Why A War Against Irak Is Wrong

[j2k4]

ClubDiggler-
I just responded to your "newbie" post.
Re: this post-I know I'm gonna get flamed for this, but the mideast also has a monopoly on sa-------never mind.
Oh, lighten up!! (In advance, of course).

[kAb]

Originally posted by Lamsey@13 March 2003 - 16:13
1) The Americans killed hundreds of thousands of people in Japan when they nuked two cities' worth of civilians off the face of the Earth. Should we go to war with them?

The use of nuclear weapons was completely avoidable if Japan had just surrendered after they had been beaten down by the U.S.

The U.S. could not afford to keep on fighting Japan and Germany. Japan had also been on a course to rule the world, and they needed to be stopped.
THEY WERE WARNED MONTHS IN ADVANCE of the devastation that would occur if there was no surrender.

They weren't our own people.... it was in an effort to save our people.


And Ratface: My avatar is in no way related to this thread...

[neevakee]

Just in advance I would like to say that I am neither for or aginist war.

It is my opinion that this goes far beyond George Bush and his capain in the early 90's. This is America trying to be liable for there actions. Yes theirs. It is the USA's fault Sadamm has the weapons, it was the early 80's he was at war with Iran and so were we. So we became quick friends. We gave them them resoucrces to build the weapons and we ingnored how they were used. Everything was goo untill kuwait was invaided, there wasa a more vested intrest in kuwait in oil. I can't rrecall at the moment, but trust me there was. So the us and allies went to war with Iraq. After the US had finished the war the weapons inspections came. They then stopped. Bill Clinton then HAd operation Desser Storm and he gave the same reasons bush is giving now to the worl to justify his attack. Anyway, then 911 happened, and since the US proably has been worried that if Iraq ever used the weapons against a undefended country or give them to terrorist ans they use them, the USA will be responsible. Why? because the USA gave Iraq the capibalites to make the weapons and we did nothing to stop them form using the weapons. IT is like you give a person a gun who says he wants to kill someone, you are going to be an accesory to murder. It is no diffrent only in this case we know that Iraq has used them before so what is to say they wont again.

[kAb]

Originally posted by neevakee@14 March 2003 - 04:55
Just in advance I would like to say that I am neither for or aginist war.

It is my opinion that this goes far beyond George Bush and his capain in the early 90's. This is America trying to be liable for there actions. Yes theirs. It is the USA's fault Sadamm has the weapons, it was the early 80's he was at war with Iran and so were we. So we became quick friends. We gave them them resoucrces to build the weapons and we ingnored how they were used. Everything was goo untill kuwait was invaided, there wasa a more vested intrest in kuwait in oil. I can't rrecall at the moment, but trust me there was. So the us and allies went to war with Iraq. After the US had finished the war the weapons inspections came. They then stopped. Bill Clinton then HAd operation Desser Storm and he gave the same reasons bush is giving now to the worl to justify his attack. Anyway, then 911 happened, and since the US proably has been worried that if Iraq ever used the weapons against a undefended country or give them to terrorist ans they use them, the USA will be responsible. Why? because the USA gave Iraq the capibalites to make the weapons and we did nothing to stop them form using the weapons. IT is like you give a person a gun who says he wants to kill someone, you are going to be an accesory to murder. It is no diffrent only in this case we know that Iraq has used them before so what is to say they wont again.

thats an interesting view...

i haven't thought about it like that before..

[j2k4]

And if it's a "mea Culpa" as I said earlier, WHAT'S WRONG WITH THAT? Well recognized, Neevakee.

[neevakee]

One other thing as i pointed out earlier, Clinton gave the same resons that Bush is giving now back in 1998 for dessert fox. Why is it diffrent this time? It shows how truley two faced the world is they will agree to one thing, but if some eles comes to power they disagree.

[j2k4]

I haven't posted on here all day, but some people (????) have been gone even longer-is this thread finished?

[Rat Faced]

I think so j2k4.

There is nothing we can say to change the minds of those with strong views on the issue, and those are mostly the people that post.

kAb, I did appologise to you earlier in the thread....its just I first saw the new avatar on this thread, as i explained.


Lets change the subject.....


.... didnt Australia and New Zealand get riled at each other over a game of cricket once?

[ketoprak]

Originally posted by j2k4@15 March 2003 - 04:52
I haven't posted on here all day, but some people (????) have been gone even longer-is this thread finished?

Some would have call that a 'blitzkrieg'.

I hope the upcoming war will also be very fast.

[Ynhockey]

@Ketopark:

If you want democracy, the 1st thing you need is a State. Let the Palestinians have their state, and you will be able to help them build democratic institutions.

Now let's review every case where the Palestinians were supposed to have a state:

1936: The council under Lord Phil of Britain decided that there will be an Israeli and Palestinian state in the territory of Israel (which is now Israel and Jordan). The Israelis would get 4500 sq. km., the Palestinians would get ~110000 sq. km (notice the size difference) and the rest (cities like Jerusalem, Haifa, Nazareth, etc.) will stay international. The Palestinians declined the offer.

1939: The Woodhead council decided that there will be an Israeli and Palestinian state in the territory of Israel (which is now Israel and Jordan). The Israelis would get ~2000 sq.km. while the Palestinians get the rest (~112000 sq.km.). Both sides declined the offer.

1947: The UN decided that there will be an Israeli and Palestinian state in the territory of Israel (which is now only Israel, as Jordan was created then). The Israelis would get ~12000 sq. km. while the Palestinians would get ~3000 sq.km. (Israel now gets much more, but 3 million out of 4 of the Israeli Arabs were already citizens of Jordan). The Palestinians declined and as a result, they got zilch while the Israelis got their state on the promised territory, plus the territory that the Palestinians were supposed to get.

1948-1999: Haven't been following that period much, but i remember something about offering Palestine the west bank in the 90's and the PLO was formed in 1962.

1999: Israeli PM Ehud Barak offered the Palestinians the Gaza strip and the west Bank to make it a Palestinian state (thus giving up everything the Palestinians wanted except all of Jerusalem, although East Jerusalem was included in the offer). Arafat declined.

What can I say ? The Palestinians were given a lot, then less and less because of their own stubornness. It's evident that they want a state only under the conditions that all Jews are driven out of Israel. That won't happen and therefore the Palestinians will never get a state until they get a sane leader and stop terrorising people. They always simply make lame excuses (like religion, when they care nothing for Islam anyway, as was proven over time) to terrorise the Israelis. I can't beleive anyone can justify the Palestinians.