Why A War Against Irak Is Wrong

Quote:

---

I can't beleive anyone can justify the Palestinians.

---

This might be true, and the historical facts you remind us are true, but, as a Jew, I can add that nothing can justify the Israelians. People who suffered so much in the past from discrmination, terror and extermination should have built an exemplary state, which they did not. When they finally got a PM who really wanted peace, they killed him.

Nobody is right in this conflict. It needs impartiality, not the so obviously pro-Israel US diplomacy.

Rat Faced-
I believe this may be heating up again-
Ketoprak-ynhockey-
I would like to LEARN from your discourse; please mind manners?
I will reserve the right to interject as I see fit re: comments about the U.S.
Please, this kind of opportunity doesn't just drop out of the blue; you two are on opposite sides of the fence and are in an excellent position to make (NOT SCORE) points with anybody else who's here.

We're all seating here, talking about futilities... In the next few hours or days Mr Bush Jr will launch its attack. People will die for an unfair & illegal war, the UN will loose its credibility, the world will probably enter in an era of chaos... and nobody has posted to this thread or similar ones for more than 24h!

I don't know what to think about it.

do you lot actually do anything apart from gossip about it like grannies? what are you going to do about it? fly over to iraq and moan to the mr soldier man to stop shooting at the other people with the big guns?

unless you suggest something practical we can all do i don't really care and you should stop posting about it, i makes me think

Well, let's kill Bush :D

Or replace the soldiers by grannies :D

Quote:

---

i don't really care and you should stop posting about it

---

Come on... there are a lot of lives at risk here - those of Iraqi civilians, the soldiers on both sides, and even civilians in Western countries who will be at risk from a terrorist backlash if Bush's axis of warmongering goes on with its plans.

That's something that everyone in the world should care about, regardless of their stance.

ynhockey and myself seem to be the only ones posting on this who are willing to take a serious look at the issue(s).
I believe that we think the same way about most of whats involved here.
I will. for this record (and it IS a record), state a few of my beliefs:
1) Many people seem to think the U.S., being the big, bad, take your pick:Mommy, Daddy, Cop, Superpower-wants to start a war for the off-hand reason that "we don't like Saddam", or, (George W.) " My daddy said to finish what he started, or, "My oil buddies want this".
Nothing could be further from the truth; anyone who would comment thus SHOULDN'T BOTHER TO POST. My opinion only.

2) Many think we entertain the idea of war with no regard to loss of life, because "No matter what, we won't lose many people".
The U.S. has been in enough wars to know what it means to have people die in the effort; because of this, we've improved our ability to protect our soldiers supremely well. So sue us..... To imply that we don't care or empathize about loss of life is incredibly offensive. Those who would disagree with our position regarding the value of life are cynics or merely jealous.

3) Hard as it may be, try to put yourselves in our shoes:
You are in a position to effect change.
You have suffered the single most outrageous act of terrorism ever to be perpetrated on human beings.
You have the wherewithal to respond, and you believe doing so will better the situation for everyone.
You believe removing Saddam will have extreme effect on the viability of terrorism.

Do you sit on your hands and do nothing? Worse: Do you sit on your hands and spout anti-war platitudes and anti-U.S. statements without once being creative enough to stray from the "Standardized and Official Catalogue of Anti-anything and Everything Rhetoric"?

And ketoprak: "Kill Bush"? I'm surprised, even at you.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by j2k4@15 March 2003 - 21:41
Rat Faced-
I believe this may be heating up again-
Ketoprak-ynhockey-
I would like to LEARN from your discourse; please mind manners?
I will reserve the right to interject as I see fit re: comments about the U.S.
Please, this kind of opportunity doesn't just drop out of the blue; you two are on opposite sides of the fence and are in an excellent position to make (NOT SCORE) points with anybody else who's here.

---

The trouble is there are no right or wrong answers...

Saddam is a bastard..we all agree with that.

Arafat is a Bastard...we all agree there.

And Sharron (sp?) is a Bastard....we can probably all agree there.


As to Israel/Palestinians...you cannot lay the blame totally in either corner.

Clinton laid the groundwork that created the Pallestinian Authority, and everything was working out...less violence/terrorism etc in the area. People could see light at the end of the tunnel...while both sides will probably never like each other, they were talking...things were happening.

Sharron gets elected and all of a sudden...the treaty that the USA (yes....the USA) had brokered is ripped up unilatraly by the Israeli's. Sharron is a war criminal, with a history of Human Rights abuse against Arabs in Jordan...and ripped up the treaty that had given the Pallestinians a homeland, so no wonder they are pissed at him.

Instead of going to the UN (which would be difficult, as they were not yet a recognised country) or to the International Community, they reverted to what they knew how to do.... ie Fight Back. This was the wrong thing to do, and gets them classified as terrorists again.

Sharron however doesnt really mind....as he hates Arabs with a passion. He doesnt mind sending in the army to wipe out a 100 pallestinians (many innocent) for every Israeli killed by a Terrorist. The big mistake for the USA is that there is now a Right Wing US government that refuses to condemn Israeli attrocieties....but does condemn Pallestinian.

They are actually as bad as each other....and the USA would gain respect if their Government treated the issue this way.


As to Saddam, i've said before that there is no right/wrong answer to this either.

I am against the war, as i believe it is the greater of 2 evils....not because I take a 'moral highground' over civilian casualties etc.

I dont like to see hypocracy from either camp........and that is all the pro-war faction seem to have. But the anti-war come out with crap too.


The Question that the Pro-war faction need to answer, to convert me is simple.

What happens AFTER?

The history of this area is 5000 years of waring factions, that HATE each other:

There are only 4 options I can see:

1/ Form a Democracy.

This is easier said than done. They hate each other with a passion.

If this is tried, then I will forcast a Civil War that will make the Balkans look like a Fight between skinheads in Brighton. It will include all the old favourites like Ethnic Cleansing and Genocide....with the added bonus of the Arabian Imagination with regards to ways of inflicting Pain, while keeping people alive as long as possible.


2/ Split the country into its component parts.

This will not happen. Iraq has the 2nd largest Oil Deposits in the world. There is no way that the International Community will allow the re-instatement of countries like Messopotamia etc...in order that they will be in continuous squabbling and fighting, with this resource at stake. Its like righting off the oilfields without trying......which at least you'd be doing with option 1.

Added to this that some of the traditional countries are also located partly in neighbouring countries...eg part of Kurdish homeland is now part of Turkey.. This also decreases the internal security of these other countries. I cant see Turkey (as an example) handing over 15-20% of its land to keep the new Kurdish country happy.


3/ A US/UN Military Governer

yeh...right.

The Arab world would let this happen without a fight.

Or the UN for that matter.

If they did.....good luck. The UK tried to keep peace here that way.....didnt work then. How many bodybags would it take for the US to withdraw?

Wasnt that many in Samalia (mind there isnt oil in Somalia)


4/ Install another Bastard like Saddam.

Well......this seems to be the prefered US Government option, if we look over the last 60 years.

But......what about the arguments being used to attack in the first place? Why risk the lives of our soldiers to 'Liberate' Iraq from one bastard, to give to another?



Until these questions are answered, and some actual reasons other than:

'He has WMD' (which were sold to him by the west in the first place, after he had demonstrated how big a bastard he is.......pretty hypocritical)

'He has links with Al Quaeda'.........which is such blatent crap its laughable

and

'He supports Terrorists' ....true, the PLO...like a lot of other Arabs and Arab States. But then the IRA gets most of its money from the USA, the UDF from the UK, ETA from ....... do i have to go on?



At the moment.....not attacking is the lesser of two evils.


Not attacking anyone, flaming anyone etc etc.

Everyone has their views, but please answer these questions.......unlike some in the anti-war lobby, im not a passifist, my mind can be changed........but not with any arguments i've heard so far from anyone, either here, at the UN or in the Press.

Quote:

---

3) Hard as it may be, try to put yourselves in our shoes:
You are in a position to effect change.
You have suffered the single most outrageous act of terrorism ever to be perpetrated on human beings.
You have the wherewithal to respond, and you believe doing so will better the situation for everyone.
You believe removing Saddam will have extreme effect on the viability of terrorism.

---

Really, I don't think that's a good argument. I've said that earlier. The simple fact that a second Gulf war was heavily discussed BEFORE the 11.9.01 attack should enough to validate my opinion.

I can understand the US sentiment regarding their situation after september 11, but I cannot understand why the US don't attack Pakistan or Saudi Arabia (not sure how you name this country), who have PROVEN links with international terrorism.

As for 'bettering the situation for everyone', it's a very risky bet, as it might as well increase the lack of comprehension of the South towards the North, and make this planet more insecure than it allready is, not talking of the decredibilization of the UN who, up to now, were to protect world security.

Quote:

---

1) Many people seem to think the U.S., being the big, bad

---

I can assure you that people here in France are very sorry of the serious deterioration of our links with your country. So do I. It has nothing to do with anti-americanism (which I agree, is a kind of rhetoric here - but still very superficial), but it's the moral stance of a country who care about justice and international law.

Quote:

---

And ketoprak: "Kill Bush"? I'm surprised, even at you.

---

I think this sentence is as stupid as "bomb Iraq' or 'kill Sadam'. 'bomb Iraq' is not the solution, so is 'kill Bush'.

Ratfaced - I think you have a valid point about what happens after the war in iraq. I think the most probable outcome is for the beginnings of a fully democratic system be implemented, overseen by the UN. I do not think it likely that America will impose its own ally government and reap the obvious benefits (e.g. oil) as it has already been proposed by (i know at least) the British government, (and supported by various factions of the american govt) that all oil profits will be put back into iraq.

As to the reasons for going to war, personally it is more his FAILURE TO ACCOUNT for some 14000 tonnes of anthrax, scud missiles, and other illegal weapons; his countinued uncooperation with the international community (some 17 violations), his genocide of some 200,000 people, his continued violation of all human rights, etc. etc. etc.

I think that irrelevant of the fact we may have wrongly supported him in the past, that doesnt give a reason not to get rid of his genocidic tyrranic rule of iraq.