Some reasons we should go to war with Iraq

Classified, Top Secret, Burn After Reading

Moderators: pablo banquo, Gobo, Bag of Ass, SporkAndrew

Messina
Disciple
Posts: 122
Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2002 10:06 pm
Location: Goleta, CA

Some reasons we should go to war with Iraq

Postby Messina » Wed Sep 04, 2002 3:47 am

Leave it to the Brits to concisely state what it's all (well, mostly) about:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-397407,00.html

Some of this stuff I haven't heard before. Some, I have. I hear rumors that more is going to be released soon in the US and the UK. If you are further interested in the evidence, I think going to google and looking up Khidir Hamzah (former nuclear scientist in Iraq), Richard Butler (Aussie UNSCOM guy), and Scott Ritter (UNSCOM from US I think) would be a good start. Actually, I am not sure any of these gentleman support military action against Iraq, but they are knowledgeable about Iraqi capabilities, past and present. But war is too important to be left to international bureaucrats and former nuclear scientists.

Of course, the whole weapons thing is only part of it. Getting rid of Hussein is also in the strategic interests of the US, Europe, and the Middle East as a whole. And this doesn't even touch on the morality of freeing the people of Iraq from an oppressive regime. Etcetera, etcetera. And yes, I am aware there is oil in the region.

Yes, I am a hawk. On to Baghdad.

User avatar
Too-Much-Coffee Mistress
Old Maid
Posts: 6045
Joined: Mon Aug 26, 2002 5:52 am

Reasons we should damned well not...

Postby Too-Much-Coffee Mistress » Wed Sep 04, 2002 5:25 am

First, Bush's reasons for wanting to turn Iraq into a parking lot are anything but altruistic, and have more to do with his approval ratings finally starting to dip. He figures finishing up the job daddy didn't finish will make people like him again.

Secondly, outside of wavering support from Britain (and most of that from Blair), there is hardly a country in the EU that supports action against Iraq. Moscow has come out against it (possibly because of economic overtures towards Hussein.)

Third, US govt. officials have pretty much told the Israeli's that if they attacked Iraq, we wouldn't be disclosing the location of our troop movements or attacks, so it would be easy to 'accidentally' shoot them. We like to create tension wherever we go...

:twisted: Oy, am I tired.
"The release of atom power has changed everything except our way of thinking...the solution to this problem lies in the heart of mankind. If only I had known, I should have become a watchmaker." - Albert Einstein

User avatar
Lobstrosity
Scientific American
Posts: 5212
Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2002 7:38 pm
Location: San Diego, California

Postby Lobstrosity » Wed Sep 04, 2002 5:32 am

I do agree that there are quite a few benefits to be obtained from removing Sadam from power. I, however, am not in favor of our taking military action. There are regimes all over the world that are equally as "bad" and we do nothing about them. We freely trade with China even though bribary is a capital offense and google.com is a banned website. Furthermore, many of other countries have weapons programs. We probably have the most active weapons program and I'm sure have extensively experimented with biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons. I don't think we should attack someone simply because their having weapons is inconvenient for us. For example, we are currently building a missile defense system (not that I think it will ever work, but that's beside the point). Nearly every other nation is opposed to our having such a system. Should they band together and attack us to prevent its construction? You could argue that ours is for defense while Iraq's is for offense, but I don't think the distinction is important (I guess I can explain why if someone chooses to challenge this).

In today's day and age, developed nations do not settle their disputes through war. If England is doing something we don't like, we don't bomb them for it. It just seems like using violence to coerce the rest of the world into doing what we want is a great way to get everyone to hate us. It also sounds a whole lot like what the USSR used to do. I respect Colin Powell a great deal and even he is urging Bush not to rush into an attack on Iraq. See, the funny thing is that the White House has indicated it now wants to attack Iraq even if they agree to let weapons inspectors back in. They just seem gungho about getting their military action on and I really can't see why this one evil regime of many deserves such attention. What about the other members of the "Axis of Evil"? I'm not insane-with-anger-opposed to attacking Iraq...it's just that something about it feels wrong.

Messina
Disciple
Posts: 122
Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2002 10:06 pm
Location: Goleta, CA

Postby Messina » Wed Sep 04, 2002 7:28 am

First to Too-Much-Coffee-Man:

1. It doesn't matter what you think Bush's motives are. Hussein needs to be taken care of.

2. It doesn't matter if all of the nations of Europe aren't for it. If it needs to be done, it needs to be done. If you are saying that some of these countries are making a good case against military action, fine. But just because they don't agree with us does not make them right. And yes, I believe Russia has a bunch of loans that they want payed back.

3. I am not sure what the third paragraph meant. That we would easily shoot Israelis while in Iraq? I mean, there is an entire nation (Jordan) between the two. Maybe I misunderstand

To Lostro:

1. Saying that we do the wrong thing elsewhere has nothing to do with doing the right thing here.

2. Attacking China and attacking Iraq are significantly different undertakings. As a wise man once said "Don't get into land wars in Asia". Inconceivable! But seriously, folks.

3. Comparing Iraq to Britain should be taken as an insult by Britain. They are not morally equivalent.

3. When developing nations (or whatever you would classify Iraq as) seek to exploit the power of nuclear weapons etc., this is a very bad thing. The fact that nations like the US have them has nothing to do with it. Anyone who would rather Hussein have nuclear weapons than the US has serious problems understanding right and wrong.

4. Feels wrong? To me it feels wrong letting Hussein get a hold of nuclear weapons.

5. I disagree with your characterization of the US "throwing its weight around". What WE want happens also to be in the interests of the rest of the world. You yourself talk about the benefits, but offer no way of achieving them. We are the world's lone superpower and with that comes a great responsibility. I think leaving Hussein in power is abdicating that responsibility.

Thanks.

Foo-Byte
I am Finbarr Saunders
Posts: 5517
Joined: Mon Aug 26, 2002 12:24 pm
Location: RI, USA

Postby Foo-Byte » Wed Sep 04, 2002 12:49 pm

It's a common conception world-wide that the USA is the bully of the world. If the USA wants something, it will do whatever it takes to get it - be it miltary action, economic sanctions, trade wars, whatever. That and the fact that the USA rarely plays well in international colaborations too, even with its so-called allies.
Maybe (just maybe) if the USA was a little more friendly it wouldn't have to worry about middle eastern counties trying to nuke it...

User avatar
Rob
Oh yes.
Posts: 6715
Joined: Sat Aug 24, 2002 6:03 pm
Location: Nantwich, Cheshire, UK
Contact:

Postby Rob » Wed Sep 04, 2002 2:12 pm

Good point Foo, and without wanting to join a discussion where I'm clearly out of my depth, this is one of "our*" problems with the US attitude to the Kyoto agreement.

Basically, the US seems to be able to pick and choose what it wants to do, it can enter agreements one day and choose to break them the next, as best suits it's interests of the day.

But when other nations act the same way, well...


Messina, your point, 'I disagree with your characterization of the US "throwing its weight around". What WE want happens also to be in the interests of the rest of the world.' surely depends on who in the world you are and where in the world you're looking at this from?

Or did the rest of the world all get together at some point and agree that whatever the US tells us is best for the rest of the world, really is is best for the rest of the world; no questions asked, like, Guvnor?

When did being the lone superpower automatically make you right in everything you decide to do?



*As in, yer average Brit in the street, sharing general European concern at how our governments automatically just back the US up (regardless of the situation or climate), and thus effectively give the US administration a mandate to do whatever the hell it is they decide to do each day.
See"...Infrequent, sporadic, frustrating, occasionally going in the wrong direction..."
read the continuing adventures of the world's most useless boring bastard over at LJ - now somewhat less continued!

Messina
Disciple
Posts: 122
Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2002 10:06 pm
Location: Goleta, CA

Postby Messina » Wed Sep 04, 2002 4:40 pm

Foo-Byte wrote:the USA rarely plays well in internatinoal colaborations


There is a reason we don't "play well" in international collaborations: they are ineffective. It was the UN that got in the way of taking out Hussein the in first place. It is interesting that all of these people are calling for a UN ok for this, but they don't say if in the UN they will support it. If they don't support it, the UN is just a cover for them.


Messina, your point, 'I disagree with your characterization of the US "throwing its weight around". What WE want happens also to be in the interests of the rest of the world.' surely depends on who in the world you are and where in the world you're looking at this from?


Generally, I disagree. Unless you are referring to Hussein's interests, which I don't consider equivalent in any sense to US or EU interests. I am not a moral relativist.

Nobody says that everyone has to agree with the US on everything. But when the US thinks something needs to be done, we need to do it. You can support us our not. That is your choice. Most of your sentiments have been characterizing the US as the problem, fine. But none of these arguments have much to do with the need to get rid of the Iraqi regime. And no country to my knowledge has attempted to make any argument against taking out Hussein; they have focused on how terrible the US is for gasp! doing something without the UN's approval. If you don't support it, tell us why. Don't hide behind a call to come to the UN so you can vote us down in the general assembly along with Syria, Iran, and that great humanitarian country, soon to be chair of the Human Rights Council, Libya.

User avatar
Rob
Oh yes.
Posts: 6715
Joined: Sat Aug 24, 2002 6:03 pm
Location: Nantwich, Cheshire, UK
Contact:

Postby Rob » Wed Sep 04, 2002 5:36 pm

Messina wrote:
Messina, your point, 'I disagree with your characterization of the US "throwing its weight around". What WE want happens also to be in the interests of the rest of the world.' surely depends on who in the world you are and where in the world you're looking at this from?

Generally, I disagree. Unless you are referring to Hussein's interests, which I don't consider equivalent in any sense to US or EU interests. I am not a moral relativist.


Well, I'm stunned. So from your exclusive vantage point you can make a fair and meaningful judgement of the moral value of Hussein's (or anyone else's) interests?


Messina wrote:Nobody says that everyone has to agree with the US on everything. But when the US thinks something needs to be done, we need to do it. You can support us our not. That is your choice.


But when your actions might lead directly to an escalation of hostility which might eventually affect other nations, you must be held accountable to the rest of the world for your decisions and actions.

Or not; I guess that some of you people really do think you have a global mandate to do whatever the hell you want to do.

You're not global citizens, you're just drunk with the realisation that no-one can stop you from furthering your own interests at every turn.


It's a good job really that you are the only superpower these days; had you any real opposition anywhere, the world would probably be an utter wasteland by now.


I find this whole discussion incredibly depressing, to be honest. In the interests of preserving some element of harmony within the forum I think I'll respect your global superiority and refrain from making any further observations on this subject, because I can feel my blood beginning to boil at what I consider to be a typically appalling American attitude.
See"...Infrequent, sporadic, frustrating, occasionally going in the wrong direction..."
read the continuing adventures of the world's most useless boring bastard over at LJ - now somewhat less continued!

User avatar
Dynagrip
<b>Gossip</b> columnist
Posts: 6537
Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2002 7:53 pm

Postby Dynagrip » Wed Sep 04, 2002 5:51 pm

Well in day to day conversation, I haven't found too many people that support an attack on Iraq, as in I have found zero people in person that support it.

The sticking points seem to be what would an invasion hope to accomplish. It's not like any weapons would magically vanish if Saddam was deposed. Not too mention, how would an interim government be set up in Iraq? It would more than likely have no popular support, and America would have to garrison yet another unstable nation, which would be a big strain on our economy.

Let's not forget the rest of the area. It's obvious that the Islamic nations in the Middle East are really, really against an attack on Iraq. They have a right to be, any attack could lead to refugees and such pouring across their borders, not only that, but these nations might also have to actually take some kind of stand against the US to appease their fundamentalist populations.

And could we pull an invasion of fast enough to keep Saddam from lashing out against say Israel, with any 'weapons of mass destruction' he may have? Should we just say fuck it, Israel is on their own, if we storm into Bahgdad?

It just seems like a very halfassed idea to me, with a very small chance of a payoff, and most likely would just result in a huge shitstorm in the middle east. Besides although US is still the only superpower, we can't constantly charge off on our own, the European Union is starting to be a little bit more cohesive, and economically they're pretty fucking big. China and Russia still have a say in foreign affairs as well.

Anyhoo, that's all I've got at this point. Basically I don't think we should charge off into another invasion unless there's international consensus and we know what the fuck we're doing.

User avatar
Groovis
Forum Jesus
Posts: 1570
Joined: Mon Aug 26, 2002 6:03 pm
Location: RI, USA

Postby Groovis » Wed Sep 04, 2002 5:53 pm

Problem with playing the humanitarian card: we go to war and start bombing them. We will hit Civ targets. We currently aren't to popular (in the Mid East) due to the embargo and the No Fly. We start killing Civvies again, the world community and ANY fascade of friendship of 'troublesome' nations will fall away and there will likely be hell to pay.

Frankly, I don't want my hard earned money paying for a) the missiles to blow up a building and b) going toward the aid to _rebuild_ the building. I barely want to pay for half the fuckers in office's pay checks, but I do it, because Federal Prison doesn't appeal to me.

(edit: more of a can of worms than I am willing to open at the moment...)

Messina
Disciple
Posts: 122
Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2002 10:06 pm
Location: Goleta, CA

Postby Messina » Wed Sep 04, 2002 6:18 pm

Well, I'm stunned. So from your exclusive vantage point you can make a fair and meaningful judgement of the moral value of Hussein's (or anyone else's) interests?


I am not saying that my opinion is a moral fact. It is an opinion. They say a liberal is someone who is too open minded to take his own side in an argument. Indeed. Please tell me how any of the precious international bodies can make any judgements whatsoever if no single person ever makes any judgements? That is the point of debate. I make my judgement and you make yours, and we discuss. Simply because I state my opinion doesn't mean I am some totalitarian bully with "exclusive" rights to moral opinion, as you seem to be saying about me. Chalk up my first personal attack; there are bound to be many more I guess, considering how evil and appalling I am.

But when your actions might lead directly to an escalation of hostility which might eventually affect other nations, you must be held accountable to the rest of the world for your decisions and actions.


That is absolutely true. Hold us accountable for our actions however you see fit. Criticize us when you feel the need. But disagreeing with everything we want to do simply because we are the most powerful makes you look petty, envious, and immature, as nations and as people.
Again, you keep focusing on the evil US and our despicable means. My question to you is: Do you have a better idea? If so, we haven't heard it.

I've never said anything about a global mandate. Plenty of people disagree with us, and that is fine. But leadership requires you to make a decision and stick by it unless convinced otherwise. The arguments in opposition to the war are unconvincing to me. As far as "global citizens", I guess we are not YOUR kind of global citizens, who seem to always hem and haw in the face of danger and do nothing to stop it, hoping it will just go away. We are the lone superpower today because we made the "unilateral" decision to stick up to the USSR, without the UN's permission. I believe we made the right choice. And I think we are making the right choice here also.

User avatar
Dynagrip
<b>Gossip</b> columnist
Posts: 6537
Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2002 7:53 pm

Postby Dynagrip » Wed Sep 04, 2002 6:22 pm

Dude, NATO was involved too, most of our shit was on West German soil, and they would've have been the first to get reamed if the Cold War had ever gone hot.

We hardly won that war by ourselves.

Are you also of the opinion that the U.S. won WWII singlehandedly?

Foo-Byte
I am Finbarr Saunders
Posts: 5517
Joined: Mon Aug 26, 2002 12:24 pm
Location: RI, USA

Postby Foo-Byte » Wed Sep 04, 2002 6:23 pm

Messina wrote:
Foo-Byte wrote:the USA rarely plays well in internatinoal colaborations

There is a reason we don't "play well" in international collaborations: they are ineffective. It was the UN that got in the way of taking out Hussein the in first place.

Actually, the USA won't take part in any UN military operation if it isn't in charge. They actually invented ranks during the Gulf War just so they could outrank everyone else and run the show.
Messina wrote:Nobody says that everyone has to agree with the US on everything.

Except the USA. :-D
Messina wrote:But when the US thinks something needs to be done, we need to do it. You can support us our not. That is your choice.

That is the arrogance and lack of cooperation that I'm talking about. That's exactly the attitude that makes the rest of the world want to smack the USA around a bit!
Messina wrote:But none of these arguments have much to do with the need to get rid of the Iraqi regime.

Granted. However, we have been questioning the US's decision that there is a need. As Dynagrip said, what would it achieve? And what makes us believe that Saddam will be ousted this time?
Messina wrote:they have focused on how terrible the US is for gasp! doing something without the UN's approval.

Now wait, isn't the USA a member of the UN? Put it another way - if you were running a company and one of your employees went off and blew up a competitor's factory, how would you feel? Similar situation, different scale.

User avatar
Bag of Ass
Ninth Horrid Scar
Posts: 17607
Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2002 7:11 pm
Location: New House

Postby Bag of Ass » Wed Sep 04, 2002 6:33 pm

Rob wrote:I'll respect your global superiority and refrain from making any further observations on this subject, because I can feel my blood beginning to boil at what I consider to be a typically appalling American attitude.

Keep in mind that Messina doesn't speak for his whole country, he speaks only for Messina. I, on the other hand, am not informed enough to have an actual opinion on this matter. The only thing I need is for it not to affect me directly, or to affect the shipping schedules for my glorious, glorious videogames.

Addendum: O how I loathe blow-by-blow responses!

Maybe I'll write a sonnet. That'll teach 'em.
Last edited by Bag of Ass on Wed Sep 04, 2002 6:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Messina
Disciple
Posts: 122
Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2002 10:06 pm
Location: Goleta, CA

Postby Messina » Wed Sep 04, 2002 6:38 pm

Granted. However, we have been questioning the US's decision that there is a need. As Dynagrip said, what would it achieve? And what makes us believe that Saddam will be ousted this time?


The achievement would mostly pertain to destroying Iraq's weapon capabilities. This time it would be the goal to get rid of Hussein. Last time it was to get him out of Kuwait.

Now wait, isn't the USA a member of the UN? Put it another way - if you were running a company and one of your employees went off and blew up a competitor's factory, how would you feel? Similar situation, different scale.


I don't think that is accurate. It is more like a group of friends (with the US being the a-hole that nobody really wants around I guess). If the US (who has the car) thinks that getting pizza is the right thing to do, and the other friends don't convince him otherwise, he is going to get pizza. And he will share. Honest.

In re NATO; yes, that is true obviously. I put "unilateral" in quotes for that reason. I should have been clearer. Some would say that the US just bullied the other NATO members into supporting us, so that doesn't "count" as being a global citizen.

User avatar
toaster
Füture Kïng of Liechtënsteïn
Posts: 3049
Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2002 9:12 pm
Location: Berlin, baby

Postby toaster » Wed Sep 04, 2002 6:42 pm

Messina wrote:
There is a reason we don't "play well" in international collaborations: they are ineffective.


Well, there's mainly one reason for the UN for being ineffective: One major superpower (guess who) is currently

1) blocking everything useful via it's Security council veto
2) refuses to sign every international agreement/contact (Kyoto/ anti landmine, anti chemical/biological weapons etc.)

You can't call for good behavior if you don't lead by example.
You're preaching water while drinking wine...

Nobody says that everyone has to agree with the US on everything. But when the US thinks something needs to be done, we need to do it. You can support us our not. That is your choice. Most of your sentiments have been characterizing the US as the problem, fine. But none of these arguments have much to do with the need to get rid of the Iraqi regime. And no country to my knowledge has attempted to make any argument against taking out Hussein; they have focused on how terrible the US is for gasp! doing something without the UN's approval. If you don't support it, tell us why. Don't hide behind a call to come to the UN so you can vote us down in the general assembly along with Syria, Iran, and that great humanitarian country, soon to be chair of the Human Rights Council, Libya.


You dare to call for morals?, baby that's great.

Hussein is doing what thinks he needs to do (be fucktard/massmurder)
This is immoral.

If Uzbekistan thinks it's nessecary to attack Equador, becuase they don't like their way of cooking fish, and does so.
It would be immoral.

Now if you think a major superpower can do whatever it thinks it has to do, including wars and fucking with the international community, here some news: ***It' immoral***

You're currently performing a "with us or doomed" policy, which actually means, you try to fuck with national souvereignity of various countrys.

Concerning the Iraqi regime, well.

Saddam is a 1) US made problem 2) still in charge because back in the 2nd gulf war nobody wanted to have dead American soldiers on CNN, and therefore refused city warfare in Bagdad.
They also feared a secularisation of the Iraq, you can call Hussein whatever you want, he's not a religious extremist.
You're calling for humanitarian reasons, well...
The current embargo is supposed to kill about 50 to 150 people per day, if not more, furthermore it improves Husseins power every day.
The Kurds are not only persecuted in Iraq, but also in Turkey, a fellow Nato member, you're not going to bomb Turkey, don't you.
You're supporting corrupt regimes all over the world (Pakistan, Sau Arabia, China,etc) and you don't move a Finger when countrys fuck with human rights at random (Israel, did someone say Israel?), so why do want to bomb Iraq to stoneage? On thing's for sure, not because you're a nice little superpower, caring about the welfare of the entire world.

So, overall the dear US of A wants to get rid of Saddam for mainly selfish reasons (further control of the middle east and it's oil resources, Bush and his reelection, to distract of the failed "war on terror" etc.), so hello, wake up, smell the tea and toast, it is immoral going to war for selfish reasons, [sarcasm]and [b] the US [b] won't do anything immoral...[/sarcasm]

Oh, and about the weapons.. repeat: "There's no proof that Iraq has biological/nuclear weapons, and I won't shoot somebody without proof he's a murder and I won't shoot someone before he actually is a murder, because tha would mean I have to shoot everybody, including me."
well done, sit down.
Get immortal, or die trying.

Messina
Disciple
Posts: 122
Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2002 10:06 pm
Location: Goleta, CA

Postby Messina » Wed Sep 04, 2002 7:00 pm

If Uzbekistan thinks it's nessecary to attack Equador, becuase they don't like their way of cooking fish, and does so.It would be immoral.


Why come up with ridiculous examples? I would think there are more serious ones that you can come up with to proof your point?

Now if you think a major superpower can do whatever it thinks it has to do, including wars and fucking with the international community, here some news: ***It' immoral***


So if it were a UN mission to get rid of Hussein, that would make it moral? Why does it matter how many people agree with it or not that makes it moral or not? Morality is not something subject to the democratic whims of the world. While tons of people may vote one way or the other, right and wrong is not decided on in this way.

Saddam is a 1) US made problem 2) still in charge because back in the 2nd gulf war nobody wanted to have dead American soldiers on CNN, and therefore refused city warfare in Bagdad.


Both were mistakes. Mistakes that we all should take care of. The support of corrupt regimes elsewhere doesn't mean we shouldn't get rid of this one.

Hey now, the embargos are the UN's doing. Doesn't that make it "moral" to you? You claim that the US wants to do this for selfish reasons. You can believe what you want. You don't discuss the weapons at any length. I guess getting rid of those would also be selfish (we want them all to ourselves)?

User avatar
Bag of Ass
Ninth Horrid Scar
Posts: 17607
Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2002 7:11 pm
Location: New House

Postby Bag of Ass » Wed Sep 04, 2002 7:03 pm

If you see that your opponent is getting the covert ops add-on, wouldn't your reaction be to pre-emptively attack before he gets the nuke silo operational? You don't wait for your allies to discuss and potentially overrule you. Of course, you'd also try to get observers so you can stop them in the event that they do get a working silo.

This is all for the good of anyone who's not allied with the nuke guy. He's probably a maphacker, too.
Last edited by Bag of Ass on Wed Sep 04, 2002 7:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Dynagrip
<b>Gossip</b> columnist
Posts: 6537
Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2002 7:53 pm

Postby Dynagrip » Wed Sep 04, 2002 7:03 pm

Not to tagteam here, but if you use bullshit examples involving late night pizza munchies, I think that pretty much gives everyone else the right to use whatever weak example pops into their head without you acting as if its entirely inapplicable.

User avatar
Groovis
Forum Jesus
Posts: 1570
Joined: Mon Aug 26, 2002 6:03 pm
Location: RI, USA

Postby Groovis » Wed Sep 04, 2002 7:05 pm

Last I heard (and I may be wrong, since I ignore this crap like the plague usually), the UN wanted to ease the sanctions to allow food and aid for the population, but we (USA) said "No way!".


Return to “Deep Throats”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest