How can a war with Iraq now be justified

UberLord · Mar 8, 2003, 09:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by fallang_jeff
when you say France, think the French government, not the French people...the "ilk" of France just want lower gas prices, less government in their lives, and a shorter work week, ha ha...

That statement applies to the rest of the world as well...

JavaFox · Mar 8, 2003, 10:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by UberLord
It has not sanctioned miliitary action no matter which way you slice the cake

The only way you could say that, Uber, would be if you had not read UN documents.

Have you?

JavaFox · Mar 8, 2003, 10:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by raid517
Well I still say this is purely a technically. If you’re willing to see thousands die on the basis of a technicality, then I guess that's a moral choice you would have to make. You see no problem with the idea of a virtual blood fest, when everything the US says it desires could be achieved in under 4 weeks without spilling any blood at all. Cripes it will probably take 4 weeks to finish any way anyway. So what would you have to loose? This is why I think this is much more than just about saving Iraqi people. If that was what it was about why did Madeline Albright in the previous administration say that killing a million Iraqi children was 'worthwhile'. Politicians are not all soft and 'fuzzy wuzzy' types of people, they are much more hardball much more cynical than that. I still say this is nuts - and people who want to rush to start the killing are even more nuts than anyone else. You could still have your stoopid war in 4 weeks, if Saddam even remotely stepped out of line. But oh well if killing for killings sake is your thing, then I doubt you will be dissuaded.

Q

Give me a break, Raid. Nobody wants killing for killing's sake. Statements like that are worthless in the context of intelligent debate. My position has been clear -- I view this war to help humanity and promote peace in four important ways. You may disagree with that, but that's what I believe.

raid517 · Mar 8, 2003, 10:26 PM

And I believe differently. In the "context of an intelligent debate" I wonder how smart it really is to contemplate killing thousands needlessly. From where I stand these issues don't even seem to weigh on your, or any other conservative's minds. Its almost like you lack a conscience. I'm not even saying no war. All I am saying is in the context of a full legal and moral framework and given the possibility that one month and one month only could save many unnecessary deaths, what difference to anyone would this 4 weeks make? Its just about having all your t's crossed and all your i's dotted. Considering the entire world of hurt it would avoid, with everyone in the world - and particularly many aggressive Arab countries in the world already accusing you of adventurism, this short time does not seem like so much of a compromise. Indeed if things worked well, it would be the biggest victory imaginable. The Canadian plan does not allow vagaries, it sets out real targets to be achieved and when they should be achieved by. If Saddam missed even one of these deadlines, then it would be a cause for war.

Q

UberLord · Mar 8, 2003, 10:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by JavaFox
The only way you could say that, Uber, would be if you had not read UN documents.

Have you?

Yes I have.

Strangely enough, I'd say that the French, China, Germany, Russia and other anti-war nations have as well.

Your point?

Vampyromaniac · Mar 8, 2003, 11:21 PM

Please clarify for me . . .

The previous resolutions say that (at the situation we are in now):

A: military action will be taken to disarm Iraq
- or -
B: military action may be taken to disarm Iraq

~~bluelight~~ · Mar 9, 2003, 03:35 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by JavaFox
We aren't bypassing the UN. We are in full compliance under Chapter 7, Resolution 1441, Resolution 678, and others.

If you need details, I would be more than happy to supply them.

If any country in the security council lays a veto or if you do not get enough votes in favour of you way in the next vote and you still attack....then...you are doing so outside of the UN.

Simple

If it was ok for you to attack now why would you even bother to get accordance for it in the security council??

Why are they voting about it?

Think...
'

Why would the leaders pass weeks with the same issue...If...all was cleared??

No Javafaox you are wrong.

Bluelight

The_Neon_Cowboy · Mar 9, 2003, 04:49 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by bluelight
I suggest you read this before you dig up any more "funny" comics about how dreadful..."the others" are and how incredibly good you are.

Iraq Usa 1988

BlueLight

.....a quote frim the website "A resource for activists "

.....and for eample.... articals come from sourses like electroniciraq.net

..... most articals are written by people and posted by people with no accountabilty, Like the tabloids, they can say just about anything with no need for any foundation of truth....... to call these creditable sourses would be the same to say....that all tabliods are 100 percent factual... and that iraq is and allways has been 100% compliant to 1441... the world is flat ..... etc....

I mean come on some of the site portray that only a few people in the america are behind this even? try over 50% of the poulation that make it the magorityof such site sites.... are loaded with BullS***

gee the kinda of people that would support "tree huggers" who spike trees in logging areas to damage logging equipment and often KILL innocent loggers who are only doing thier job.

The_Neon_Cowboy · Mar 9, 2003, 04:54 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by bluelight
Im still waiting for anyone of you to explain why you continued to deliver arms to Saddam after he had used helicopters you sold to him to kill 5000 people with nervegas.

After this the senate said...no no..no more arms to Saddam from us (something you had been selling to him for ten years)....

but....your government said...yes yes yes...we will continue to sell arms to Saddam even though he has killed 5000 peole with nervegas.

Then they continued doing so (from 88) to the start of the Kuwait war.

You got some bleeding nerve...to accuse anyone.....when are to the kneedeep in shit yourselves..

Pathetic.

BlueLight

So who cares? I sure don't if he didn't have the hellacopters he would of just did it with a warhead/missle/or other means instead. It's like saying I bought this gun in france and then went and killed some one then its the frenches fault not mine... well they sold it to me! same logic being used here

The_Neon_Cowboy · Mar 9, 2003, 04:56 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by JavaFox
Um, helloooooo, bluelight! American foreign policy has always always always --with few exceptions-- been about supporting the lesser of the two evils. And at the time of the Iran-Iraq War, the US found Islamic fundementalism to be more dangerous than Saddam. Yes, this type of foreign policy may strike other nations as inconsistent (we support someone, only to turn against them a decade or two later), but it is deeply moral. At any rate, given the current climate of the world, and the events that have occured since the Iran-Iraq War, it's pretty safe to say that Americans were right about Islamic fundementalism.

correct...." the enemy of my enemy is my friend" so to speak

The_Neon_Cowboy · Mar 9, 2003, 05:02 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by UberLord
Look at it this way. Americans like to think that the US the is the land of the free, the greatest nation in the world right? I happen to think that I'm the greatest person in the world as well, but if I went going around telling all my friends what to do regardless of what they think then I'd be out of friends real fast. I mean proper friends, not the kind of friends that a few drinks down the bar buys.

Having no friends is awful lonely. So yeah - the US and the UK (the main nations wanting war) should listen to what the majority of others are saying instead of giving the UN the finger and going gung-ho.

The world would be a much better place if everyone was friends. Not overly friendly of course - we'd like the Flame Warzone to be a bit more active for example

well if the un is going to piddle paddle around and sit on their hands when thier own resloutions are being voilated the us the Us will step up and inforce them. After this war is over it will be buisness as useal ... I gree with you on two parts ....

"The world would be a much better place if everyone was friends"

we'd like the Flame Warzone to be a bit more active

~~bluelight~~ · Mar 9, 2003, 05:23 AM

Well i didnt expect you to bother about it either.

Everything about Usa`s role in the above article is true.Im not gonna dig up more to convince.I know its true both from Americamns European and other sources-.

I am also fifty years old and i remeber clearly the incident and its consequenses when reported in media 88.

I also remeber very clearly that the senate said no...we do not continue exporting to Iraq.I also remeber clearly that the morally highstanding r e p u b l i c a n government at the time overruled this.

I also remeber that the American government defended the use of American helicopters by saying they were un armed when sold to Saddam.Well he didnt need them armed to kill 5000 people.

I also remember when the reports came about Saddam using nervegas against Iran.Usa had no bigger problem with that either.

Ypour and others talk about the morals of Europe is utterly ridiculous.

Finally...you want more action in the flame zone....well s sugeest you go over there and stay there cause if i see you call me retarded as you did in a general statement about people opposing to war i will report your post.

Moral...yeah right..

Bluelight

~~bluelight~~ · Mar 9, 2003, 05:24 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by The_Neon_Cowboy
correct...." the enemy of my enemy is my friend" so to speak

Well of course.....how brilliant.

That shows true moral.

BlueLight

The_Neon_Cowboy · Mar 9, 2003, 05:45 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by raid517
Saddam has said he will not burn the oil fields. If anyone tries they are dead. The oil fields are the first thing that will be 'liberated' when the war starts. Thousands of Special Forces troops are waiting for the signal to go now.

And who really has been the biggest recipient of Iraqi oil over these last 12 years? France? Germany? No! It’s the good old god loving, we're so superior USA. Should I say that that is evil too, just like you accused France and Germany of?

Um who set oil freld a balze in desert storm? aparently you dont know so try IRAQ/saddom

yea no biggys useing iraq oil lets see russia....

Iraq informed Lukoil -- Russia's largest oil company -- that it was cancelling a 1997 contract worth a reported $3.8 billion.

http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe...raq/index.html

That was just one contract ....Iraq saysupport war, or couse any trouble for us and No OIL for you!!!

and who's trying to free up iraq's oil? countries like France

French propose new Iraqi inspection program, end of oil embargo
http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9901/....02/index.html

Quote:

Originally posted by raid517

So you want me to prove the US has nuclear weapons? Mmm that’s a tough one... But OK, hang on while I hook up to my local spy satellite. Ahh... that's it, here we go... http://www.fas.org/irp/imint/doe.htm Seems pretty clear to me... There are now quite a few commercial spy satellites in space, so long as you have enough money you can pretty much see anything. In fact if you think your GF is cheating on you, you can hire time on some Russian spy satellites to check... The Bottom line is, if you want to find WMD, it isn't really so hard. Isn't the internet an amazingly interesting and useful thing?
[/b]

yea we openly admit the we have nukes! you missed the point.... But what if we had never used them and we said we didn't have any ? your proof would be?- none...but tell me where they are? the exact locations? - LOL you can't

Quote:

Originally posted by raid517

Well make up your mind, either
they should look for them, in which case Saddam isn't complying by offering the information without the UN having to search, or he offers them up willingly and without restrictions as is demanded in the Canadian proposal, which means it would take a month to complete the job. However the US has refused to even consider this compromise, thus making it practically impossible for Iraq to comply.

The UN did a pretty good job of the intelligence it had without the US, if the US couldn't supply any evidence, it looked for it elsewhere. In this case it got satellite imagery from Russia and France, and spy photography from French Mirage jets and night photography from specialist Russian aircraft designed specifically to spot movement of nuclear and other material at night time. It also had intelligence from at least 6 other intelligence services around the world - all of which were no doubt (and by your own estimation) a lot more forthcoming than the Americans. Indeed so good was the intelligence that the UN had, it found and inspected 27 additional suspect sites

And the Germans sold nuclear technology? Lets see what the Nrw York Times has to say about that:

So there's a bit of a stink of where these machines actually came from. It appears at that time the US is one of only a few countries who had the technology to produce them. Just to check though I did a search of Google http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en...22buy%22&meta= and I found that it is really incredibly easy to buy Electron Beam Welders, indeed I even found a very nice second hand one at a knock down price: http://www.wme-inc.com/ So maybe I could buy one from America and start my own nuclear research program? It seems easy enough to do.
Also see: http://www.sundayherald.com/31710

well there aot of things you can buy and mise use.. try mixing dot3 barke fluid and dry pool clorene some time you get a nice 1500 deg supirze.. so does that mean we can have barkes on out cars or keep pols clean? NO

Quote:

Originally posted by raid517

Yes their going ahead no matter what. Unfortunately it would take Iraq (think of Iraq like a huge oil tanker - oh but then your government already do) it would literally take a month to turn this tanker around, but your government isn't willing to offer them this chance to disarm.

Well there is a lot at stake here. More than money, more than oil, more than anything, it is the very reputation of America that has been placed on the line. Will you find WMD? I sure hope so, despite the recriminations, as this might heal some of the differences that will certainly exist if you do not. As for having additional intelligence. It is possible that your government could have access to information which we do not. After all it is your government who sold him much of the nuclear and arms technology that he allegedly now possesses. Maybe they still have a list of this?

Well how you quantify 0% and 15% I don't know. Hans Blick said that Iraqi co-operation was 'substantial and improving daily'. I think, given that it is his team doing the inspections, he is ni a better position to judge than you and I.

:

Who will gain the most economically and financially after a successful war with Iraq ? France? Nope! Germany? Nope! America? Yup!

Erm.. How about Hewit Packard, IBM and Xerox to name but a few?

Well I think you covered that one yourself. You did say these things were sold unknowingly. So you can't imply they are complicit in this.

Anyhoo I'm glad you felt the need to quote me so extensively. It makes this so much more interesting for me. Keep it up for as long as you want and I will keep responding. I am happy to keep refuting everything you say.

Anyway, more information on Iraq's nuclear program...

http://www.ceip.org/files/nonprolif/...sp?NewsID=4379

I wonder if one day I will run out of links to post? Perhaps it might happen in a few years or so. In any case i will be quite happy to keep posting until I do.

Have fun!

Q

you see after war there will be aot of people eating thier words ... (might be Me lol) only time will tell

The_Neon_Cowboy · Mar 9, 2003, 05:47 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by raid517
Well there certainly would be a short term economic boom after a war. I would expect it might last just long enough to get Bush re-elected.

Q

yea just like after world war 2 .... try huge and long .......... war is big business

The_Neon_Cowboy · Mar 9, 2003, 05:50 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by bluelight
Well of course.....how brilliant.

That shows true moral.

BlueLight

no it show brains...enemys to fighting each other.. - priceless

raid517 · Mar 9, 2003, 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by The_Neon_Cowboy
Um who set oil freld a balze in desert storm? aparently you dont know so try IRAQ/saddom

Not much chance of that happening this time. I think something like 50,000 Special Forces specifically trained troops are waiting to take care of that one. Saddam won't have time to do anything.

Quote:

yea no biggys useing iraq oil lets see russia....

Well Russia was a small consumer of Iraqi oil; they have a big enough supply of their own. They did however help the Iraqis develop these oil reserves for others. The biggest consumer of Iraqi oil over these last 12 years is, that's right, you've guessed it... the USA....

[quote] Iraq informed Lukoil -- Russia's largest oil company -- that it was cancelling a 1997 contract worth a reported $3.8 billion. [/QUOTE ]

So what has that got to do with anything, or even the current crises? Contracts get confirmed and cancelled all the time. If the Russians hadn't helped produce Iraqi oil for you, you might have had to invade much sooner, as it would have been hard to live without it.

Quote:

And who's trying to free up Iraq’s oil? Countries like France.

So are you saying that there isn't a plan to massively increase oil production after an invasion? To frikin right there is. You will see oil prices plummet (though not so much that it puts US domestic oil producers out of business).

Quote:

yea we openly admit the we have nukes! you missed the point.... But what if we had never used them and we said we didn't have any ? your proof would be?- none...but tell me where they are? the exact locations? - LOL you can't

Well give me $55 and I will be happy to try to spot some for you. That is how much it costs to buy some time on Russian spy satellites these days. Not very expensive at all. In any case some of the images I supplied you of were American nuclear bases. They had American nuclear bombs there. Didn't you understand what you were looking at?

[QUOTE/]well there aot of things you can buy and se use.. try mixing dot3 brake fluid and dry pool clorene some time you get a nice 1500 deg supirze.. so does that mean we can have barkes on out cars or keep pols clean? NO

Well an electron beam welder is a tad different from a crude chemical reaction. I don't see any potential for anyone to be dropping brake fluid on anyone’s head any time soon. But equipment that can be used in the manufacture of enriched uranium is quite another matter. You blame the French for selling this material, when in fact the majority came from the USA. So who is more to blame? I suspect you will say the French, because the comics and cartoons you read have told you not to like them.

Quote:

you see after war there will be aot of people eating their words ... (might be be lol) only time will tell

Well I sure hope you do find some pretty major stuff - and that this is confirmed by an independent verification body, otherwise America's name in the world will be trash. I don't want to see that happen. It would also shut a lot of potential terrorist up, as they couldn't say it was all about oil or robbing the Arabs any more. So We wouldn't need to worry so much about more terrorism happening as a result of this war.

In any case I'm sure none of this is going to change your mind. Evidence apparently does not play a major part in your thinking. I guess when a couple of hundred thousand are dead (about the same who died in the last war) then maybe you can search for what it has so far proved so difficult to find. Its ironing that many, many times more people will die in this war (Americans and British included) than ever died in the September 11th attack. The numbers just don't add up.

Q

~~bluelight~~ · Mar 9, 2003, 01:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by The_Neon_Cowboy
no it show brains...enemys to fighting each other.. - priceless

Yeah finally i understand....exacly like hyenas do...

Well at this time when this..happened..Your friend Saddams deeds. Saddam was not...your enemy........

Yeah like Hyenas..

Bluelight

raid517 · Mar 9, 2003, 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by The_Neon_Cowboy
yea just like after world war 2 .... try huge and long .......... war is big business

On that we agree... Although oddly you appear to enjoy the idea. It kind of highlights many of the things people have said here. America is in the middle of a economic slump. A war might help lift her out of it in the short term. Its this idea of "War for profit" that I have problems with.

Q

Falstaff · Mar 9, 2003, 02:39 PM

I remember 12 years ago, feeling terribly full of beans and intent on showing the world what my crew on my ship the USS MISSOURI BB-63, could do, with missles and technology that reaped havoc on the occupying forces in Kuwait. Saddam Hussien was already a household word at my dinner table, and I remember telling my son and my daughter that I had a job to do, get rid of Saddam, end the occupation and change the balance of power in the middle east. They looked glazed and indifferent, they asked me why the United States wanted to go clear across the world to solve a problem that was the responsibility of all the nieghboring states. "BECAUSE WE CAN", I told them and began to question my motives as well. I had no doubts about the mission, and no doubts about the outcome, but after the trip there, the long hours a general quarters and the drone cams of destruction in Kuwait and Iraq, I often wondered if the whole darn thing was justified. Today I pulled out my Medals and looked at them again. I found the magnificent gold one from Saudi Arabia, and I recalled how scared I really was. Yeah, we won, but we didn't finish the job. And now, with the same degree of justification, we approach the brink of another terrible war. I served proudly, I obeyed without the question my orders and did my duty, and now my children are old enough to go to war, I am even more scared now than I have ever been.
Is the war in IRAQ justified? I just don't know anymore. All you have to see are charred bodies and smell burning flesh and fuel to really polarize your thinking, War is absolutely the last thing I think the United States should do, before we give up. I don't know about anyone else, but unless you see the terrible outcomes you can't appreciate the lasting effect of annihalation on a grand scale.
The United States has fantastic power, and we can and will use it whether the american people or the citizens of the world like it or not.
Justification for war? God forgive us if this turns into one of the biggest conflicts of this century..

raid517 · Mar 9, 2003, 02:55 PM

My fear is that there will be a short war that will appear relatively successful.. at least initially. But really I'm afraid that the war will never end. Half the Muslim world has threatened to declare war on the US (their governments haven't as many are largely funded by US money) but their leaders and religious clerics have - and that is the most worrisome prospect of all. They could be placated. But the West would have to be very careful in its approach - do everything above board, make sure they have the full legal and moral support of the UN and put the question beyond doubt. This seems to be the wise course of action. However no one seems to be pursuing the wise course of action. War is always a possible resolution, but it shouldn't be the first resolution, not when other possibilities still exist.

On a side note, it looks like elements of the Canadian plan are winning through (I just heard the news). Now a list of specific questions will be put to the Iraqis and a specific amount of time given for them to answer them. How much time and how much of the Canadian plan will be implemented remains to be seen.

Q