Is it justified?
Monday, January 13, 2003 by @shu | Discussion: WinCustomize Talk
Is it justified? I mean the war against Iraq. Of course, the optimists may say, 'Look, it hasn't taken place as yet'. But it is clear to even the common observer that the Anglo-American governments are cranking up the war machine.
They are hell bent on taking unilateral action against a nation that is already destroyed by hunger and poverty, even after the UN weapons inspectors have found nothing. Doesn't this make their actions suspect?
Elsewhere, the N. government openly admits to having a nuclear weapons program, but no action is taken against them. The mere possibility of taking action too does not cross the mind of the very same leaders who threaten to blow Iraq into oblivion. Is it due to the fact that N. Korea possesses the capability to retaliate, or the fact that N. Korea does not have any oil reserves to quench the thirst of these oil guzzling, 'developed, first world' countries?
They are hell bent on taking unilateral action against a nation that is already destroyed by hunger and poverty, even after the UN weapons inspectors have found nothing. Doesn't this make their actions suspect?
Elsewhere, the N. government openly admits to having a nuclear weapons program, but no action is taken against them. The mere possibility of taking action too does not cross the mind of the very same leaders who threaten to blow Iraq into oblivion. Is it due to the fact that N. Korea possesses the capability to retaliate, or the fact that N. Korea does not have any oil reserves to quench the thirst of these oil guzzling, 'developed, first world' countries?
 |
|
Page 7 of 9 | |
|
|---|
Frogboy
Reply #122 Wednesday, January 15, 2003 10:10 AM
Reply #122 Wednesday, January 15, 2003 10:10 AM
I debate these issues all the time on other sites and it's rarely an issue. Of course, we don't have people calling others "fascists" there. It's one of the reasons why I think the anti-war movement has been so in-effective. They don't want to deal with the real issues at hand:
The key issues I point out such as “Do you really want to take a chance that this guy is going to get WMD given his tendency to USE them? Has everyone forgotten that he dumped millions of tons of oil into the Persian Gulf? Or that he set off the wells in Kuwait (and still hasn’t paid reparations)? Or that he used chemical weapons against the Iranians? Or that he used them against his own people? Or that he’s violated nearly all the conditions that ended the first gulf war (i.e. violated the cease fire agreement)? These things are all ignored.
Instead we get hysterical arguments about how Americans think their country can do no wrong and that we're just mindless robots following our leader. Or that we just want oil. Or that it's Bush Jr. trying to clean up Bush Sr's mess. Or that we're just war happy. Or that the US (alone amongst industrialized nations) must abide by the long legally moot part of the UN charter with regard to military action (while similarly not suggesting that their governments do anything about this alleged "Criminal" behavior of the US such as enact trade sanctions) Or some other such nonsense. And if all else fails, start making blanket statements on what a hellish country the US is and how those who have concluded that military action in Iraq is needed are fascists.
It seems straight forward to me. If you really think the US is acting in some criminal way, then those people have a duty to try to get their governments to enforce these alleged laws. They could at least apply trade sanctions. Otherwise it's just empty chattering.
The key issues I point out such as “Do you really want to take a chance that this guy is going to get WMD given his tendency to USE them? Has everyone forgotten that he dumped millions of tons of oil into the Persian Gulf? Or that he set off the wells in Kuwait (and still hasn’t paid reparations)? Or that he used chemical weapons against the Iranians? Or that he used them against his own people? Or that he’s violated nearly all the conditions that ended the first gulf war (i.e. violated the cease fire agreement)? These things are all ignored.
Instead we get hysterical arguments about how Americans think their country can do no wrong and that we're just mindless robots following our leader. Or that we just want oil. Or that it's Bush Jr. trying to clean up Bush Sr's mess. Or that we're just war happy. Or that the US (alone amongst industrialized nations) must abide by the long legally moot part of the UN charter with regard to military action (while similarly not suggesting that their governments do anything about this alleged "Criminal" behavior of the US such as enact trade sanctions) Or some other such nonsense. And if all else fails, start making blanket statements on what a hellish country the US is and how those who have concluded that military action in Iraq is needed are fascists.
It seems straight forward to me. If you really think the US is acting in some criminal way, then those people have a duty to try to get their governments to enforce these alleged laws. They could at least apply trade sanctions. Otherwise it's just empty chattering.
WOM
Reply #123 Wednesday, January 15, 2003 10:16 AM
Reply #123 Wednesday, January 15, 2003 10:16 AM
It would sure be nice if someone would take a break and help Citizen Scruffy with his problem.
paxx
Reply #124 Wednesday, January 15, 2003 12:06 PM
Reply #124 Wednesday, January 15, 2003 12:06 PM
Frogboy: "If this discussion has shown anything, it shows that the intellectual honesty of the "anti-war" crowd is empty."
This is very insulting. I could say the same the other way around. Since when is war so intelligent?
Anyway, the topic here is about the invasion of Iraq byt the US/UK. If the topic asked what we thought of France's sending troops into Ivory Coast, my answer would have been exactly the same. I'm neither pro nor anti US.
And anyway, we don't really know the real agenda of our governements. I suspect that the US will not attack Irak at all. The threats only was a big help in getting the UN inspectors into Iraq in the first place, and tey still help get the inspectors the collaboration they need.
This is very insulting. I could say the same the other way around. Since when is war so intelligent?
Anyway, the topic here is about the invasion of Iraq byt the US/UK. If the topic asked what we thought of France's sending troops into Ivory Coast, my answer would have been exactly the same. I'm neither pro nor anti US.
And anyway, we don't really know the real agenda of our governements. I suspect that the US will not attack Irak at all. The threats only was a big help in getting the UN inspectors into Iraq in the first place, and tey still help get the inspectors the collaboration they need.
Lord Vimal
Reply #125 Wednesday, January 15, 2003 12:15 PM
Reply #125 Wednesday, January 15, 2003 12:15 PM
right now, i am in Kuwait (been here for 5 yrs) and i know what is the tension here... 
Frogboy
Reply #126 Wednesday, January 15, 2003 1:48 PM
Reply #126 Wednesday, January 15, 2003 1:48 PM
I didn't just make an statement about the anti-war crowd's argument being empty on its own. I argued in detail why I feel their arguments are so empty.
I have given specific, detailed reasons for my side of the argument. What do I get in return? I get called a fascist and nonsense about how an ideal world might be if we could all hold hands and get along.
I find it intellectually lazy to argue that no one should ever do anything. It's like saying that policemen don't have the right to arrest crooks because using force makes them no better than anyone else. It's not like Iraq is some victim that was randomly chosen by "evil(TM)" US powers.
I have given specific, detailed reasons for my side of the argument. What do I get in return? I get called a fascist and nonsense about how an ideal world might be if we could all hold hands and get along.
I find it intellectually lazy to argue that no one should ever do anything. It's like saying that policemen don't have the right to arrest crooks because using force makes them no better than anyone else. It's not like Iraq is some victim that was randomly chosen by "evil(TM)" US powers.
paxx
Reply #127 Wednesday, January 15, 2003 2:15 PM
Reply #127 Wednesday, January 15, 2003 2:15 PM
But Frogboy, that's my whole point: the USA are not the cops, nor is any country.
Frogboy
Reply #128 Wednesday, January 15, 2003 2:25 PM
Reply #128 Wednesday, January 15, 2003 2:25 PM
Then there is also no international law. Laws that cannot be enforced are not laws, they're wish lists.
The UN was created as a collective SECURITY organization. Iraq has been jerking around the UN security council resolutions for a decade now.
Americans (and everyone else for that matter) have good reason to fear Saddam getting weapons of mass destruction. If the UN isn't going to take care of them, then someone else does.
The same is true of North Korea. The UN isn't going to do anything about North Korea is it? Hopefully Russia and China can take care of North Korea.
In short, the UN is proving itself to be feeble at enforcing "international laws". As a result, those laws lose any sort of meaning.
There is no moral high ground in absolute pacifism. It is easy to say "can't we all just get along?" I've yet to see anyone in this discussion put forth one good reason why we should allow Saddam to obtain WMD. One reason. The inspectors aren't searchers. They're inspectors. Iraq is the size of California, they will never find anything. And they don't really want to find anything anyway.
The UN was created as a collective SECURITY organization. Iraq has been jerking around the UN security council resolutions for a decade now.
Americans (and everyone else for that matter) have good reason to fear Saddam getting weapons of mass destruction. If the UN isn't going to take care of them, then someone else does.
The same is true of North Korea. The UN isn't going to do anything about North Korea is it? Hopefully Russia and China can take care of North Korea.
In short, the UN is proving itself to be feeble at enforcing "international laws". As a result, those laws lose any sort of meaning.
There is no moral high ground in absolute pacifism. It is easy to say "can't we all just get along?" I've yet to see anyone in this discussion put forth one good reason why we should allow Saddam to obtain WMD. One reason. The inspectors aren't searchers. They're inspectors. Iraq is the size of California, they will never find anything. And they don't really want to find anything anyway.
citats
Reply #129 Wednesday, January 15, 2003 2:45 PM
Reply #129 Wednesday, January 15, 2003 2:45 PM
The UN has made the USA international cops by over using their military and continuously appointing them as lead in military actions. Should we be passive (UN Not the USA) I don't believe for a sec. that Mr. Iraq will hesitate to launch folly after folly against Isreal, Kuwait, Saudi and other states in the region that don't see eye to eye with them. History is to be a teacher. Peace is more then Ideal but its so unrealistic. Ignorance is bliss huh!
citats
Reply #131 Wednesday, January 15, 2003 3:58 PM
Reply #131 Wednesday, January 15, 2003 3:58 PM
I don't know about the Buc's but the Toronto Maple Leafs played a horrible game last night and managed to win 3-2... Don't get me wrong I am happy... but the 1st period alone they were out shot 15 - 1 and came away leading 1 - 0 ... Eddy Eddy Eddy !!! 
citats
Reply #133 Wednesday, January 15, 2003 4:20 PM
Reply #133 Wednesday, January 15, 2003 4:20 PM
Its something US Canucks eat.
could also be a BBall team from Beer Town USA.
could also be a BBall team from Beer Town USA.
citats
Reply #135 Wednesday, January 15, 2003 4:26 PM
Reply #135 Wednesday, January 15, 2003 4:26 PM
Is it justified? All forms of sport are justified. including Football. 
Ande
Reply #137 Wednesday, January 15, 2003 4:55 PM
Reply #137 Wednesday, January 15, 2003 4:55 PM
Rugby Union, Rugby league, Australian Rules. Gridiron if you must(Too much protection though). This is the war i love. Get stuck into it, get dirty and the obligatory drink afterwards. Yeah 
IPlural
Reply #138 Wednesday, January 15, 2003 5:17 PM
Reply #138 Wednesday, January 15, 2003 5:17 PM
Tampa Bay Buc's
Kind of elongated pointy making it a ball with two ends that you run around, throw and carry from one end of a lined field to the other in the hopes of crossing the line in front of your team to make a point. Ah, you can kick it now and then, well actually it starts with kicking the, umm, ball, hence Football
Is calling it Football justified and on a deeper subject, is it really a ball when it has to point's breaking it's conformed roundness of a ball? Maybe it should be called a double cone attached at the middle throwy kicky thingy.
Then we could have Monday Night : double cone attached at the middle throwy kicky thingy
Kind of elongated pointy making it a ball with two ends that you run around, throw and carry from one end of a lined field to the other in the hopes of crossing the line in front of your team to make a point. Ah, you can kick it now and then, well actually it starts with kicking the, umm, ball, hence Football
Is calling it Football justified and on a deeper subject, is it really a ball when it has to point's breaking it's conformed roundness of a ball? Maybe it should be called a double cone attached at the middle throwy kicky thingy.
Then we could have Monday Night : double cone attached at the middle throwy kicky thingy
Bangkokboy
Reply #139 Wednesday, January 15, 2003 7:15 PM
Reply #139 Wednesday, January 15, 2003 7:15 PM
paxx - re: no action on the slaughter of the Kurds. The no-fly zones we enforce were set up to stop Saddam's planes and helicopters from bombing and gassing the Kurd refugees, which they were doing with great gusto. I call that doing something. Every time our planes patrol the no-fly zone and get shot at with Saddam's surface-to-air missiles they're "stepping up".
@shu: we didn't go to Afghanistan to stop starvation, or warlord infighting. And why should we have to be responsible for either one of those preconditions to our arrival? Some Afghani factions were their own worst enemies before we came, and they'll be their own worst enemies long after we've gone. I'm glad you're "not someone who enjoys America bashing". If you do it but "don't enjoy it", then it doesn't really count, right? Should we apply that logic to other indulgences, like sex?
Or massacreing thousands of civilians with bombs concealed by cowards?
Where is the "sheesh" emoticon?
@shu: we didn't go to Afghanistan to stop starvation, or warlord infighting. And why should we have to be responsible for either one of those preconditions to our arrival? Some Afghani factions were their own worst enemies before we came, and they'll be their own worst enemies long after we've gone. I'm glad you're "not someone who enjoys America bashing". If you do it but "don't enjoy it", then it doesn't really count, right? Should we apply that logic to other indulgences, like sex?
Or massacreing thousands of civilians with bombs concealed by cowards?
Where is the "sheesh" emoticon?
Weaksid
Reply #140 Wednesday, January 15, 2003 7:29 PM
Reply #140 Wednesday, January 15, 2003 7:29 PM
I just want to put 2cents in or even a cent. My head hurts from reading all of this.. Too much info.
Please login to comment and/or vote for this skin.
Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
- Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums and downloading skins.
- Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
- Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
- It's simple, and FREE!
|
|
Page 7 of 9 | |
|
|---|
Reply #121 Wednesday, January 15, 2003 9:37 AM
2 topics should rarely be discussed among peers, politics and religion. It almost always ends up in a fuss. I read a bunch of post back that @shu asked for this thread to be removed. I myself think that is a good idea. JMO