and that's no good either. However, one can surmise that France and Germany will fall in line behing us if we go to war. Bush knows this, and there are probably good reasons why they would simply "follow us but not support us." <<<IF they had killed him in the 1st GW , we would not be in this predicament.>>> Well, first off, we merely got the coalition to agree to fight alongside us, with the objective to liberate Kuwait. If we went after Saddam and forced a regime change, this would cause the UN to shove a bunch of resolutions up the US's whoo-hoo. So we don't go AFTER him, but just assasinate him, right? There are many theories that say that's what we wanted to do, right? Well, yes and no. We did want to take him out. The problem was Ford, the President. He passed an Executive Agreement in 1975 saying that the assasination of foreign leaders was not in accordance with US Policy. It would be difficult to overturn this, even today, as it would cause much controversy if the issue was brought to the Senate and/or Congress. So, if we assasinated him, we just violated our own policy, and we'd be screwed. So we just sat back, and passed resolutions and sanctions against him. So, yes, if we had acted, we would have not wound up in this situation, BUT we would have a whole host of more problems from it. <<<IF they has disengaged with Saddam properly after IRAN/IRAQ we wouldnt be in this predicament.>>> Well, we don't know that. Iraq took over Kuwait because it felt it was part of its original ownership (like the land disputes with Israel and Palestine). So it was this attitude that we really could not have changed. But there is ONE predicament that we could have avoided if we disengaged right after the Iran/Iraq: Sept. 11th. You see, Bin Laden really had a lot of issues with American involvement in the middle east. He really did not like us being in the Middle East. When the Saudis called for our help, Osama objected. When we remained after the Gulf War, Osama had had it. He wanted us out, and issued commands for his followers to kill any Americans, anytime, anywhere. Until then he did not truly posess that desire. And this snowballed into Sept. 11th. <<<If in the last 10 years the UN had controlled IRAQi weapons closely , with various countries , inc US, UK etc NOT supplying parts for WMD, we would not be in this predicament.>>> Well, one, I think someone else anwered the fact that the UN DID try to control them. Saddam was vioating the resolutions and jerking around the inspectors (and kicking them out). What arguable could have been done, according to resolutions, was the use of force THEN to lessen matters. But no one wanted war then, so we just let it build up until it seems inevitable. So we could have used force then or now. Personally, I think we should have used it then, as it would have been a lot less. But there are other issues to that. And I think (I really don't want to dig out a book) that most of the parts came from sources other than the US. Some of the basic stuff that we might have given them in the past was either used in Iraq/Iran, the Gulf War, or taken back after the Gulf War by UN inspecctors. But I can look that up if you like. <<<1) There have been quite a few opportunities that could have prevented us getting to a point where war is necessary>>> Agreed. Much like following though on OUR end of the UN resolutions, and using force where needed. Really, we (or France/Germany) slacked off on our duties to these UN Resolutions. <<<2) It is still not too late to prevent a war taking place.>>> Agreed. I fully support the UN work currently, though I feel that this time around, should the UN fail, it's time for us to make good on all the threats posed by the past UN resolutions. That is why I said IF and WHEN the use of force occurs, it will be justified (i.e., the UN fails in its task) <<<3) If there is serious evidence that Saddam presents a clear and present danger, and the US has that evidence, they should ensure that the rest of the UN security council is presented with that evidence, allowing a pre-emptive military strike to take place.>>> Again, as I said, the US probably knows a LOT of info about the dangers Saddam presents, some specific intelligence. The problem I said earlier is that if the US states WHAT it knows, it has to say HOW it knows, thus giving up and losing it's intelligence source. One really wouldn't want to reveal to the UN (and foreign countries, and possibly the entire world) HOW it finds out the intelligence it does find out. <<<In that situation I could not argue that that is not the right thing to do . I still wouldnt be happy but...... >>> Well, I don't like the use of force either. But sometimes it seems needed. Would you kill a baby? No. No one would. Would you kill one baby if it meant saving 1000? Therein we enter philosophy, so I'll not entertain the "Will you kill a baby if it meant...." arguments, since they aren't relevant here. I hope this all helped you out. I was going to watch a DVD, so I didn't want to research anything. But if you have specific areas of interest you want me to research, let me know. Edit: Oooh...just to go against Kalheka (sp?), he says that the UN really is ineffective. Actually, as shown above, it's not THEM that are ineffective, it's the fact that no one wants to follow through on the UN agreements against Iraq. The UN has many good resolutions out there. When it comes to UN forces, ask a Military soldier, and they'll tell you how ineffective they are. so, the UN sucks at sounding intimidating, but they make good policies and resolutions for other places. I might be interning for them this summer, so... THE UN DOES A GREAT JOB!!! YAY UN!!! THE UN PEOPLE ARE MY HEROES!!!! I HAVE A UN POSTER ON MY WALL NEXT TO BATMAN AND SUPERMAN!!!  _______________ Jedi do not fight for peace. That's only a slogan, and is as misleading as slogans always are. Jedi fight for civilization, because only civilization creates peace. This comment was edited by Ulic Belouve on Jan 22 2003 07:17pm. |
|
Kalheka - Student 
|
Khalaas, I can't really answer your question, but I can say this:
Adolph Hitler came to power because Europe and the US did nothing when they had the chance. The same situation applies to Iraq. 12 years have gone by with this country in defiance of UN sanctions. It makes the UN look ineffective to allow this to go on. In fact the UN really is ineffective. Consider this also: Iraq is a radical country, semi-aligned with muslim terrorist ideals. Letting a country like that have it's way only encourages more violent acts against the rest of the world as a whole. Oh, and in response to item 3. Saddam has kept that evidence hidden by denying UN inspectors access. The UN has reason enough just on that, but refuse to act. _______________ Death is only the beginning. This comment was edited by Kalheka on Jan 22 2003 06:06pm. |
|
Jedi Al Khalaas - Student 
|
Please answer this question.(apologies for the 'Tits' comment)
Why does the US government (UK just shadow US and dont count as having an opinion) seem to be the only governent actively pushing for a pre-emptive strike on Iraq? This is a serious question and the answer could change my opinion. To follow on from this : If the US govt. is the only one to think that war is the only way to settle the issue of 'Rogue Nation Iraq' , then the reason , imo, is because of the US has , made a series of mistakes around policy concerning Iraq for the last 15 or so years. This has left the US only one option to clean up this mess today, and that is war , in which they some how kill Saddam Hussein and instigate 'regime change'. IF they had killed him in the 1st GW , we would not be in this predicament. IF they has disengaged with Saddam properly after IRAN/IRAQ we wouldnt be in this predicament. If in the last 10 years the UN had controlled IRAQi weapons closely , with various countries , inc US, UK etc NOT supplying parts for WMD, we would not be in this predicament. OK, whats my point , 1) There have been quite a few opportunities that could have prevented us getting to a point where war is necessary 2) It is still not too late to prevent a war taking place. 3) If there is serious evidence that Saddam presents a clear and present danger, and the US has that evidence, they should ensure that the rest of the UN security council is presented with that evidence, allowing a pre-emptive military strike to take place. In that situation I could not argue that that is not the right thing to do . I still wouldnt be happy but...... This comment was edited by Jedi Al Khalaas on Jan 22 2003 05:24pm. |
|
Ulic Belouve - Student 
|
See? Now Sinya, took the "Wrong to kill" argument, but expanded on it, with some intelligent input and rationale. It is a good rival, and if he backed it up with some form of source, it would be a better rival. I suggest to Sinya and others to try that, as it is a wonderful way to discuss things.
But at least I'm glad that people brought it up a notch and added some form of rationale. Or maybe just Sinya. _______________ Jedi do not fight for peace. That's only a slogan, and is as misleading as slogans always are. Jedi fight for civilization, because only civilization creates peace. |
|
Sniya - Student 
|
Ulic the way you say that you make it sounld like a bad argument:its bad to kill people
If the majority of religions from all over the world believe this is so mabey it should be considered.Sending people to war is sending people to kill people, this world that is suposidly much less warlike than previous eras kill more people than ever.If we personly carried out all the killings we believe should be done "for world peace".We could not do it.Do not ulic throw away one of the most basic(I agree primative) arguments humans have had scince people became civilised.One of the things they discovered from american records from from i think it was WWII was that conscripted people did not actully kill many people.People must be "trained" to kill, their instinct is not to kill. This disscussion is very intresting they dont disscuss half this stuff on the news etc 2ndly ulic you live in the U.S.A. a democracy.The people voted the goverment in,yes all of you give them the power they have,so you all have every right to bug the president as much as you want.The goverment is not allways right the history of many democracys shows they have made mistakes that the now know were wrong and would go back and change them if they could,do not quieten down and let them make the next mistake.Just as the goverment keeps us in chek we must keep the goverment in cheak. 3rdly-OUCH that hurt Ulic oh and everyone else keep adding comments _______________ The real question is not whether machines think but whether men do. Bertrand Russell http://www.thejediacademy.net/forums_detail_page.php?f_id=970 This comment was edited by Sniya on Jan 22 2003 03:34pm. |
|
Ulic Belouve - Student
|
Am I the only one making significant contributions to the ARGUMENT at hand?
I made a good case. What do I get back? "My pychology buddy thinks you are arrogant." Excuse me? What does that have to do with the argument? The issue as to whether or not this is a debate? What does that have to do with refuting the argument about Iraq. I seriously doubt that all of you are unintelligent enough that your best counter-argument is an "you're arrogant." or "you're getting on my tits." At least TRY to come up with some relevant facts. I'll be working on bringing the context of International law into this discussion, using case studies and earlier precedence. I would suggest that if you wish to counter my ARGUMENT, and not the AUTHOR, that you attempt a similar style of argument construction. None of my opinions and none of your opinions matter. That is an issue of credibility. The arrogance issue, the debate issue, the liberl issue, and the education issue, is all a mistake in the topicality area. You all have seemed to stoop to attack the quality of the author, instead of attacking their argument. Keep in mind that most of my argument is based on facts that come from credible sources, so attacking me will not damage the argument at hand. Please, let's get theis back to an intelligent discussion of the matter at hand. And try to sound intelligent in argument, none of this "Don't go to war because it's bad to bomb people." You guys are smarter than that, please try to show it. And what I mean in reference to "Leave the President and the decision makers alone." is that none of us are even CLOSE to bein able to judge their actions. We just don't know enough. We do, however, have a wonderful heirachy of education in the government. The President might not know everything, but he has a group of advisors tho advise him, who know what they are doing. These advisors have advisors, who know what they are doing. And even THESE advisors have people to advise them, who command a team of researchers. The person I talked to is one of these researchers. these researchers take their advise from hat they find, studies. These studies involve you people also, and myself, who are not very informed. Thus, we are plugged in to the proper spot on the totem pole. If we really did know what what going on, became more educated in the area, we would merely move up, but would not even be close to knowing the issues the President faces. Really, 80% of America only THINK they know what is going on. 10% KNOW what is going on, but really can't affect anything. The last 10% are the only ones who even have a RIGHT to bug the President and decision makers, sincee they understand enough. So if there is ANYONE to bug, it is the informed, or the people that CAN affect the decisions. But really, my point is, don't bother, since we all know so very little of the situation. While I may know a bit more of it than the rest of you, I still do not know enough. I could refute Sinya on his Germany argument, but I will let that one go, and override it with an argument later. And really, if you don't want to enter into a debate, or consider this a debate, or if my agressive nature in argument "gets on your tits", then you don't have to read any of these posts or come here. But I do encourage you to read this, make an INFORMED opinion, and engage in an INTELLIGENT debate. A "my psychologist buddy thinks..." isn't going to cut it. _______________ Jedi do not fight for peace. That's only a slogan, and is as misleading as slogans always are. Jedi fight for civilization, because only civilization creates peace. This comment was edited by Ulic Belouve on Jan 22 2003 03:18pm. |
|
Sniya - Student
|
Ok ulic in relation to your first question probably no.(i liked it when i did not need to read posts 2 times to understand)
And another thing this is NOT a debate.debate is open verbal war,you have debates with your enimies(unless its a shool debate or summit) this is a desscussion in which we use are own Knowthedge and opinions to help each other find the correct answer. Secondly i totally disagree with this statement "When it happens, it will be necessary. Leave the President and decision makers alone," this is a terrible mistake for any country to make Let those in power decide.The problem with this is any evil man can do what he wishes.I think world war two is an example mabey not a good one and i do not dought your ability to tear my arguement to shreds after my post.-HItler came into power and he was an evil man in my opinion he gave out orders that should never have been given out.The orders even if dissagreed were carried out because they were orders.That is a reason given by many involved in WWIIs terrible acts. 3rdly everyone education is a tool.An inadiquate man will never become a great man the matter what education he gets to quote oscar wild(oh nuts did i misspell his name)-"Education is admirble thing but it is worth remembering noting worth knowing can be taught. Than you Ulic BTW for adding a bit more depth to the argument. _______________ The real question is not whether machines think but whether men do. Bertrand Russell http://www.thejediacademy.net/forums_detail_page.php?f_id=970 |
|
Fizz of Belouve - Student 
|
I absoluteley don't know what the U.S. might have developed, but again, and again they state out that this will be a "clean" war. This is simply bogus.
smarter bombs, now GPS instead of laser navigation. Very good. And this is what makes me particularly angry. There is no "clean" or whatsoever war. a war is a war is a war is a war (sounds familiar ? 
Thus they should at least have the balls to tell the truth. Propaganda never solves problems. _______________ One of the Belouve boys, founder of the mighty FiZZsters Midbie council #20 - Fizz - #1933 - Jan '03 - Aug '04 "Renfield, you idiot!" |
|
Jedi Al Khalaas - Student
|
I agree with Gabba.
and Ulic, I am no Psychologist , but reading your posts here and in the other Thread arguing with Zero and the JATs, I will tell you one fact.....You are getting on my tits!!!  This comment was edited by Jedi Al Khalaas on Jan 22 2003 10:37am. |
|
Hector Thrawn - Ex-Student
|
trying a out new toys, that's an interesting way of looking at it. however i would like to point out that almost all new toys that the armed forces aquired were created during war, not before. also, i dont remmember any significant developments in military technology that we have not used in Afganistan so if you know of anything new i would be vary interested. (sorry about the whol liberal thing, it was supposed to be funny in a satirical/sarcastic way). |
|
Ulic Belouve - Student
|
Actually, Gabba, I was putting together the facts. None of this is my own knowledge, since my own knowledge does not carry very much weight. I am merely doing what a good debater should do: force you to bow down to the facts. If you wish to refute, again, refute with facts.
If your psychology friend wish to think that I am arrogant or demented because I simply am tossing out facts that are difficult to refute, then I sure hope he never has to treat anyone serious. The obvious point of a debate is to get the other side to concede to your viewpoint. You do this through heavy facts as well as by attacking the legitimacy of their argument. I am doing both: using heavy facts from reputable sources, as well as attacking the legitimacy of opposing arguments such as your own. I am attacking your argument, not you, when I say that one should go take some relevant courses, get a security clearance, etc. I am nt saying to become smart, I am saying to gain access to information that may help you make a valid refutation. If you and your friend gained access to information regarding the art of debate, you would perhaps be able to see where I am coming from. I am not making claims based soley on my intelligence, but from quoted sources. In my argument, I only said ONCE that I feel the use of force, when used, will be necessary. Then I proceeded to include two pages worth of factual information from sources other than myself. If anything is arrogant, it is the facts, coming from people much more eduacted than you, me, or your friend. And a word of advice, that comes from myself and other politicians: psychology and politics do not mix. My point that I made earlier: don't step up to the debate podium unless you have good facts to use, and back them up. If you want to just toss out your own random thought, fine, but it won't hold much against a sound argument. I'm not saying I'm right. I just chose a side to argue, and am saying that it will be difficult to argue against what case I have laid out. I can very well tear my own case apart, with solid facts against going to war with Iraq. But I wish to see if anyone else out there can learn the art and bring up solid facts in good argument. If there is anything I insult, it is a person's skill in debate. I also feel it is a weak move to refute an arguement with a "my psychologist friend thinks you're arrogant." I don't need a psychology degree to tell that. ANY good debater is arrogant. No debater wants to let the opposing side have even one inch of ground. We must be arrogant, agressive, and attacking. That is the psychology of being a good debater. I could dismiss your arguments already, based on the fact that you are now relying on a psychologist viewpoint, and not any heavy facts pertinent to the argument at hand. But I will allow you to develop the art further and have more chances. _______________ Jedi do not fight for peace. That's only a slogan, and is as misleading as slogans always are. Jedi fight for civilization, because only civilization creates peace. |
|
Fizz of Belouve - Student
|
Might sound like a weirdo's conspiracies theory, but who cares
To my mind, that whole war is just bogus. It's not necessary. It is about to be inscened by the U.S. arms industry to 'try out' some new toys they have and, maybe to 'remove' the old ones from the arsenal. _______________ One of the Belouve boys, founder of the mighty FiZZsters Midbie council #20 - Fizz - #1933 - Jan '03 - Aug '04 "Renfield, you idiot!" |
|
Gabba - Ex-Student 
|
This will be my last comment on this thread because I find a few comments on me offensive,
I made the quote because I wanted to refer to the main point, War, I did read all of your post and simply found that all you were prepared to say was that war is needed, and yes you know the answers but we would not understand. I happen to be an educated man not perhaps on the subject of Iraq but I am educated and I have also been an active member of British and Irish politics. And guess what I followed that last war with great interest. I found your remarks made towards me nothing more than the condescending view of someone who believes that you are above me and that I should just bow down and agree with your educated viewpoint. If you think that will not annoy others with that attitude as well then you are mistaken, I have shown your post to a friend who is a psychologist, apart from your obvious arrogance, he suspects some personal interest in the Islamic states and possibly right wing, should I listen to him, he is educated, better educated than me. Well it’s a good thing I was brought up with a liberal viewpoint (and with manners) so I choose to have my own viewpoint on you, Now you have me on a rant, I have work to do and really should not be wasting time with this _______________ Sit vis nobiscum. This comment was edited by Gabba on Jan 22 2003 09:07am. |
|
Jedi Al Khalaas - Student 
|
Saddam is a monster that the US created to fight the Iranians, and then 'released' into the wilderness when he was of no more use. If the US government had taken care of him then, there would have been no need for a 1st Gulf war , let alone a second. |
|
Bubu - Hubbub 
|
Ulic for President!!  _______________ make install -not war |
|
Ulic Belouve - Student
|
Another good point Hector brought up was the issue with North Korea. Seeing as how N. Korea is an autarky (look up that word, OK?), they might have a couple nukes, but they won't risk too much, so negotiation is a valid point here.
However, if we did enter into conflict with them and there was some form of nuclear exchange, it would freak the hell out of Japan. They have this "odd relation" (best way I can put it) with anything radioactive/nuclear. They don't even allow nuclear subs to get near the country. So fallout would be a bad thing for them. What this will do, is possibly freak them out to the point of lessining trade with us. To make up for this lack in trade, we would have to up our trade with China or Taiwan (more likely Taiwan, which would work better.) Of course, China wouldn't much care for us because we went after N. Korea. So we have two options: Increase trade with Taiwan, to a level that would be read as "official" trading (we're currently "unofficially" trading with them, long story, research it yourself). If we are read as officially trading with them, China will go ballistic, and there goes California. Or...we can NOT increase trade with Taiwan, and watch the economy go even MORE down the toilet. So, we opt not to get involved with N. Korea yet. It has all its complexities and such, so really, again, make sure you have something to back up your argument. _______________ Jedi do not fight for peace. That's only a slogan, and is as misleading as slogans always are. Jedi fight for civilization, because only civilization creates peace. |
|
Ulic Belouve - Student
|
Good.
I knew Hector would come up with a good point. Yes. Now, some brief stuff on beginning of WWII. Let's hope you all see some parallels. German could not rearm due to the Versailles Treaty. Starts to secretly rearm. Economy of Germany turns around because people find work in these armories. In 1935, Hitler reveals the secret of his rearmament. What is done about this? Well, the Americans are not going to participate in another League of Nations. Britain and France do not want a 2nd World War. When Hitler reveals rearmament, Britain and France do nothing. When Hitler says he will not continue to pay Britain and France back (another violation), they do nothing. Next, Hitler takes control of Austria. Britain and France protest. Hitler claims that Austria wanted to join, and that this is his LAST anexxation, his LAST territorial demand. Then, Hitler invades Czechoslovakia. Britain and France meet with him in protest, again, in 1938. Hitler say, well, this is his LAST territorial demand. (Didn't he say that for Austria?) But Hitler PROMISES to knock it off. Takes over Czechoslovakia. Britain and France STILL do not want war. Hitler breaks promise, threatens Poland in 1939. Thinks Britain and France won't stand up to him (did they yet?) But they do stand up to him. Hitler doesn't care. So he invades Poland, and WWII starts on Sept. 1st, 1939. So, well, we see where one guy (Hitler) broke his promises, like another guy (Saddam). And we did nothing then, and it turned out to be a good idea that we didn't, right? Oh wait, we intervened. I forgot. So, we have another person who has broken many promises over 12 years. Do we just continue to sit back? What might have happened if we didn't intervene with Germany back then? Appeasement is not a great option here. When we do use military intervention, it will be justified, just like it was back then. I doubt anyone can say now that "We shouldn't have intervened with Germany then." Although back then, people WERE opposed to the idea. Then came Pearl Harbor. Now, people are opposed to THIS idea. Do we need a Pearl Harbor? Did we get one because we were sitting around on our butts? More than likely, we will intervene. 30 years from now, when all the history of 2003 is written down, we will say "It was a good move." Similar to the intervention in WWII. _______________ Jedi do not fight for peace. That's only a slogan, and is as misleading as slogans always are. Jedi fight for civilization, because only civilization creates peace. |
|
Hector Thrawn - Ex-Student
|
also (i didnt read all of the post so slap me if i repeat anything) to not attack iraq even after we know they are breaking the rules set down by the Un would be considered appeasment. this also happpened with germany right before WWII. although iraq does not have the man power to recreate that scenario, if they decide to ally with North Korea on a nuclear strike (given we only know that NK had nukes and low yeild) this could cause alot of problems. so by attacking iraq we deter any other countries from breaking the rules. which begs the question why not attak NK? the problem there is interests first there is China, they probably wouldnt go to war over it, but do we want to take that big a risk? second NK has nukes, even if they hit themselves the fall out would have a huge effect, especially in Japan, a country I would like to hold onto (i am sure bubu would agree with that).
to sum up my argument: the best way to deal with this sort of situation is to let the profesionals handle it and if you dont like the proffesionals try researching before doing anything rash like voting for one of those tree-huggin, hippie, bleeding-heart, evil liberals.(sorry i had to say that ) |
|
Ulic Belouve - Student
|
....sigh....
If you want to refute quotations and/or citations, use your own citations, not just a "I think this" approach. I would hate to think that any of our own personal thoughts are more reputable than Israel’s deputy chief of mission at the UN, Aharon Yaakov, which was the quote Gabba refuted. And Iraq, did not invade Kuwait just over the oil aspect. If you want me to write a CITED report on the Gulf War, I can do that too. And if you think that we are merely opting to go to war over the possibility of Iraqi WMD, Gabba, then you obviously don't understand what I wrote below, and just picked out a quote that you thought you were qualified to refute. Reread, look up all the large words I may have used, find some reputable sources, and then come back to the table. An edit: Each person is entitled to state their own EDUCATED opinion, not just any old opinion. _______________ Jedi do not fight for peace. That's only a slogan, and is as misleading as slogans always are. Jedi fight for civilization, because only civilization creates peace. This comment was edited by Ulic Belouve on Jan 21 2003 07:31pm. |
|
Gabba - Ex-Student 
|
quote--------------------------------------------
Iraq is a brutal dictatorship that attacked its neighbors and violates human rights, including the use of chemical weapons against its own citizens.” ------------------------------------------------- It once was a Republic fighting islaminc fundermentalsm, It was at war with Iran to stop the thret of islaming fundementalsm spreading, then Kuwait becoz it was stealing oil from them. No excuse for useing chem and bio wepons against his own citizens, then again Turkey were orderd into N Iraq to supress the Kurdish upriseing, this was done by force. If we went to war with Iraq just for the reason of wepons of mass descruction, going to war with others, killing citizens, then we would proberbly have to also ask about other countrys, democracy or not, nukeler wepons are a violation of internationl war, yet the US and UK possess them. i know people from countrys bombed by US and UK forces, citizens have been killed and a hell of a lot more will die again. this will esculate, Islamic states will fall one by one it will be all out war, others will get involed and it well get nastyer. NOT IN MY NAME _______________ Sit vis nobiscum. |
|
Jello` - Student 
|
psst... nuke em _______________ Brady Brothers: Orion-Greg, Furi0us-Peter, Me-Bobby. Long lost cousin to Flash. Midbie Council #007. Ex-JAK. |
|
Ulic Belouve - Student
|
And here is the start of all of my semi-research:
Regarding the impending war with Iraq, and its justification or necessity, one needs to factor in a significant amount of context for the use of force. I believe that when the use of force comes, it will be justified. One needs to examine the resolutions, both those passed by the UN and agreed to by Iraq, and those resolutions passed by Congress to grant the President powers in this matter. One also needs to look at this in the context of support and rationale, and the best lens to do this is through Weinberger’s tests to be used when weighing use of military intervention. We shall get to those in a moment. We also take into account the context of an elaborate history in American Foreign Policy, where the development of policy by past Presidents heavily influences the decision-making process of today. Other contexts are those of success, for the public will stand behind the use of force if the success guarantee is high, yet there are substantial fears from the American public that this war will drag out. And there is also the context of the composition of forces. This includes the makeup of coalition forces, and the support of varying countries, as well as current force structure. The force structure is an issue currently, as we do not want the Iraqi force structure to consist of Weapons of Mass Destruction. This is just an overview of concerns, and as one can see, the complexity of this question is far greater than one would have surmised. I may continue to include the context of Arab culture, the Islamic religion, and the mindset of the Iraqi regime. First off, I will assume most know of the UN Resolutions as well as Saddam’s violations of those. I will put off discussion for later in this paper. However, it could be noted that in a study by Steven Zunes, Israel tops this list in number of resolution violations, in which, since 1968, Israel has violated 32 resolutions that included condemnation or criticism of the governments’ policies and actions. Turkey is in second place (24) and Morocco third (17). To respond to why the US and Britain are assaulting Iraq and not Israel, Israel’s deputy chief of mission at the UN, Aharon Yaakov, stated that, “Israel is the only democracy in the region and is fighting for its existence, while Iraq is a brutal dictatorship that attacked its neighbors and violates human rights, including the use of chemical weapons against its own citizens.” This issue with Israel factors in heavily to Saddam’s mindset. His rationale for acquiring unconventional warheads is a need to deter Israel. In Saddam’s view, Iraq’s acquisition of specifically nuclear weapons would lead to a state of mutual deterrence. According to the Iraqi News Agency, 7 April 1990, Saddam did emphasize to the visiting U.S. delegation that Iraq had the right to obtain any weapon already in the Israeli arsenal. An added note from me, if you ask any expert “What about Israel’s nuclear weapons?”, they will respond “Israel does not have nuclear weapons, nod, nod, wink, wink.” Israel will not admit that they have nuclear weapons, which leads to an intelligence paradox that I will detail in a bit. The Iraqi media (which is held to reflect official Iraqi government desires, due to ownership and such) also hinted at Baghdad’s apparent possession of biological weapons. The Al-Jumhurriyah newspaper noted that Iraqi missiles and chemical weapons could inflict “terrible losses on the enemy if it dares attack Iraq. This is IN ADDITION TO its ability to mount decisive retaliation to inflict perhaps further losses on the enemy, SOMETHING IRAQ LACKED IN THE PAST.” (emphasis added). Now, while the UN is looking for evidence in Iraq, I will get to the intelligence paradox. The Foreign Policy expert I just spoke with (who I won’t name here) made it clear that more than likely the US has intelligence that states exactly what Iraq has (and Israel for that matter), else they would not be pressing matters so much. But the paradox lies in the fact that the US DOES know what Saddam has, but cannot reveal that they know. If they did reveal that they knew, they would have to state HOW they know, thus compromising their intelligence contacts. Hence, they have weapons inspectors looking for items that the US probably already knows that they have. Thus, Iraqi violations can be revealed without having to compromise US intelligence. It is a paradox because the intelligence we gain cannot be used. Iraq likewise agreed to a new resolution with the UN Security council, about a month ago, of which France and Germany are a part of. The recent findings by the UN show a clear violation of those agreements with Iraq, yet Germany and France do not wish to bring retribution to Iraq. It’s almost like a judge telling a criminal, “You break your parole, you go back in jail. Do you agree to behave?”, and the criminal agrees. The criminal violates that agreement (breaks parole), yet no one pursues the criminal. Instead, they say “OK, new agreement, but don’t break this one.” Yet the criminal goes at it again. If, after 12 years, someone finally decides to hold the criminal accountable for breaking these legal agreements, it should seem rational. Likewise, Iraq has a 12 year history of breaking agreements without any retribution. Likewise, Iraq has been willing to suffer a $130 billion loss on oil exports, money in which Iraq has near total reliance on. This loss comes though economic sanctions, which Saddam is not even blinking at, despite the major hit to the Iraqi economy. Saddam chooses to make his country suffer for his ideals, and has likewise continued to violate agreements. <<<I will post this now, and get to the Foreign Policy context, WMD context, Weinbuger’s tests, and the religious context later, need to eat now>>> <<<But if anyone can see that this is a much larger issue than one ever thought, you are only getting the tip of the iceberg.>>> <<<Added note: I have a reliable source that says when to look for the war to begin. I will not list the rationale or the narrowed-down date, as I do not wish to compromise anything.>>> _______________ Jedi do not fight for peace. That's only a slogan, and is as misleading as slogans always are. Jedi fight for civilization, because only civilization creates peace. |
|
Ulic Belouve - Student
|
....
Do know that my weigh-in is coming, and you will hear my comments on this... But I am working on consulting scholarly sources and personell (I just got off the phone with a Foreign Policy Researcher). So I'll have good stuff when it comes. If you can even bear to read it, for it will have references, statistics, definitions...almost like a report. But I will not mean for it to be a definitive answer, but it WILL challenge you to think of this in more scholarly and educated terms. _______________ Jedi do not fight for peace. That's only a slogan, and is as misleading as slogans always are. Jedi fight for civilization, because only civilization creates peace. |
|
Ulic Belouve - Student
|
Do you REALLY want somone who attained an A in American Foreign Policy to weigh in on this subject?
Do you REALLY want someone who has studied the Iraqi stance from a religious viewpoint weighing in on the subject? Do you REALLY want someone who is currently studying terrorism to weigh in on this subject? Do you REALLY want someone who is studying Weapons of Mass Destruction weighing in on the subject? Do you REALLY want someon who has a security clearance to weigh in on the subject? All I can say is that, yes, the war is necessary, if it isn't averted by the processes in place already. We don't have war yet, and we could have easily had it a year ago. If you want to know why, really want to know, without me taking 3 hours to even BEGIN to get you to grasp it... Then take about 5 courses and get a Security Clearance too. Then you'll understand. Until then simply trust that the people making the decisions know a helluva lot more than you or even me, and that you should let it sit. The biggest pet peeve for me is for people to debate a political issue when they REALLY only know about 10% of what is going on. You don't know very much history of Foreign Policy, little War Doctrine, little Religious History of that area, and little knowledge of Saddam's own history and strategy. Until you even know HALF of those items, don't even START to argue a side. Because I can come in here with the knowledge I have and smash your opinions to pieces. But I will leave it at this: When it happens, it will be necessary. Leave the President and decision makers alone, you don't know what they are really trying to do. _______________ Jedi do not fight for peace. That's only a slogan, and is as misleading as slogans always are. Jedi fight for civilization, because only civilization creates peace. |
| < Recent Comments | Login and add your comment! | Previous Comments > |