Eupedia Forums
Site NavigationEupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum

View Poll Results: Should the Iraq war be considered legally justified?

Voters
80. You may not vote on this poll
  • yes

    17 21.25%
  • no

    63 78.75%
Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 128

Thread: Iraq War -- Illegal? Legal?

  1. #26
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered

    Join Date
    24-06-03
    Location
    canadian
    Age
    42
    Posts
    174


    Country: Canada





    Quote Originally Posted by Censport
    Let's see... in '91, Saddam signed a cease-fire agreement. As part of that agreement, he was to destroy his WMDs and a list of traditional weapons. Instead, he used chemical and/or biological weapons to commit mass murder against the Kurds. He also blocked attempts by UN inspectors over the next 12 years to confirm that he had destroyed his weapons, as he had claimed.
    For one thing, you are reversing the chronology here. Saddam used chemical weapons against the Kurds in 1988 so it is factually incorrect to say that he did so in violation of a cease fire agreement that was signed in 1991. Not that it necessarily makes much difference, an atrocity is an atrocity whether it violates some agreement or not. But when weighing the legality of the Iraq invasion the Kurdish question can only be considered relevant if the invasion put a stop to an ongoing atrocity or prevented one that was about to take place. Given that the US and British no fly zones allowed them to control the flow of military personell into Kurdish territory, the Kurds were safe and this cannot be considered a factor. Past crimes against a third party are not considered legitimate causes to war in international law, especially in this case given that the US supported Saddam at the time sed crimes occured.

    Quote Originally Posted by Censport
    The UN (since some people think they are a litmus test) passed 14 resolutions calling for action to be taken against Saddam.
    None of which authorized the US to invade Iraq. The UN charter is very clear about this, there are only two cases in which war is authorized. One is in self defence, which clearly does not apply here. The other is for actions which have SPECIFIC UN security council authorization, which the Iraq invasion did not have.
    Quote Originally Posted by Censport
    The same UN passed no resolutions barring the US from taking that action.
    Completely irrelevant, the lack of a specific resolution banning something does not confer legitimacy on sed action. It like inferring that because there is no law that specifically states "Phil may not murder Bob" that Phil may murder Bob with legal impunity. In this case it is doubly ridiculous to point this out as the US, as a permanent security council member, would have had to have specifically authorized a resolution barring itself from invading Iraq.


    Quote Originally Posted by CensportOnce invaded, the US found and destroyed about 400,000 tons of traditional (non-chemical/biological) weapons that Saddam posessed [I
    in violation[/I] of the '91 cease-fire agreement.
    This may be true, but it does not in and of itself provide a legal justification for the war.

    Quote Originally Posted by Censport
    The war was delayed so that the US could attempt to persuade the UN to enforce its own resolutions.
    No, the war was delayed so the US could try to persuade the UN to authorize its invasion, which is not the same thing as enforcing UN resolutions. The US decided on its own that invasion was the only way to enforce UN resolutions but three of the five permanant security council members and most of the non permanent members wanted to pursue other means. History has since proven which side was right.

    Quote Originally Posted by Censport
    The UN would neither enforce its own resolutions nor stop the US from enforcing them. Does this have anything to do with the Oil-for-Food scandal? Could be. Kojo Annan (Kofi's son) has personally admitted to brokering millions of barrels of oil in that scandal.
    As far as conspiracy theories goes this one makes no sense. The whole issue of enforcing the UN resolutions was in the hands of the Security Council and not the General Assembly, which is what Kofi Annan is the head of. Annan had no power over the decision, it was entirely up to the fifteen individual governments that made up the security council at the time of the invasion.



    Quote Originally Posted by Censport
    Now you're free to believe whatever crackpot conspiracy drivel you want, Michael Moore and his kind are happy to get rich off of your hate. But as evidence goes, documented history carries more weight than the theory and speculation of professional protestors.
    This is true and it holds equally true when applied to the Anne Coulters of the world too. But its not really relevant to the point in question.

  2. #27
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered

    Join Date
    24-06-03
    Location
    canadian
    Age
    42
    Posts
    174


    Country: Canada



    Quote Originally Posted by Censport
    Ah, but what Bush said was that we shouldn't wait until Saddam became an imminent threat. We also couldn't prove that Saddam wasn't a threat at the time.
    Is this not setting the bar a bit too low? I mean, this is saying that a war is justified not only if there has been no act of agression against you, but even if there is no existing threat of action against you. Just the slim possibility that at some indefinite point in the future a threat may or may not emerge. Thats all you need. Given that the methods for judging the 'potential' threat levels seem to be based entirely on conjecture they could easily make the case that any country in the world poses a potential future threat and that ANY act of aggression is therefore fully justifiable.

    This isnt a very smart way to go as far as I'm concerned. Being powerful enough to ignore the laws now the US can get away with it, but in the long term its going to work against them as its not hard to see how other countries might use the same stance against the US.

  3. #28
    Konnichiwa, y'all! Achievements:
    1 year registered
    Censport's Avatar
    Join Date
    27-12-04
    Location
    Music City
    Posts
    134


    Ethnic group
    Scottish/Irish
    Country: United_States



    Quote Originally Posted by senseiman
    Is this not setting the bar a bit too low?
    Yes, it is setting the bar a bit low. Uncomfortably low for everyone. But considering the terror threat as a whole just after 9/11, I don't think it's unreasonable. You've got to remember Saddam's pattern of behavior and his penchant for saber-rattling (Boy, I bet he'll never do THAT again! LOL!).

    Quote Originally Posted by senseiman
    This isnt a very smart way to go as far as I'm concerned. Being powerful enough to ignore the laws now the US can get away with it, but in the long term its going to work against them as its not hard to see how other countries might use the same stance against the US.
    Like that would be anything new?

    Britain, 1812.

    Japan, 1941.

    Militant Islam, 2001.

    And that's just attacks on U.S. soil. Pause for a moment and consider the list of attacks on U.S. interests around the world...

  4. #29
    Banned Achievements:
    Recommendation Second Class1 year registered

    Join Date
    22-04-04
    Posts
    1,720


    Country: United States



    Is this remotely logical?: There is a country that has nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons. It has a history of using them. It is the only nation to ever use nuclear weapons. Furthermore, it has invaded and intervened in dozens of other countries both overtly and covertly sometime several times with minimal justification or provocation. It has often replaced unfriendly democracies and installed despotic repressive regimes simply because they support its interests.

    Is it rational then to invade and disarm this country pro-actively? I think a pre-emptive strike by third world nations against the United States could be justified by this post 9/11 logic.

  5. #30
    Konnichiwa, y'all! Achievements:
    1 year registered
    Censport's Avatar
    Join Date
    27-12-04
    Location
    Music City
    Posts
    134


    Ethnic group
    Scottish/Irish
    Country: United_States



    Quote Originally Posted by senseiman
    For one thing, you are reversing the chronology here. Saddam used chemical weapons against the Kurds in 1988 so it is factually incorrect to say that he did so in violation of a cease fire agreement that was signed in 1991.
    Ah, I got the date wrong. My bad.

    Quote Originally Posted by senseiman
    None of which authorized the US to invade Iraq.
    That could be a matter of interpretation. I'll look up the resolutions and post what I can find here.

    Quote Originally Posted by senseiman
    Completely irrelevant...
    I say nay, laddie, as that was addressed to those who think the UN has the final word on world affairs.

    Quote Originally Posted by senseiman
    This may be true, but it does not in and of itself provide a legal justification for the war.
    I disagree. I think it was reason enough. Added to the non-compliance with the UN inspection teams, and he's 2 for 3.

    Quote Originally Posted by senseiman
    No, the war was delayed so the US could try to persuade the UN to authorize its invasion, which is not the same thing as enforcing UN resolutions. The US decided on its own that invasion was the only way to enforce UN resolutions but three of the five permanant security council members and most of the non permanent members wanted to pursue other means. History has since proven which side was right.
    First: History isn't finished being written. If you're having problems with premature speculation, see your doctor.

    Second: You say invasion, I say enforcement. They called for action, we took the action. We did what we should've done in '91, and what the UN should've been doing for twelve years.

    Third: Those three permanent security council members aren't the same ones now being investigated in the Oil-for-Food scandal, are they? Ah yes, I believe they are.

    Quote Originally Posted by senseiman
    As far as conspiracy theories goes this one makes no sense. The whole issue of enforcing the UN resolutions was in the hands of the Security Council and not the General Assembly, which is what Kofi Annan is the head of.
    See point three, above.

    Quote Originally Posted by senseiman
    This is true and it holds equally true when applied to the Anne Coulters of the world too. But its not really relevant to the point in question.
    I've read a few of her columns, and I think what her detractors don't realize is the same thing they don't get about Rush Limbaugh. She (like Limbaugh) has a sense of humor. About the Left, about politics, about themselves.... ("Talent on loan from God", get it? It's called 'tongue-in-cheek'.) something the Michael Moores and Al Frankens of the scene are woefully lacking. The voices of the left have built a pillar of intellectualism for themselves that is wrought with insecurity, hate and pathologically delusional self-image. I've read about what it's like to work anywhere near, much less for, these people. It's scary. Really frickin' scary. And when it comes to media attention, they're like that creature from the LOTR trilogy, Shmegal or whatever, and the ring. They're not media whores, they're media junkies. But hey, keep letting them get their limelight, and they'll keep repulsing mainstream Democratic voters....

  6. #31
    Banned Achievements:
    Recommendation Second Class1 year registered

    Join Date
    22-04-04
    Posts
    1,720


    Country: United States



    Work for that dour and humorless former SNL writer Franken? I'd rather work as Limbaugh's drug connection.
    Last edited by No-name; 01-02-05 at 18:52.

  7. #32
    Konnichiwa, y'all! Achievements:
    1 year registered
    Censport's Avatar
    Join Date
    27-12-04
    Location
    Music City
    Posts
    134


    Ethnic group
    Scottish/Irish
    Country: United_States



    Ah, one below the belt. That's okay, you'd have better job security as a unionized teacher. *cough*

  8. #33
    Banned Achievements:
    Recommendation Second Class1 year registered

    Join Date
    22-04-04
    Posts
    1,720


    Country: United States



    You missed the Al Fraken decade bit where he declared the decade about "me...Al Franken." Funny stuff. He is a humorist first. I think you also missed the fact that Moore is highly entertaining and a significant amount of satire and self deprication goes into much of what he does. It's not journalism, it is entertainment...the stunts are meant to be satirical, insightful and at some level, funny.

    I read both Moore's "Dude Where's My Country" and David Hardy and Jason Clark's "Michael Moore is a Big Fat Stupid White Man." One of these books was quick witted, sharp and biting, relevant and well written, the other was written by a pair who seemed to be rather clueless and is rather pedestrian, plodding and clunky. (Guess which one I liked?) I also read some of Al Franken's book and a few chapters of Rush-- both were okay (I didn't finish either, so they weren't all that interesting) but Franken was funny and Rush was only at his best when he was angry...his more sober observations make him seem...constipated.

    What does Rush say about the ACLU defending the privacy of his medical records in the Fla. perscription shopping investigation?

  9. #34
    Konnichiwa, y'all! Achievements:
    1 year registered
    Censport's Avatar
    Join Date
    27-12-04
    Location
    Music City
    Posts
    134


    Ethnic group
    Scottish/Irish
    Country: United_States



    You're right, I missed those examples because I'm not a fan of their work. I've looked at how they treat the people around them and 'under' them. From what I've seen, Moore is self-deprecating when it pays well. I'll find a link.

    I've never read a Rush book. Come to think of it, I don't think I've ever read one of his columns. Just as Hannity is at his best in book form (I know several women who disagree with me. They want to see him on DVD, if you catch my drift.), Rush is best on radio. He's a natural. Good voice too.

    And Rush welcomed the ACLU, and even helped explain why they were right to help him.

    Edited: Here's a link on Moore: linky

  10. #35
    Banned Achievements:
    Recommendation Second Class1 year registered

    Join Date
    22-04-04
    Posts
    1,720


    Country: United States



    I'm shifting over to the left v right thread...

  11. #36
    Konnichiwa, y'all! Achievements:
    1 year registered
    Censport's Avatar
    Join Date
    27-12-04
    Location
    Music City
    Posts
    134


    Ethnic group
    Scottish/Irish
    Country: United_States



    Quote Originally Posted by senseiman
    This is true and it holds equally true when applied to the Anne Coulters of the world too. But its not really relevant to the point in question.
    Since you're such a big fan of Coulter, here's a nice picture of her I found for you:

    Annie get your gun

  12. #37
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered

    Join Date
    24-06-03
    Location
    canadian
    Age
    42
    Posts
    174


    Country: Canada



    Quote Originally Posted by Censport
    .


    I disagree. I think it was reason enough. Added to the non-compliance with the UN inspection teams, and he's 2 for 3.
    In the strict legal sense it was not a justification as finding evidence after the fact of violations does not retroactively provide a basis for the invasion. Non-compliance in and of itself did not provide an automatic "trigger" that would make the invasion of Iraq legal.

    Ignoring the legal rationale it doesn't seem at all practical to say that invading a country for possesing large quantities of banned conventional weapons is at all reasonable. Those weapons didn't shift the balance of power into Saddam's favor at all. Invading Iraq to relieve him of these weapons is overkill in the extreme, like police pumping a jaywalker full of lead in order to promote traffic safety or something.


    Quote Originally Posted by Censport
    First: History isn't finished being written. If you're having problems with premature speculation, see your doctor.
    Well you got me there. We'll have to continue this discussion in a few years to see who is right. From the way things are looking now I'm quite willing to stand by my interpretation of events though.

    Quote Originally Posted by Censport
    Second: You say invasion, I say enforcement. They called for action, we took the action. We did what we should've done in '91, and what the UN should've been doing for twelve years.
    The two terms aren't synomymous. Like I said, the other members of the security council saw things differently and I think their method makes sense. If we were to resort to invasion to enforce every UN security council resolution the world would be in a pretty bad place right now. Given the fact that no WMD were found in Iraq, it seems to me that invading the country with the express purpose of ridding it of those weapons was not an appropriate means of "enforcement", especially in light of the immense destruction and loss of life that action has caused.

    Quote Originally Posted by Censport
    Third: Those three permanent security council members aren't the same ones now being investigated in the Oil-for-Food scandal, are they? Ah yes, I believe they are.
    So, now they opposed the war because of the money they were making from the oil for food program? Of course it has to be corruption and have nothing to do with the fact that more than 80% of the populations of those countries were vehemently opposed to the war. I find this a little hard to believe, especially in light of the fact that France, Russia and Germany have all recently agreed to forgive Iraqi debt in totals that amount to several times whatever money they may have made from Iraqi oil, which AMERICAN companies were also involved in selling FYI. There are probably a million other legitimate reasons for not wanting to get involved in an illegitimate war that everyone could see would descend into a costly quagmire. I would imagine that corruption would come VERY low on that list.




    Quote Originally Posted by Censport
    I've read a few of her columns, and I think what her detractors don't realize is the same thing they don't get about Rush Limbaugh. She (like Limbaugh) has a sense of humor. About the Left, about politics, about themselves.... ("Talent on loan from God", get it? It's called 'tongue-in-cheek'.) something the Michael Moores and Al Frankens of the scene are woefully lacking. The voices of the left have built a pillar of intellectualism for themselves that is wrought with insecurity, hate and pathologically delusional self-image. I've read about what it's like to work anywhere near, much less for, these people. It's scary. Really frickin' scary. And when it comes to media attention, they're like that creature from the LOTR trilogy, Shmegal or whatever, and the ring. They're not media whores, they're media junkies. But hey, keep letting them get their limelight, and they'll keep repulsing mainstream Democratic voters....
    As one of her detractors I can easily recognize that she has a sense of humor,but it is not one that I share. But that is besides the point as it is her political views and not her sense of humor that I am repulsed by. Most of it sounds like deranged ranting to me with very little in the way of an argument . In the aftermath of 9/11 she stated that the best response would be to invade every Muslim country in the world and forcibly convert all of them to christianity. The woman is sick. Rush isn't so bad, I've read two of his books and I can say that while I don't agree with his political views at least he doesn't make me want to vomit every time I read or hear his words. Coultier has that effect on me.

  13. #38
    Banned Achievements:
    Recommendation Second Class1 year registered

    Join Date
    22-04-04
    Posts
    1,720


    Country: United States



    I generally agree with you, Senseiman- at least in sentiment if not in detail. My 2.5 cents: Before you start a war in which thousands of innocents will lose lives, children, parents, houses, arms, feet and faces there must be a better justification than that bad guy who may have bad weapons may one day do something bad to us. Any hawkish newspaper can make up something like that.

  14. #39
    Konnichiwa, y'all! Achievements:
    1 year registered
    Censport's Avatar
    Join Date
    27-12-04
    Location
    Music City
    Posts
    134


    Ethnic group
    Scottish/Irish
    Country: United_States



    Quote Originally Posted by senseiman
    In the aftermath of 9/11 she stated that the best response would be to invade every Muslim country in the world and forcibly convert all of them to christianity.
    Another example of tongue-in-cheek. In that instance, it was an angry tongue, I'll grant you that, but not offered as seriously as Pat Robertson's comments at that time.

  15. #40
    Banned Achievements:
    Recommendation Second Class1 year registered

    Join Date
    22-04-04
    Posts
    1,720


    Country: United States



    "I was just joking..." is a great excuse for saying stupid, insensitive or offensive things. I use it all the time.

  16. #41
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered

    Join Date
    24-06-03
    Location
    canadian
    Age
    42
    Posts
    174


    Country: Canada



    Quote Originally Posted by Censport
    Another example of tongue-in-cheek. In that instance, it was an angry tongue, I'll grant you that, but not offered as seriously as Pat Robertson's comments at that time.
    Tongue in cheek or not, any joke about wiping a major religion with over a billion followers off the face of the planet is something any decent person should find offensive. It is at the same level as neo nazi "jokes" about ridding the world of jews and like them she deserves to be condemned for it.

  17. #42
    Konnichiwa, y'all! Achievements:
    1 year registered
    Censport's Avatar
    Join Date
    27-12-04
    Location
    Music City
    Posts
    134


    Ethnic group
    Scottish/Irish
    Country: United_States



    Fair enough. Her humor on that was in poor taste. Still, I don't think you'd want to spend a lot of time on here defending everything Moore, Franken & co. have said.

    Now, it's back to the action....

    Quote Originally Posted by sabro
    Is it rational then to invade and disarm this country pro-actively? I think a pre-emptive strike by third world nations against the United States could be justified by this post 9/11 logic.
    So 9/11 was what then, a diplomatic mission?

  18. #43
    Banned Achievements:
    Recommendation Second Class1 year registered

    Join Date
    22-04-04
    Posts
    1,720


    Country: United States



    9/11 was a tragedy. It was an attack beyond comprehension for which we should be angry. It was mass murder on a large scale, that should be condemned in the strongest language. It will have political repercussions for the next century.

    I hope 9/11 wasn't some jingoistic wake-up call for the last remaining super power to swagger around and keep those third world countries in line. I hope it isn't a carte blanch to invade whomever seems threatening and impose whatever order we feel fit.

    And it is this post 9/11 logic that I said justifies any third world country attacking the United States. (Since we have WMD's and a history of invading foreign nations...). I think we need to distance ourselves from this thinking.

  19. #44
    Banned Achievements:
    1 year registered
    McTojo's Avatar
    Join Date
    05-10-05
    Location
    yokohama
    Posts
    10


    Country: Japan



    The legality of it all

    I think we need to understand the traditional role that the U.S. has played over the last quarter of a century, and no I will not go into great detail.

    basically, this War has its place for the purpose of opening up the middle east, I mean, in terms of fostering Democracy in Iraq. It has nothing to do with the betterment of the U.S. whatsoever. Consequently, the U.S. will never see the light at the other end of the tunnel in Iraq. This war like so many other wars have benefited the beneficiary ONLY. This war will never have anything to do with fighting terror nor will it ever have positive residual affect for me or any other American. The negative residual affect is Bush reneging on his tax cuts. And as far as seeking retribution for 911, it's absolutely absurd to even concede that Iraq was somehow remotely responsible given the report by the 911 commission. There is simply not enough facts to warrant an invasion of Iraq because of its suspected role in 911. This action shows a lack of maturity within our government.

  20. #45
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered

    Join Date
    28-06-05
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    29


    Ethnic group
    Polish-Irish-Austrian-English
    Country: United States



    I am late to this thread, apologies... Good news... The Iraqis voted today!!! They may reject the Constitution, that is their democratic right, but they VOTED!

    Question... from me, an ignorant tourist...
    Can a war be illegal, and totally immoral, yet somehow ... thank God, thank somebody, thank Bush & Company maybe, for doing SOMETHING in a disaster situation!

    Iraq was a CATASTROPHE, before Gulf 1 and 2! It was a plague!!!!
    I hate war. I get ill thinking about all the death and destruction and damage to world public opinion that has resulted from our management of this horror show.

    But there was also a daily nightmare called Saddam Hussein. Why did America harp on about WMDs? Possibly did ... ahem... someone GIVE THEM TO HIM?!?

    My WMD is crystal clear... the "Oil for Food Money", the 10 Billion dollar cash fund that Saddam had, that can buy you shiploads of WMDs... oh yes they can! In my opinion, Saddam was financing terror in other countries, namely Israel/Palestine, probably North Korea, probably Syria, etc.

    Do I think Bush has done a good job? Frankly no. Not good at all!

    But I think history is going to look at this whole tragedy in an amazing new way...

    Reverse Don-Quixote.... try-try-try, then fail, then succeed in failure!

    "Select Corporate America entities invade Iraq, get rid of Sicko Hussein, and try the "Don Quixote effort" for the media... You know, the mantra..."Pie-in-the-sky", "Camel in every pot", "Freedom and Democracy", etc. etc.

    The Iraqi people will eventually say... "Thank you very much Mr. America, now how fast can you leave?".

    Then the tribal interests within Iraq will restore to the way they were before we came in... with the Shia's in charge this time... and in 20 years they will beg for us to come back in, as tourists." Everybody loses in the war, everybody wins in the Peace.

    But the world, and that region of the world will be a much better place for all the tragedy and sacrifice of American troops and Iraqi citizens, and Afghan citizens.

    What did Osama Bin Laden try to do? Unite the Arabs and Persians and Palestinians and Egyptians and Muslims, against the Infidel West?

    And what has been the result, but the EXACT OPPOSITE? You even have Zarqawi inciting Sunnis to kill Shia! You have Russian goons killing elementary school children. You have Bali fundamentalists killing Aussie tourists... that makes a lot of PR sense! What rotten scum these people are...

    Bush... love him or hate him... (and we have done so much wrong, I know... I think our conduct has been horrible at times, brilliant at times, catastrophic at times, heroic at times), the end result is a world talking to each other more, trying like hell to understand each other more, be more tolerant of each other.

    And lets get the HELL OFF OIL! Toyota, Honda, Hyundai, Mazda, Nissan... you are the new creative geniuses... give us a 200 mile per gallon of hydrogen, car!

  21. #46
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered

    Join Date
    24-06-03
    Location
    canadian
    Age
    42
    Posts
    174


    Country: Canada



    Quote Originally Posted by EdZiomek
    I am late to this thread, apologies... Good news... The Iraqis voted today!!! They may reject the Constitution, that is their democratic right, but they VOTED!

    Question... from me, an ignorant tourist...
    Can a war be illegal, and totally immoral, yet somehow ... thank God, thank somebody, thank Bush & Company maybe, for doing SOMETHING in a disaster situation!

    Iraq was a CATASTROPHE, before Gulf 1 and 2! It was a plague!!!!
    Iraq was a catastrophe before the war, but what is clear is that all the invasion has served to do is make a bad situation worse.

    Quote Originally Posted by edziomek
    But there was also a daily nightmare called Saddam Hussein. Why did America harp on about WMDs? Possibly did ... ahem... someone GIVE THEM TO HIM?!?

    My WMD is crystal clear... the "Oil for Food Money", the 10 Billion dollar cash fund that Saddam had, that can buy you shiploads of WMDs... oh yes they can!
    Er...how? There were inspectors in the country until 1998 destroying what weapons he had and a complete embargo on the country to prevent weapons from being imported for the rest of the time. Plus of course the fact that there WEREN'T ANY WEAPONS FOUND after the invasion, which kind of takes the wind out of the sails of that argument.

    Quote Originally Posted by ed
    In my opinion, Saddam was financing terror in other countries, namely Israel/Palestine, probably North Korea, probably Syria, etc
    Your opinion based on what? The question of whether Saddam was financing terrorists is a factual one, not a matter of opinion. The only financial support he gave to terrorists was to the mothers of Palestinian suicide bombers. Its hard to see what scenario there would be in which Saddam would have financed North Korean "terrorists", I'd be interested to know what you are talking about there.
    Last edited by senseiman; 16-10-05 at 19:27.

  22. #47
    Banned Achievements:
    1 year registered
    nurizeko's Avatar
    Join Date
    19-01-05
    Location
    aberdeen, scotland
    Age
    34
    Posts
    149


    Ethnic group
    Half scottish half Germanic, i got blood from austria, germany, scotland england, im a mongrol.
    Country: United Kingdom



    "Pre-emtive self-defence" = hostile invasion's dressed up to look friendly.

    I was against the war to start with, i was against it as it happened, but were there now, i dunno wether its because of an actual smidget of decency and common sense or wether bush just doesnt got a clue what to do now but at least the coalition is sticking in and trying to keep the country together.

    Still, it never really excuses the fact that it was an illegal invasion lead by a war-happy ordaned by god type US president.

    It would be nice if a coalition leader could just step up and say "hey, it was illegal, i know that, everyone knows this, and for that i can only apologise, and we've made iraq an unstable hotbed thats an even bigger concern to global security stability and the supression of terrorism then it ever was under saddam, and i also know that it wasnt done for the good of the iraqi people, and more on a political whim and possibly oil.
    Saying that, saddam was a bad man and now we've done what we've done, theres not a chance in hell of replacing saddam and his regime, were in for the long haul and we cannot and will not leave until iraq is stable enough to look after itself or the country falls irreparably into civil war and chaos."

    Man, the day i see a competent, honest, realist, ethical human being politician, i will vote for him, i will get to a voting booth, even if i must crawl there without legs, and an advanced terminal illness, i would vote for him.



    Anyway, moving on, i voted for No.

    I am late to this thread, apologies... Good news... The Iraqis voted today!!! They may reject the Constitution, that is their democratic right, but they VOTED!
    I saw a bit on the news last night about that and for the first time in a lnog while, i actually felt their might be hope for iraq, just the short interviews with iraqi people on their way to or from voting, not looknig scared of scuicide bombers or anything, looknig happy and excercising their democratic right, and they wernt picking up AK's and shouting jihad or looking for a civil war, they were happy normal people, the silent majority in iraq, voting....it was beautiful.

  23. #48
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered
    Ardeo's Avatar
    Join Date
    10-11-04
    Posts
    14


    Country: United_States



    Quote Originally Posted by senseiman
    mothers of Palestinian suicide bombers
    Just a side note to this....the reason why that money is offered to suicide bombers by Saudi Arabia (and probably by Saddam) is that when the suicide bombers blow themselves up (and this is almost always without the knowledge or consent of the persons family) the Israeli government comes in with bulldozers and demolishes their house even though they had nothing to do with the crime.

  24. #49
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered

    Join Date
    28-06-05
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    29


    Ethnic group
    Polish-Irish-Austrian-English
    Country: United States



    Thank you all for your comments.

    I have one more... and this is a hypothetical message to Osama and his buddies, if he is listening... (and why would he, I know, I know!)

    The verdict is not in yet, but in my mind, the Iraqi elections demonstrated the one thing that OBL never had, nor did many of his fellow Arabs ever had...

    A CHANCE TO VOTE, maybe even... A CHANCE TO STEAL THE VOTE!

    OBL I think craves the opportunity to have himself as a political candidate for "King of Saudi Arabia", or "King of a United Arab Front"... or something like that.

    As the 40th son of the ruler, and a person who basically lost his inheritance (in my un-educated view), he might EVEN BE ELECTED IF THERE WAS A VOTE CAPABILITY!

    But it might never happen in such a country as Saudi Arabia, but why couldn't it happen?

    So I have TRE-MENDOUS positive vibes by all this success within Iraq. We have given them the opportunity to VOTE ... to vote for a Shia-dominated, or Sunni dominated, or tri-power sharing government, or whatever government they want, even whatever nightmare they want, that is their right.

    And the hypothetical question... if real elections were held in Saudi Arabia, with pro-ruling family candidates, and opposition candidates like OBL, tragic killer that he has become... would he give up his worldwide terror instigations?

    Would he give women more equal rights? Would he negotiate with the Shia and the Persians and the Palestinians? Or would he continue in his terror ways, even as elected King of Saudi Arabia?

    Am I now a heretic for asking?... please vent if you wish... I deserve it.

    This Iraqi vote, whether for approval or not of the constitution, seems to be wonderful for all of the Middle East. Who else can we sincerely, sincerely thank than the very very imperfect Bush team?

    Maybe the reverse Don Quisxote has changed the world?

  25. #50
    Southern Sun Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience Points
    Duo's Avatar
    Join Date
    25-04-03
    Location
    The EU capital
    Posts
    655
    Points
    12,140
    Level
    33
    Points: 12,140, Level: 33
    Level completed: 28%, Points required for next Level: 510
    Overall activity: 0%


    Ethnic group
    Albanian
    Country: Belgium



    U seem to be forgetting the price the iraqi population is paying, in lives that is. Every victim angers more the locals there. Furthermore the strenous effort of US forces and resources there is severely damaging the US economically. Morever, the image of america as this beacon and pillar of freedom and democracy has been tarnished so seriously that it will take years to amend.


    The war in Iraq is bringing about more radicalisation of islamic fundemantalists and is turning more people in the middle east against the western world. Gasoline prices are mounting and in an economy that is based on oil this produces undwanted consequences. I don't see the relation between obl and iraq. Iraq during sadamm was in fact a threat to Saudi Arabia... and Iraq was a secular country despite that it was a dictatorship, but now muslim fundamentalism has been introduced there as well.


    Also it seems to me that US forces are not very capable to maintain the peace in Iraq as compared to the british or italian contigent or maybe it's just there is more animosity towards them... who knows... of course having 19 yr old marines out there paniked by daily road bomb attacks surely doesn't help their morale or trust between them and the population and vice versa. I'll never forget this image that i saw on tv when sm american troops forced a family outside their home and the kids were terrorized crying the father feeling very insulted and what not and the troops screaming at them in english. Those kids there will probaply have a deep anger and resentment towards America.. even though the objective that the US may have is good in the long run.

    The problem is that the US is not beeing seen as liberators but as invaders. Certainly securing the oil ministry right away and letting all other civilian instutions at the free will of the people didn't help much to disprove this image. So no matter how good the system the US is trying to put there it will seem as something foreign and imposed and they local population will resist it.

    you are right bout one thing though.. the world has changed.. but not for the better in my view...

Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Should abortion be legal?
    By Tsuyoiko in forum Opinions
    Replies: 94
    Last Post: 18-04-19, 21:13
  2. Criminal Legal puzzlers
    By senseiman in forum World News
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 09-03-19, 18:06
  3. Legal logic is stupid
    By Index in forum World News
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 15-03-05, 10:32
  4. Legal help
    By ax in forum Other Serious Discussion
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 01-01-05, 14:51

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •