It's war time...

[CarAudioAddict 10+ year member]

I'll try a simpler approach:

The death toll is already well over 1000. The base point behind the war is to remove Saddam from power (whether it be for oil, non-compliance, or other reasons). Now does killing 1000+ people justify getting to one person. Its like blowing up a small town because a serial killer lives there, not exactly something that can be justified.

The chem plant has NOT been confirmed to be a chem weapons facility.

The resolutions quoted by LWW do NOT have a specific date for Saddam to have disarmed by.

LWW keps claiming that this war is about liberation, but that was the reason given AFTER the war started, AFTER there was no proof of WOMD. The war was started before "liberation" was even thought of.

The fact that there are multiple (unrelated) reasons for the war is proof that it is unjust.

 

[LWW 10+ year member]

TO ALL THOSE STILL WITHOUT CLUE. RESOLUTION 1441 REFERS TO THE 1991 CEASEFIRE. THE 1991 CEASEFIRE COMMANDS TOTAL DISARMAMENT OF ALL PROHIBITED WEAPONS, FREE REIN OF INSPECTORS, PROOF OF THE WEAPONS DESTRUCTION, AD INFINITUM OR HOSTILITIES RESUME!!! THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A TREATY ENDING THE GULF WAR!!! SADDAM HAS NEVER COMPLIED WITH THE CEASEFIRE!!! FUTURE RESOLUTIONS HAVE DONE NOTHING BUT CLOUD THE ISSUE!!! ON DAY 46 FROM THE CEASEFIRE THE WAR'S CONTINUANCE WAS AUTHORIZED!!! RESOLUTIONS 2-17 WERE THE UN DEBATING CLUB GOING WE REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY MEAN IT THIS TIME!!!

Now that being said these things are often worded in candycane language. Serious consequences in treaty terms has always meant use of force, at least in recent times.

In closing I would like to add that if the 18th and final resolution had passed which followed the 17th and last chance resolution I am of the opinion that the sides would be divided as they are now. There are those who think the USA is wrong on all things. They always have. They always will.

PEACE

 

[Savant 10+ year member]

Originally posted by snova031 C)What 'temporary government'? I think we will help set up their future government, but nothing 'temporary'.

what I meant was 'we' will be the government until they get their own set up.. we will 'be' the temporary government...

E)US ideals? I don't think so. But we will try to maximize our gains from the Middle East.

The whole idea behind the Pax Americana, as I understand it..is for the American Ideals to be instilled across the globe.. starting in the Middle East *shrug* I didn't read the doc, only going on what others are saying about it..

H)I think the top 2 he has said are 'disarming' and 'liberation'.

Actually, it started with disarming.. but since it was clear that Saddam was at least making token jestures it didn't hold much weight.. Then we claimed a Sept. 11/AlQueda/bin Ladden connection, but wouldn't (couldn't) supply the UN with proof.. then went back to disarming but had to walk away from that once he was blowing up the Al Samoud missles.. we had nothing else to go on.. The Liberation statement came at the end as a justification, not as an original reason..

I)Saddam was given an altamadum(sp?). He didn't comply, we went in. We should have done something a long time ago, however.

LOL.. the ultimatum was to leave the country, go into exile.. Yeah, that's reasonable.. ANY leader would consider that, especially a psycho one.. That ultimatum was out of line too.. There have been no official declarations that he was not a rightful leader of a sovereign country..

Sorry I couldn't give a one lump answer...but some questions I needed to answer independantly.

but, that's my point.. everything stated has essentially been established as true and accepted.. hard to swallow isn't it.. yet I did it with your challenge.. why? I agree the Iraqi people will be better off without Saddam (provided we get his kids too, they are as psycho as he is).. Still doesn't mean it's a just war.. it just means Saddam is a psycho ..

And, I forget a few points in that list too.. I don't recall them now.. the codine from my meds is kicking in //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/eek.gif.771b7a90cf45cabdc554ff1121c21c4a.gif //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/crazy.gif.c13912c32de98515d3142759a824dae7.gif :crazy:

 

[Savant 10+ year member]

Originally posted by LWW TO ALL THOSE STILL WITHOUT CLUE. RESOLUTION 1441 REFERS TO THE 1991 CEASEFIRE. THE 1991 CEASEFIRE COMMANDS TOTAL DISARMAMENT OF ALL PROHIBITED WEAPONS, FREE REIN OF INSPECTORS, PROOF OF THE WEAPONS DESTRUCTION, AD INFINITUM OR HOSTILITIES RESUME!!! THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A TREATY ENDING THE GULF WAR!!! SADDAM HAS NEVER COMPLIED WITH THE CEASEFIRE!!! FUTURE RESOLUTIONS HAVE DONE NOTHING BUT CLOUD THE ISSUE!!! ON DAY 46 FROM THE CEASEFIRE THE WAR'S CONTINUANCE WAS AUTHORIZED!!! RESOLUTIONS 2-17 WERE THE UN DEBATING CLUB GOING WE REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY MEAN IT THIS TIME!!!

Still, you can't reasonably say setting dates/deadlines in the 1441 resolution allows for not defining a date for disarming.. I mean, yeah.. he was supposed to have his crap gone 12 years ago.. it wasn't.. so if you are gonna say 'you have X days for a document, Y days to let inspectors in, and Z days for an update' you should, in fairness and reasonablness, say 'you have until day Q to have -blahblahblah- destroyed (if we know about those at that point)'.. or as things are found, such as with the Al Samoud-s.. we found 113 missles that are determined to be illegal (still not sure how much farther than the 93 mile limit they went, not far I'd bet, but even 1 foot is too far, that was 'properly' stated in the earlier resolutions.. 150 Km.. 93 miles.. but I seem to recall the specs on the Al Samoud - II is 93 miles.. a touch too little propellent and it would no longer be illegal), you have 15 days to destroy them all.. that would be reasonable.. But, Bush, despite the missles being destroyed, said "too late".. HE stopped the disarming process by telling Saddam he was going in..

Now that being said these things are often worded in candycane language. Serious consequences in treaty terms has always meant use of force, at least in recent times.

And that may be.. But I still say there is no reason not to specify it.. "if you do not comply, force of a potentially deadly nature will be used in the form of military action".. Nothing ambigous there //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/wink.gif.608e3ea05f1a9f98611af0861652f8fb.gif

In closing I would like to add that if the 18th and final resolution had passed which followed the 17th and last chance resolution I am of the opinion that the sides would be divided as they are now. There are those who think the USA is wrong on all things. They always have. They always will.

While I will agree that there will always be those that fight the US in these matters, I truely believe a large part of the current protest is based strictly on the US not even trying to prove it's point (Sept 11 connection) or pushing Saddam into full disarming.. The fact that Bush basically told the UN to bugger off and decided to go in on his own (meaning no global support) is what has most of us upset.. Then to lie about why you are in there is another matter.. Liberation.. no one in the world is really buying that (except American lemmings).. it would be the first time in all history that the US went into a forgein country on it's own accord to 'save the people'.. and, if that was the real reason, there would have been no need to try and use other reasons (Sept. 11th connection which we wouldn't/couldn't prove?)..

EDIT: oh, and you didn't even post the original resolution that gave the 45 day imposition.. and the attack about not being able to read would imply that there WAS a date listed for disarming, not that there was an implication based on the 'extension' of the original resolution..

 

[LWW 10+ year member]

OK in 1441 he never met deadline #1 for a full disclosure of weapons within 30 days. Sitting here I remembered:

1-The illegal drone.

2-The "crop duster" French Mirage.

3-The artillery shells made for containing chemical weapons.

4-The bugging of UN inspectors rooms in round #1.

5-The refusing to recognize Kuwait as a sovereign state.

6-The rebuilding of an atomic research facility.

Now regardless of the wording in 1441 the ORIGINAL cease fire agreement was never adhered to. George I had Saddamite Hussinsein going kicking and screaming into something resembling compliance. Commander and thief Clinton fumbled the deal completely and we are now to here. In hindsight I would agree that we should have beotch slapped the boy into Allah's arms on day 46 after the ceasefire. We didn't. That in no way ameliorates the ORIGINAL ceasefire.

The mistake in the west again is most people think the Gulf War ended in 1991. we won, and it's over. It didn't. There was a cease fire only.

Now does anyone really believe that if we did not go to war that:

1-Saddam would finally comply and disarm and provide proof of same?

and also believe:

2-That if he did and the US went home that in 10 yrs we wouldn't be right back again, if not sooner?

PEACE

 

[LWW 10+ year member]

Except, ALL US troops get atropene before ALL conflicts.. it's standard practice.. and I'd bet ALL hospitals in the US have atropine on hand.. why?

Sorry dude but I doubt that even 1 hospital in the US has 3K doses of atropene. Much less with 3K military uniforms. Or 3K automatic assault rifles. Or a T37. Also I know of no conflict other than against Iraq where atropene was issued.

PEACE

 

[Savant 10+ year member]

Here's a question..

Didn't I mention earlier that I was pretty sure the 'rules of war' (which would be governed by the Geneva Convention) prohibited the killing of the leader of a sovereign nation? To which there were several replies that CNN (and or some other news agencies) said that once war starts, all rules go out the window? I believe I recall reading "anything goes"?.. So, if the US is willing to use the premise that 'anything goes' once war starts so we get to target and kill the rightfull leader of a sovereign nation, why are so many people complaining about Saddam's tactics? Killing POWs, I mean, it's war, right? anything goes? using hospitals to store military fighting hardware? using civilians as shields? putting troops in civilian clothes? waving surrender flags then shooting?.. if 'anything goes', then why are people so bent on pointing out all these issues when no one seems to care about the US planning on/trying to kill the leader of a nation? Granted, I could be mistaken about not supposed to target/attempt to kill a leader, but I'm pretty sure you aren't supposed to..

In the same vein.. War used to be faught in a 'gentalmans' way.. that is, troops would march onto the field facing the opposing side.. they would form rows/columns and advance on eachother.. once we had muskets, they would stand ~40 yards apart and the front line would shoot.. then the ones left standing would walk to the back and reload while the next 'rank' would shoot.. The side with the troops left won (or if the other side routed..).. Eventually, the method changed for one side.. they set ambushes so they could win against superior numbers.. and I'm pretty sure the losing side screamed FOUL!! that's not fair.. waaaaaaaa.. Eventually it became standard practice to set traps (ambush type) and have flanking attacks, etc etc etc.. made things much more interesting and 'sporting' if you will..

So, now, facing losing odds Saddam is twisting the 'rules' again, to try and make sure he wins (regardless of how futile it is, we have plenty of troops to send in, even if they aren't in the Middle East yet, and as soon as he uses Chem/Bio weaps if he has them, the global community will pounce too).. Granted, what he is doing is a slap in the face.. it sucks for things to be so obscure and confused as to make 'war' even more difficult.. but doesn't it make sense to use all you have at your disposal to try and win? Do everything you can to get an advantage, especially when the odds are so overwhelmingly (sp) against you?

Do I like the idea of shooting POWs? NO.. do I like the idea of using civilians as shields? NO.. do I like the fact that we have to have ALL surrenderers treated as hostile until they are all face down and zip-tied to make sure they won't shoot? NO.. Do I like the idea of hiding troops in civilian clothes? NO.. but is it reasonable to do it in these circumstances? unfortunately, I have to say yes.. Just like I think it's pretty pathetic that our government didn't take into account that a total psycho madman at the end of his options might do this stuff..

Anyway.. If the rules of war truely do say we can't kill the leader of a sovereign nation, then we have NO business complaining about Saddam's 'violations' of the Geneva Convention.. If, of course, there is no such rule (never has been), then we are justified in complaining.. still doesn't mean it should be a suprise ..

 

[joshpoints 10+ year member]

Originally posted by CarAudioAddict How is it justified?

 

The reason troops were sent in is because Saddam had WOMD. As of yet, there is absolutley NO proof as to whether he has any or not. There is circumstantial evidence, but no proof. I don't know about you guys but if I was convicted of a crime on circumstantial evidence I would fight it to the end. Guilty or not, circumstantial evidence CANNOT be used as proof.

 

The closest proof there is of him having WOMD is the SUSPECTED chem plant they found. This plant was painted to match the color of the terrain, and has an electric fence surrounding it. But for all we know it is Saddams Ammunitions Depot, or even a hideout.

 

The only link I know of between Al-qaeda and Saddam is a money/weapons trail (feel free to post evidence to the contrary). So Saddam was NOT responsible for teh 9/11 bombings, that excuse for the war is moot.

 

The regime change excuse, is just that - AN EXCUSE. If the world felt that Iraq needed a regime change they would have done it 12 years ago.

 

So at the moment there is NO legitimate reason for invading Iraq, and so the war is NOT justified.

 

 

WWII was justified. Hitler was attepting to conquer the world, and was consumed with hatred toward the jewish people (his life was once saved by a Jewish person). Also WWII has NO bearing on the current conflict and why people keep bringing it up is beyond me.

 

Your last sentence there is absolutely meaningless. All it does is show the attitude I mentioned earlier - "if your not American your not worth anything". I hate to tell you this, but AMERICANS ARE NOT BETTER THAN ANYONE, NOR IS ANYONE BETTER THAN AMERICANS. We are all human beings and so, on the whole, are equal.

You obviously don't know what you're talking about. First off he is in breach of the UN agreement and has been for 12 years. Let's use obvious evidence. #1 night vision#2 longer than allowable range rockets #3 GPS scrambling boxes. He is having his men dress as american soldiers and then killing those that surrender how do you justify this as a good leader? His sons were allowed to **** any women they wanted to. What about his concentration camps? CHildren are taught that he is a God. That they shall die and do anything he says, if they don't they are killed. How can you defend him? He continues to lie to the world.

I never said that if you aren't american you aren't worth anything, I said if you're German, French, or Russian you can't talk. We all know why I say Germany and France. Russia has no room to talk because they help Iraq breach the agreement after it was made by the UN. THis is why the UN is a joke. You have the typical liberal mindset that I disagree with. You believe that the world should wait until someone has done as much damage as Hitler or has the capability to do this. I believe you should fix the problem when it is in the smaller scale. Example of smaller scale breaking UN rules and killing his own citizens. It's funny the extreme Liberals don't want to help protect human rights in Iraq, yet this is supposed to be what they stand for.

 

[joshpoints 10+ year member]

So, if the US is willing to use the premise that 'anything goes' once war starts so we get to target and kill the rightfull leader of a sovereign nation, why are so many people complaining about Saddam's tactics?

THis is why I can't stand extreme liberals they make absolutely no sense. He is a murderer and governs by causing the citizens to fear him. THat's saying that you can't kill the president of a company that is on a shooting spree at his company. Both are murderers and deserve to be taken to justice. THere is not way the SAdam will surrender so that leaves us one choice to kill him. BUt ofcourse this liberal will not understand the common sense behind this because he doesn't recognize right from wrong. Liberal thinks, so what if he's killing his people he's the leader. I wish all you extreme liberals would go live in Iraq and be voluntary body shields for Sadam unlike the Iraqi citizens.

 

[CarAudioAddict 10+ year member]

"All's fair in love and war"

Isn't that how the saying goes.

When it comes to war, the "anything goes" analogy is about as true as it comes. As far a I've ever known the only real rule to war was "SURVIVE"

Why don't the US, Britain and Spanish troops dress up like Iraqi citizens (use some kind of obvious-not_so_obvious marker that the troops can use to determine who is who). Then the Iraqi soldiers won't know to shoot them. Or they'll figure it out and start shooting eachother (not knowing whether the other is Iraqi, or the other guys). Either way it helps.

 

[joshpoints 10+ year member]

Originally posted by joshpoints So, if the US is willing to use the premise that 'anything goes' once war starts so we get to target and kill the rightfull leader of a sovereign nation, why are so many people complaining about Saddam's tactics?

 

THis is why I can't stand extreme liberals they make absolutely no sense. He is a murderer and governs by causing the citizens to fear him. THat's saying that you can't kill the president of a company that is on a shooting spree at his company. Both are murderers and deserve to be taken to justice. THere is not way the SAdam will surrender so that leaves us one choice to kill him. BUt ofcourse this liberal will not understand the common sense behind this because he doesn't recognize right from wrong. Liberal thinks, so what if he's killing his people he's the leader. I wish all you extreme liberals would go live in Iraq and be voluntary body shields for Sadam unlike the Iraqi citizens.

THe U.S. has proved its point it's just some don't want to accept it. It's obvious the talks are not working. Let's try and put it in simple form for everyone.

There is a person that goes out and kills people and the police tell him stop it. He says okay then he buys illegal assult weapons, he says he doesn't have any. His close friends whose names we can't mentioned because he will kill then tell us otherwise. He continues to gather the weapons and we tell him stop it. He kills some more people and we want to arrest him, but he is surrounded by friends that have guns and won't let us. Do you continue allowing this person to break laws and kill people or do you kill him? Be honest. If you say leave him alone, you don't believe in the jail system and we should not have it. Anyone should do anything they want. But wait, this last sentence is exactly the ideology of liberals. Do anything you want as long as you don't hurt anyone. Then they twist this sentence to fit whatever agenda it is that they are pushing. If I disagree with their agenda I'm hurting their feelings, so I can't disagree right? Extreme liberalism has overran the schools in Ca., and I have no idea how I came out without them being able to brain wash me and prevent me from thinking independently. The liberals did win in the long run, as I am usually the only person that disagrees with the teacher and everyone ofcourse gets angry because they are brainwashed just like the teachers.The country will soon be going down the tubes at an accelerated rate. Generation X was the right label for us I guess. But we learn from the teaching of the twisted teaching of our elders.

 

[CarAudioAddict 10+ year member]

Originally posted by joshpoints You obviously don't know what you're talking about. First off he is in breach of the UN agreement and has been for 12 years. Let's use obvious evidence. #1 night vision#2 longer than allowable range rockets #3 GPS scrambling boxes. He is having his men dress as american soldiers and then killing those that surrender how do you justify this as a good leader? His sons were allowed to **** any women they wanted to. What about his concentration camps? CHildren are taught that he is a God. That they shall die and do anything he says, if they don't they are killed. How can you defend him? He continues to lie to the world.

I never said that if you aren't american you aren't worth anything, I said if you're German, French, or Russian you can't talk. We all know why I say Germany and France. Russia has no room to talk because they help Iraq breach the agreement after it was made by the UN. THis is why the UN is a joke. You have the typical liberal mindset that I disagree with. You believe that the world should wait until someone has done as much damage as Hitler or has the capability to do this. I believe you should fix the problem when it is in the smaller scale. Example of smaller scale breaking UN rules and killing his own citizens. It's funny the extreme Liberals don't want to help protect human rights in Iraq, yet this is supposed to be what they stand for.

WTF. I NEVER said Saddam was a good leader. In fact I have stated many times that he should be removed from power.

What you don't seem to understand is that I am against the WAR itself. The war cannot be justified. I will list a few of the reasons as you have obviously not read the entire thread.

1. Multiple, unrelated reasons for the war (disarm, 9/11 link, regime change)

2. Regime change reason was just an afterthought AFTER the war started

3. There is no proof as to whether Saddam has WOMD or not

4. All diplomatic/non-war channels were NOT pursued(sp?)

5. Bush has a personal agenda with Saddam (I know I said I'd leave him out, but this deserves to be said)

Read through the ENTIRE thread and you discover many other reasons, and proof to back them up.

I know that I cannot stop the war, but I do have the right to speak out against it. Speaking of rights. You said:

It's funny the extreme Liberals don't want to help protect human rights in Iraq, yet this is supposed to be what they stand for.

Of course I care about their rights!!!!

It's just that I realize that as long as Saddam is removed from power, with war or without it, the peoples rights will be restored to them. If Saddam was removed without war, the people would still be liberated. I f Saddam was removed without war, the oil would probably be sold at a lower price (its not control, but its better). Everything the war will accomplish could have been accomplished through diplomatic or non-war channels, and the loss of life would be next to zero.

 

[LWW 10+ year member]

http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/1899b.htm

Here are the Geneva Conventions. They deal with POW's mainly. There is to my knowledge no international traty prohibiting the assassination of a foreign leader so long as they are also a military commander during time of war. To do so in peacetime is an act of war. An example would be that Iraq would not be in violation to kill Tony Blair as he is head of state and military commander of British forces. To kill the Queen would be a violation because in spite of her title she serves no military function and is in reality closer to a private citizen.

Under President Carter there was a Presidential directive banning the intentional assassination of a foreign leader for any reason. This was rescinded by Dubya.

Long and short of it is we are operating legally and Saddamite Hussinsein isn't.

1. Multiple, unrelated reasons for the war (disarm, 9/11 link, regime change)

Again 2 reasons is better than 1 not worse. DUH!

2. Regime change reason was just an afterthought AFTER the war started

Regime change was in the news shortly after 9/11/01 dude.

3. There is no proof as to whether Saddam has WOMD or not

We have Saddam's own admission, as well as prior use, and refusal to show proof of their destruction. IF IN REALITY YOU HAD DESTROYED SOMETHING THAT POSSESSION OF WOULD LEAD TO THE DESTRUCTION OF YOUR COUNTRY WHY WOULD YOU NOT SUPPLY THE EVIDENCE?

4. All diplomatic/non-war channels were NOT pursued(sp?)

Name 1 that wasn't please.

5. Bush has a personal agenda with Saddam (I know I said I'd leave him out, but this deserves to be said)

This I don't disagree with. If you sent 11 agents to murder my father I would have an agenda against you also. MULTIPLE reasons does not lessen any other reason. By this logic if I rob a bank I should be arrested. If I kill the teller also you now have TWO reasons to arrest me which would void both! DUH!

PEACE

 

[Randy Savage 5,000+ posts]

How about all those biochemical suits they found in an Iraqi hospital last night, something like 6,000 of them? Also, I believe they found ammo and other weapons in an elementary school...

So Saddam doesn't have any chemical weapons, or plans on having them? Are the biochem suits just for Haloween?

 

[joshpoints 10+ year member]

Originally posted by snova031 How about all those biochemical suits they found in an Iraqi hospital last night, something like 6,000 of them? Also, I believe they found ammo and other weapons in an elementary school...

 

So Saddam doesn't have any chemical weapons, or plans on having them? Are the biochem suits just for Haloween?

Those suits are to protect the people from the U.S. we're the modern day Hitler right? LOL.

Quote

It's just that I realize that as long as Saddam is removed from power, with war or without it, the peoples rights will be restored to them. If Saddam was removed without war, the people would still be liberated.

Answer: You can't take him out of power without war. SHould we just send 10 men in and tell sadam to surrender? THis will really work well. All our men will end up on Iraqi television drug through the streets. But ofcourse this would not be enought proof to take him out of power even though part of the UN agreement was to treat his people humanely. Like I said before, those that still want proof would wait until Sadam could send nuclear weapons to attack the U.S.. Then we would have thousands of deaths.

One last thing about extreme liberals. I don't think they realize how evil people work. I think they are so perfect that they can't imagine how someone could do evil. This is why they are unable to think of what enemies may do to us, because they can't even fathom it.