Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
blike

To those against war on Iraq

Recommended Posts

question or two

 

Assuming we go to war (big assumption eh), if Iraq uses chemical/biological weapons against our troops, will you say that we were right? I could be wrong, but it seems like a lot of people against war believe that saddam does not have weapons of mass destruction. If we go to war, and he uses them, will this change your mind about the war?

 

What if Al Quaeda is found to be directly connected to iraq somehow, will this change your mind?

 

The reason Bush is pushing for our involvement with Iraq is national security. If either of the two aforementioned scenarios are found to be true, were we right in invading Iraq?

 

High ranking defectors from Iraq have already stated that Saddam will use biological/chemical weapons against our soldiers, so I wouldn't be too suprised if they do have some stashed away..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I'd say you were silly to attack a country you knew would use WOMD against you if you attacked them:confused:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, I'd say you were silly to attack a country you knew would use WOMD against you if you attacked them

 

Quite silly indeed, but what would this mean for all those supporting saddam?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Being against war"

 

Is not the same as...

 

"Believing Iraq has no WOMD"

 

And certainly not the same as...

 

"Supporting Saddam"

 

 

If Iraq does deploy biological or chemical weapons against our coalition forces, then it does not justify the attack in any way. As Skye says, it just makes us even more stupid for going to war when we should be sorting out our past errors through more civilised means.

 

The relationship between Al Quaeda and Iraq is not relevant to whether this war is justified or morally sound. Period.

 

The reason Bush is pushing for our involvement with Iraq is national security. If either of the two aforementioned scenarios are found to be true, were we right in invading Iraq?
That rather depends on how much damage we do and the results we get out of it. Look at Afghanisatan. Once again we devastate the country and blow up civilian buildings, plus the obligatory US planes bombing Red Cross aid centers etc, and how many terrorists did we kill? Remember how terrorism died at the end of that war? Oh no it didn't did it.

 

As far as these 'high ranking defectors' go I'm beginning to trust them less and less. I suggest some torture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No to all of those questions.

 

The U.S. needs to completely overhaul it's foreign policy. It needs to communicate that reformulated policy to the world and it needs to demonstrate it is acting on it. That is the only solution to U.S. domestic security concerns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree. If America didnt show such blatant double standards towards israel the hatred towards the US from neighbouring arab countries wouldnt be nearly so intense. If globalisation and subsidies to US traders didnt completely overshadow the aid Amercia gives African countries (and the EU is just as guilty of this) then people couldnt accuse the US of unfair two faced trading. Or if perhaps the US didnt pour troops into countries who obviously had problems with them being there for an attack they dont support, then there wouldnt have been a huge increase in the numbers of British nationals being killed by car bombs in Saudi Arabia recently (despite Saudi's feeble attamepts to claim they were fueling booze merchants operating inside Saudi Arabia). The foriegn policies of the US - and the EU's foreign economic policy that mirrors it - need to be changed and now. the war on terrorism shouldnt just be fought against warlords in afghanistan, if foreign policies dont change nothing will have changed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Skye

No, I'd say you were silly to attack a country you knew would use WOMD against you if you attacked them:confused:

 

WOMD?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by NSX

WOMD?

Women of the Mekong Delta.

 

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

some questions who think that we should go to war under current circumstances.

 

 

Assuming we go to war (big assumption eh), if Iraq doesn´t use chemical/biological weapons against our troops because he doesn´t have any, and thousands of innocent civilians die, will you say that we were wrong?

 

What if Al Quaeda is found to be no connections at all to iraq, will this change your mind?

 

The reason Bush is pushing for our involvement with Iraq is national security. If of the two aforementioned scenarios are wrong, and the muslim world is inflamed, resulting in a rise in terrorism (quite likely - look how all the other arab countries are reacting) will you vote him out?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by blike

Assuming we go to war (big assumption eh), if Iraq uses chemical/biological weapons against our troops, will you say that we were right? I could be wrong, but it seems like a lot of people against war believe that saddam does not have weapons of mass destruction. If we go to war, and he uses them, will this change your mind about the war?

..

 

What if I form up an army and invade Florida? Would I be justified in my war if I found nuclear, biological and conventional weapons? Florida is directly linked to IRA funding in Ireland, which is a confirmed deadly threat to the UK national security, I have concerns that they haven't disarmed despite my forming of Resolution 7986b, which clearly requires the unilateral disarmament of the state.

 

Is there not another course of action we can take? Like ask Sadam to step down? The last war accomplished pretty much nothing apart from freeing Kuwait (which used to be part of Iraq until the UK stepped in) and causing a widespread slaughter.

 

It's the willingness to kill so many people that worries me. Estimates are at half a million deaths for a war against Iraq, is it just not important as long as less than a thousand of those are American or British? Mind you, if I had to make decisions that weighed up human life I'm not sure how I would cope, never mind the lives of a entire nation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Assuming we go to war (big assumption eh), if Iraq doesn´t use chemical/biological weapons against our troops because he doesn´t have any, and thousands of innocent civilians die, will you say that we were wrong?

 

Yes, I would say that the US was wrong about the WMD. However, I still might agree that Saddam should be removed, maybe not through war though.

 

What if Al Quaeda is found to be no connections at all to iraq, will this change your mind?

 

Yes, it probably would, assuming Saddam had no WMD as well.

 

If of the two aforementioned scenarios are wrong, and the muslim world is inflamed, resulting in a rise in terrorism (quite likely - look how all the other arab countries are reacting) will you vote him out?

 

I'm not sure if I would vote him out, I still tend to agree with some of the things he stands by, but it would change my opinion of him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is there not another course of action we can take? Like ask Sadam to step down?

 

Tried that, no success.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets just tie up something. Iraq is in possession of anthrax. This is not my opinion but verified fact due to Britain admitting that it sold Saddam Hussein anthrax several years ago. We do not need to go charging into the most volatile region on the planet to confirm this, all we need to do is look at the receipts britain has. Saddam has scud missles - bought from the former soviet union. we know this because he used them in the last gulf war I believe. We know he has several strains of types of nerve gas because he's used them on the Kurds at various times in the past 2 decades.

 

Now what we do not know. there is no proven direct link between iraq and al quaeda, the presentation Colin Powel gave to the UN was highly criticised on this part, at least by the british media and European politicians. Besides, Osama Bin Laden detests Saddam because iraq is a secular state, is quasi-socialist, non-islamic and thereby an infidel by bin laden's logic. Bin Laden even labelled Saddam a communist, id hardly say they were in cahoots. We do not know exactly how much material Saddam has but if he's agreed to have Al Samood (spelling?) missles destroyed then this must be good news. Iraqi scientists are being interviewed in private, inspectors dont seem to be being denied entry to his presidential palaces and Hans Blix keeps on announcing that Iraq is cooperating more and more. A good job the UN have appointed someone called Hans to search for arms...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well okay, lets look at the situation as it stands at the moment:

 

there is no proof that saddam has womd. if the US has it, it should be handed to the inspectors so they can find him in material breach.

as greg pointed out, osama hates Saddam, and the feeling is mutual.

 

furthermore, it is highly likely that this war will actually aid the cause of terrorism, as for some bizarre reason, muslims don´t mind being killed by muslims, but they absolutely hate being killed by anyone else. If the US wants to stop terrorism, it needs to find a way to stop being hated by the muslim world. Quite clearly, the first thing to do is sort out the israel palestine problem, which clearly needs sorting with a heavy hand, since israel is in breach of more UN resolutions than you can shake a stick at. I really don´t need to go into this in any more depth, but it is clear that it is a major problem, much more so than saddams alleged womd, since it gives the islamic estremists an excuse to kill americans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Iraq acknowledged they had WOMD, in fact they actually used them in the Gulf War. What happened to these stockpiles?

 

The burden was placed on them to PROVE THAT THEY HAD DESTROYED THEIR STOCKPILES, not to let the weapons inspectors go on an easter egg hunt and provide no clues. All Iraq has to do is point to the site where they dismantled them and it can be proven, however they insist they don't have them without offering any evidence that they destroyed the ones they had.

 

Anyone who thinks Iraq doesn't have WOMD (chem/bio, not nuclear) is a fool.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah right.

 

"Prove your weapons don't exist.

 

And while you're at it, debunk God, the Tooth Fairy and Space Snails."

 

Easier said than done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with fafalone here, there is absolutely no question Saddam has WOMD. He's already used them! the Kurds found out the hard way when he gassed them. They're dismantling Al Samood (again spelling?) missle ast the moment. WE SOLD HIM anthrax and if we're finding shells with empty chemical warheads he must have the chemicals to put in them...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Sayonara³

Yeah right.

 

"Prove your weapons don't exist.

 

And while you're at it, debunk God, the Tooth Fairy and Space Snails."

 

Easier said than done.

 

 

Because telling them where they're buried or where to find the inevitable contamination from dismantling them is just so hard. If he destroyed them, not only would there be physical remains, but there would be documents detailing exactly what was done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're assuming he didn't use up all his weapons in the last war, that they weren't dumped at sea or sold to another country, and that he had stockpiles in the firstplace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im assuming he didnt destroy every single WOMD for several reasons. He denied having Al Samood missles live on prime TV then less than 2 days later, UN inspectors found them and started dismantling them. If they find a medium for delivering chemicals or biological agents then the assumption he has those chemicals or bio agents is a pretty safe and reasonable assumption to make. And in any case, if he actually had destroyed his stockpiles this would go against everything thats happened over the past 12 years. the inspectors being thrown out in 1998, the continued resistance to inspectors generally, the UN passing resolution 1441 in novermber etc etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Sayonara³

You're assuming he didn't use up all his weapons in the last war, that they weren't dumped at sea or sold to another country, and that he had stockpiles in the firstplace.

 

 

He didn't use many at all.

 

If they were, there would be a paper trail to prove it.

 

And he acknowledged having them back in the day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as we've been told.

 

Not necessarily, and let's not forget that if there were it might not be in Coalition interests to declare that they found it.

 

So would I if invasion were being threatened.

 

 

Don't take what you are told for granted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A massive conspiracy that Arab news stations are covering up too Weapons that magically disappear without a trace, and anyone who doesn't believe it is so hopelessly dependent on the conspiracy they can't see the truth?

 

Sounds like pseudoscience to me!

 

 

Al Samoud II missiles were in violation of UN sanctions, and weren't declared in the mandated "complete" report, how is this not material breach to begin with?

 

All this is based on Iraq's past history and current actions; whereas your opinion is based on the word of an insane dictator.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My opinion is based on the fact that I find Bush and Blair's claims to be about as trustworthy as Hussein's. I consider this to be a sensible stance.

 

I'm not going to be drawn into a protracted argument over whether or not Iraq has WOMD, and whether or not it should use them, because it's not relevant to the questions Blike originally asked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Saddams missiles are "delivery systems". Why hasn't the UN said anything about the warhead factories or don't they exist?

It doesn't make sense to build one without at least plans for the other.

 

Also Saddam tried to stockpile some atropine and provided Chem suits for his military. This indicates to me he expects to be in contact with his own supplies.

 

War will start, and scuds he doesn't have will fly.

Just aman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.