For the record, I am in favor of military action against Iraq to force a regime change. As are most Americans.

And like many Americans, I don't really care what the UN thinks about..well anything. UN approval or disapproval is fairly meaningless as far as I'm concerned. Since the UN charter, there have been so many violations of the UN charter that it's meaningless.

NATO action in Yugoslavia was done without UN authorization. The replacement of Noriega in Panama in 1989 was done without UN authorization. The UK acted in the Falkland islands without UN authorization (and obviously so did Argentina).

And let's not forget that the cease fire of 1991 required that Iraq comply with UN resolutions promptly. It clearlyed violated those resolutions making the cease fire null and void. So even if the niceties of some theoretical "international law" meant something in this case, it would be covered there.

Iraq shooting at US planes in the no fly zones, all by itself, is enough to justify a material breach.

Like I said before, if you guys are so anxious to discuss this stuff, I suggest going to our discussion forum that is populated by people who follow this stuff on a daily basis news://news.stardock.com/stardock.discussion. There are people on all sides of the fence there. The difference is that they KNOW the issues at hand and can debate them. Talking about vague "well dictator X is worse" or "Look, George Bush said something dumb 2 years ago" is cute and all on some skin site message board where most people don't care. But if you seriously want to intellectually discuss it, this really isn't the place.

The issues that are being brought up here have been discussed a thousand times on political sites. There are legitimate arguments for military action and legitimate arguments for not using military force against Iraq. But the ones brought up here tend to get eaten alive on the political forums out there because they have a lot of holes in them.

I want Saddam gone because he's repeatedly demonstrated that he will not stop pursuing weapons of mass destruction. Has shown that he will use them. And has made it clear in discussions with others that his intent is to have "intimidation power" over his neighbors and a deterrent against outside (read: USA/UK) inteference. There are worse dictators in the world, sure, but they aren't sitting on top of a large percent of the world's proven oil reserves and poised to intimdate/control their neighbors who also sit on large amounts of the world's oil reserves.

And if that isn't enough, he has terrorist connections. He has pubicly shown that he is funding suicide bombers in Israel and while there isn't smoking gun proof that he's connected to Al Queda, there's a lot of evidence that he funds terrorism in general. The odds of a weapon of mass destruction getting into their hands after he gets them are not a risk we shouldn't be willing to take.

And on top of that, there's the fact that he brutalizes his people (just as bad as many other dictators but the other dictators aren't doing the things he mentioned above).

In short, this guy getting WMD is not a risk I want us to take. Not after 9-11. We're in a position to remove this guy and I think our government has a responsibility to do so. I also see it consistent with international norms in the past. The US replaced the regime in Panama in 1989 for much less reason (and amazingly no one spazzed out about that). And Panama, like Iraq, was in a strategicly important position - the canal zone being closed would cripple world trade.

The US and UK have been trying to enforce UN resolutions for a decade. And despite getting missiles shot at their planes on a regular basis, all they get from their "allies" is a bunch of grief. And UN support realistically means France, Russia and China. Two of which have big oil contracts with Saddam and hence have a financial interest to keep him in power. So the idea that UN support is vital is, in my view, laughable.

Now, you're certainly free to disagree with me. But I think you'll agree that my reasoning isn't due to gut jingoism or war happiness or whatever. It should hopefully be apparent that I've put some time into thinking about these issues and followed the details of them up close before reaching my conclusion. I am not, for example, in favor of military action in North Korea. I think that issue MUST be handled diplomatically. I also think it can be handled diplomatically whereas I think Iraq has shown that it cannot be handled via diplomacy.

"I am not, for example, in favor of military action in North Korea. I think that issue MUST be handled diplomatically." - Frogboy.
I do not want to be seen up in arms against your opinions Frogboy, but does the origin of this statement lie in the fact that right or wrong, any aggression against N. Korea would result in a number of bodybags coming home, vis a vis Vietnam?

Does the American Logic apply only in cases of the great underdog?

And Frogboy, why do you keep giving the link to experts' discussions? Isn't this war all about public perception, what a common man thinks is right? Shouldn't there be a forum for the common man to discuss this issue at a common man's level? We may not be experts on history, but we can help shape it!!!! Future generations will judge us on our acts, our faiths.
And don't historians take sides too???

The truth comes out!!!! Oil. The lifeline of a nation!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Who keeps saying death to the Infidels?

And maybe people did speak out in 1989. But nobody came to know about it as the use of the net was not as widespread. But we are still not reffering to the real issue here, is the unilateralism shown by the NATO (I have to substitute US/UK by NATO, touchy topic) justified?
In that cse, we should have nuked our neighbours in the 1971 war itself, we had conquered most of their territory, held a conventional as well as a nuclear edge over them. Man I wish our people had lost all their capability to reason!!!

That is an outcome of the Crusades, some people have forgotten them, others haven't, isn't it Sir WOM?

@shu: He's gently trying to put across to you that the place for discussion about politics is not on a skinning site but on a politics newsgroup. He's said it blatantly and subtly but yet this thread continues to grow. The newsgroup is not just there for experts on the matter, it is there for the 'common man'.

pjpowell stops adding to this thread now.

I am sorry for it pipowell.

Maybe this thread needs to be terminated and I need to hit the sack and dream about a peaceful world. That is the only place where I can see one.

Any Admin out there?

Delete this thread please. It has hurt many sensibilities and I have made enough enemies within a space of 20 hours. I don't think the world or I need to see more hate. Maybe it is a crime to be in the minority. No more inputs from me to this thread.

Goodbye to all of you and sorry for expressing opinions that does not suit your beliefs.

I doubt you have made any enemies by what you have said here. I am sure there are people who support your view. Personally I am against war of any sort. As a Christian I believe no man has the right to kill another no matter what the reason. 'Vengeance is mine, saith the Lord'. As this is not a theology website I will not go any further here.

Frogboy, oh I am for UN action to remove Saddam and restore some kind of functional government in his place with UN over-sight.

US invasion and occupation controlling the natural resources in lew of payment for doing it is crap though.

Which is exactly what was released from the White house.

No one, as far as I can tell, is upset with anyone.

But the reason I do give out the link to a discussion that has people who are interested in this sort of thing is because debating these kinds of issues here involves mixing people who have not given the issue any thought with people who have put thousands of hours of interest in it together. While this, on the surface, may seem like a great thing, the likely result is offense to be taken.

For example, here on a skinning forum like this, I think people would take offense if someone came on who had never created a skin and started talking about how say MacOS skins are better than "PC" skins in the underlying design.

The same is true in politics. When people haven't looked into a given topic (regardless of that topic) they tend to oversimplify things. You, shu, for instance, tried to trivialize my argument down to "it's about oil". Oil is only one of many reasons (which I gave). I also find it distasteful for people to act like oil isn't something that's a big deal. Without oil, millions would starve very quickly (take a hard look at the distribution system of food and other vital supplies in any modern industrialized nation).

But that's not even the main reason. If it were, I would not be in favor of military action. My biggest reason is that Iraq WANTS weapons of mass destruction. And after 9-11, I think it is definitely the US's business who has them and who wants them. I no longer care very much about international law concerns when it comes to this. I don't care about the sovereignty of Iraq or any other country on this particular issue. As far as I'm concerned, in the post 9-11 world, you want to get nukes, then that's the US's business. Sure, in a purely intellectual discussion that seems incredibly arrogant. But here, IN THE REAL WORLD, we have terrorists hijacking planes and flying them into buildings. I've been in the WTC. It was a huge structure. At any given time there were a 100,000 people in those two towers. Picture that: 100,000 people. Had the planes arrived a couple hours later and hit a little lower, the death toll could have been 20,000 or higher.

And those guys want weapons of mass destruction. And the USA would be at the top of the list of countries that such weapons would be used against. And as a resident of said country, I expect my government to prevent that. And because it has the means to at least prevent the wrong countries from getting them then I expect it to act.

With regards to North Korea, I don't expect the US to have to act there because China is right there. It should be China's job to take care of North Korea. The problem with Iraq is that none of its neighbors is capable of taking them out. We're the policeman of last resort. But North Korea has no less than 4 nations (Russia, China, S. Korea, and Japan) that are capable of squashing them. Any of them SHOULD be able to handle North Korea. And all of them have a vested interest in ensuring that North Korea doesn't go nuclear. That's why there is a difference. But if that isn't enough of a reason (which it is) then you have the likelyhood that military action would mean the deaths of potentially millions (Seoul is right there for instance with its population of 20 million or so in that area well within artilery range of N. Korea). I think the US could, if it had to, squash North Korea with minimal US casaulties. Just use air strikes on N. Korea, blockade them and they'd starve and freeze to death in weeks. But that wouldn't be a very great solution now would it?

Now hopefully at this point you can see why this ins't a great place for this discussion. I enjoy these kinds of debates. But I enjoy discussing them with people who have read up on the issues in depth. I don't enjoy debating with people who only have a very superficial knowledge on the issues and the histories involved and are prone to simplifying the issues or worse applying coarse moral equivalence to their arguments.

"And like many Americans, I don't really care what the UN thinks about..well anything"

Well, and like many other people, I really don't care about what the law thniks about... well anything.
I appreciate you listed a number of rogue acts, Frogboy, and I could also list about 300 homicides in Canada last year. I guess that since it's fibidden by law and that some people do it anyway it makes it OK then.
I think I'm just gonna kill my neighbour next door today.

Oh, and because somebody doesn't have the same opinion as you doesn't mean they are not informed, Frogboy.
It's really about values. If you think crime is OK, well pardon me not to agree.

ring, ring, ring, 911, what is your emergency?

ah, yeah, well like see my neighbor is out to get me and he's been acting really weird all month and I know he is going to come and kill me in my sleep, so I thought I should let someone know in advance that I am going to apply my right of preemptive attack, yep gonna knock on his door, shoot him in the head when he opens it and then burn down his house to ensure the job is done. Oh, if everyone else doesn't make it out of the house, do I get to claim them as collateral damage? you know, no foul?

Well of course sir! you have a good action and God Bless, baa-bye

yes, I do digress, this is not a political chat/forum.

I also did say a few times back " enough from me "...
so anyways, enough from me in this thread, I knew better too my bad...

I had thought that I'd not contribute anymore to this thread. But since you have named me in your post Frogboy, I had to put in a word.

Imagine yourself as an Iraqi. You made mistakes in 1990, paid with it with the lives of your brothers and sisters in the war and after it due to sanctions.

You submitted, against your national pride, to restrictions, starvation. Now you allow foreign nationals to roam freely into your country to check universities, college hospitals etc. for WMD's. They find nothing worthwhile. Still, the lone superpower in the world wishes to kill you on the pretext of hiding WMD's, harbouring terrorists, that too after 12 years of sanctions. Wouldn't you use any means at your disposal to destroy this threat?

If Iraq is a threat to the US, isn't US a threat to Iraq too, its shadow ever looming in the Gulf?

After 911, what most Americans wanted to know was 'Why us?' while the rest of the world was saying, 'Why not?'

I had an acquaintance, a very dear one, working in the second tower. But I blame the US as much as Osama for the death of my friend.

Violence begots violence. To kill the enemy, kill the enemity. If you replace or annhiliate Saddam, do you think hate campaign against the US will stop? When and where will this venture end? You will end up destroying the whole world before you find the kind of security you are looking for.

Who next? Bush Jr. has decided to finish unfinished family business, the legacy, with Iraq. Next on his list might be Iran, then N. Korea. Maybe Cuba then (Fidel is still alive). Followed by Pakistan (Musharraf might yield to the fanatics, already there have been skirmishes between the Pakistani and American forces at the Afghanistan border).

Won't they use all the means at their disposal, they might be fuel laden boeingd or the Stingers provided by the US itself, to retaliate?

If US calls Iraq a terrorist country, I am sorry to say, The biggest terror in the world is US itself.

That's what this thread is all about, double standards.

Here's the problem. We have different axioms. That is, we have different starting points.

I don't recognize "international law" as being a set in stone set of rules. I don't equate the laws of the United Nations with the laws of the United States. Laws that are unenforcable are not laws.

Secondly, I don't see myself as a "citizen of the world". I see myself as a citizen of the United States. I am not interested in moral equivalence arguments or "double standards". If some guy in India wants to pretend that the US is a "bigger terrorist" (which is absurd to equate people who go through great pains to murder civilians with a nation state that tries to avoid civilian casualties -- the US COULD have simply nuked Afghanastan afterall). In fact, it's difficult to have a serious discussion with someone who equates my country and my beliefs with "terrorism". I find it disgusting and insulting as well as incredibly ignorant.

I also find it abomindable that people like you Shu, completely ignore my arguments and just go merrily on making up ridiculous reasons why the US is going after Iraq. Now, according to you, it's a grudge match to pick up where Bush I left off.

If other countries TRULY object to what the United States is doing, then perhaps they should put their money where their mouths are. If they REALLY believe the US is violating international law, or is some "terrorist" state, then perhaps they should put trade sanctions on. Or maybe they should increase their defense budgets so that the evil USA can't go after them. But they don't. Why? Because they know the USA, for all its flaws, is a force for good in the world. When EU countries are LOWERING their defense spending (particularly Germany) it's really hard to take serious rhetoric that the US is a "rogue" nation.

Or maybe they just completely lack any principles. In either case, there is no reason for the US not to pursue its current path: To try to remove serious dangers to US citizens. Bush is the elected leader of the US. The majority of the population supports military action against Iraq -- even WITHOUT UN approval. The US government's job is to carry out the will of its citizens. If some guy in Europe or Canada or India doesn't like that, then their best bet is to try to get their governments to take a tough line (i.e. make economic or military threats against the US to try to change its course). Otherwise, it's just empty chatter.