Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
blike

To those against war on Iraq

Recommended Posts

International law according to people like you states we cannot attack a hostile nation until they attack us first... as Bush said, that is not peace, it is blackmail and suicide.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fine, great, fantastic, as I said before :-

 

Oh, well that's just peachy, roll right in their boys and get stuck in. Obviously it's a well thought out plan.

 

Obviously you understand the fact that the law has not been broken, and that the US are warmongers bringing terror to the middle east, so that's all ok. Because Bush said so. I can relax now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Possessing WOMD when UN law required their destruction is breaking a law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Almost ALL nations agree that Saddam has violated his UN agreement, he has failed to disarm in 12 YEARS. He GASSED a MILLION INNOCENT PEOPLE. Intelligence suggests he has chemical weapons in his possession. Interviewed Iraqi defectors claim Iraq is training citizen targetting TERRORISTS.

 

Now, you tell me why he should remain in power?

 

Obviously the UN is doing NOTHING to oust his regime. Its been 12 years and he still isn't even following orders to disarm. Yet people still think this can be solved through diplomacy? Bush gave Saddam 48 hours to step down. There is NO other option. If Saddam fails to step down with even the threat of a US led WAR, what makes you think he will step down under "political pressures"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To a degree, yes he has violated the treaty. Yes he has gassed his population, yes he rules through terror, yes he is an evil man.

 

He does require removing from power, or restricted to a figurehead while a democratic system is installed. Should America do this? No, it's got nothing to do with the US.

 

Where does Faf get his information on WOMD? Is there a secrect report that only the Americans have seen?

 

Who said the UN were not planning a move against Iraq? Is that the only two options that the US can see? Either the UN continues with negotiations or the US attacks? Bush angry, Bush crash, Bush smash!

 

The UN does have intentions of negating Sadam, directly or indirectly. The plan is to do it without resorting to war if there is a chance to avoid bloodshed. It's pretty bloody unlikely that America can bully UN, it's just making the countries more adamant to ignore the hissy fits coming from the other side of the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He does require removing from power, or restricted to a figurehead while a democratic system is installed. Should America do this? No, it's got nothing to do with the US.

 

Then who will? Certainly not the french, or the russians, or the germans. Again, the UN has shown its inability to take action. Iraq wouldn't even be on the hotlist if not for the US and UK raising hell over it.

 

Who said the UN were not planning a move against Iraq? Is that the only two options that the US can see? Either the UN continues with negotiations or the US attacks?

 

France would veto anything that went through. That and what the UN says is but dust in the wind to saddam.

 

The UN does have intentions of negating Sadam, directly or indirectly. The plan is to do it without resorting to war if there is a chance to avoid bloodshed.

 

Just like their intentions of disarming Saddam. 12 years later, they're STILL finding undeclared weapons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah the UN wants to get rid of him but their timetable makes death of Saddam by old age the most probable method.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pointless round about arguments. This is not changing either side’s opinions, just repeating them.

 

To clarify, France will not veto every proposal handed to the UN, it is not their function. They didn't veto the last Gulf war, or run away from Serbia and Croatia. They are, however, a country that will not be pushed into decisions (they are a bit strong willed about that).

 

But I do agree that the US has brought this quite rightly to the center stage. At the expense of the other human right violations, and genuine threats of terrorism, but quite right to force the hand in Iraq.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by atinymonkey

[...]Where does Faf get his information on WOMD? Is there a secrect report that only the Americans have seen? [...]

Seems so...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by fafalone

1441 called for serious consequences if they didn't comply. War is a serious consequence, and they have not complied.

 

I think that one of the many lessons that should be learned from all this is that politicians and their pet lawyers need to stop using weasel words and ambiguous phrases in cynical attempts to cover their own arses. What the hell does 'serious consequenses' mean? What is the semantic and legal definition? Should this war go badly with many allied and civilian casualties, those who drafted the resolution can say "oh...by 'serious consequences' we never meant war...if we'd meant war, we would have said so" and if it is a quick, clean and successful strike (and I really hope it is) then they can say "Oh yes...war...that's exactly what we meant by 'serious consequences'".

'Serious consequences' could mean anything. If, when drafting 1441 they meant 'military action' or 'lethal force', then they should have f&@*&ing well said so...gutless bastards.

 

Arguments for or against war seem purely academic now. I just hope it is quick, as clean and with as few casualties as possible (civilian and military, on both sides) and that this time, the objective (the removal of Saddam Hussein and his cohort) is achieved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this term was chosen deliberately to leave any option open.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it was chosen because it is the only way the original resolution got passed. the US knew they could just say that it is a euphamism for war, and France and so on could just say they didn't mean war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by blike

He GASSED a MILLION INNOCENT PEOPLE.

 

 

aah of course, during the Iran-Iraq war while the US was actively supporting Iraq (actually it was supporting both sides, just as a note, while remaining officially neutral)....

 

Don't forget that - it is important when supporting the anti-saddam argument by mentioning his war crimes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He gassed a million people? What figures are you basing that wild assumption on? The gas attack at Halbja in 1988 caused an estimated 5000 casualties and reports indictae he used gas against iranian soldiers in the iran-iraq war but a million people? We all appreciate hes a genocidal arrogant dangerous leader but lets stick to accurate figures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you mean March 1984 for the use of gas against Iranian troops. In March 1988 Hussain was accused of using mustard gas on rebellious Iraqi Kurdish villagers that he thought supported the Iranian's in the conflict. There was not much avalable evidence of the casualties, there is a lot of speculation in that area. I think enough died for the attacks to be classified as a risk (well, more than one casualty would do that).

 

It's a bit of an odd comment for Americans to cite the gas attacks as evidence that Hussain should be deposed, as Regan was giving Hussain the big thumbs up at the time. They were the best of buddies, and we all hated Iran. Now the situation has reversed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by fafalone

We hate Iran too right now. "Axis of evil"

Yeah, it's probably going to be the candidate after Iraq and North Corea...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good, the less hostile dictatorships with WOMD the better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good? Hm... Invading many countries variously chosen by Bush...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you're saying hostile dictatorships promote peace

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I am not saying that. Where did I say that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by fafalone

Good, the less hostile dictatorships with WOMD the better.

What the hell do you think the Middle East sees the US as?

 

The benevolent freedom-bringing champions of the people?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the people whose families have been tortured and killed for their dissent wouldn't see us that way.

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.