quote:

Originally posted by Alccode need to do what? are you being personally threatened? do you think that iraq has any way of personally hitting the U.S., or has planned to do so, using their "weapons of mass destruction"? clearly not. the "threat" of saddam hussein is a "threat" to his own people and to the neighbouring countries. IMHO the U.S. shouldn't even be a thousand miles near that area. why should they? do they think they're world cop? if war is "what you need to do", and if the U.S. is after "world peace" or "world justice", then maybe they should stop being so blantantly obvious about trying to steal iraq's oil. instead they should deal with some of the REAL problems around them. like north korea. again, this "evidence" is not evidence at all, and is a joke and a disgrace to the international community.

Wow, calm down! I've been ardently against the war, and I'm just looking at some of the new facts and trying to come up with a logical conclusion. You're talking to me as if I was some gun-toting Bush fanatic, when in fact I hate the man, and I've been ridiculing the war this whole time.

*EDIT* Almost never during any war is specific civilian life directly threatened, your argument is weak. Besides, if for whatever reason Iraq does attack us (whether Bush is right or we just piss him off enough in this whole mess that he decides to), My city is probably the prime target. But other than that your right. I hate the US's pushing for this war, and we're disgracing the internation community.

Last edited by DJ_Skaya on Feb-07-2003 at 04:07

quote:

Originally posted by JohnSmith The reason i do not support an american led war, is not because i do not believe that saddamn should be taken out. it's because that is not the job of the US or UK to decide nor enforce this.

I agree it isn't the job of the US or UK to decide or enforce it. But do you have an alternative to recommend? If not the US or UK, whose job is it?

When something must be done, must not someone do it? We can't avoid the question of what to do simply by choosing the most passive course of action. By doing so we are deciding that it is acceptable to allow the Iraqi people to continute to live in tyranny. It is not easy to make a decision that will kill many of them. Nor should it be easy to make the decision to allow them to suffer as they do now, merely because we are then able to dissociate ourselves from being the direct cause of the problem by doing so.

Whether or not it is our job to decide, we cannot avoid doing so. We are making a decision either way.

I agree, doing nothing is still making a choice. As they say, if you don't stand for something, you will fall for anything.

However, i said it was not the US and UKs job to decide, which is why i don't support the war. why is it not Chinas decision to make? or North Koreas even? they have armies, why don't they take saddamn out?

it's no more their decision, or mine to make than it is george bushs.
BUT, even if it were, then i would not support it anyway, for the reasons i have mentioned above. I have my opinion, and i am entitled to it, but the decision to attack should be multilateral. Specifically, there should be a second UN resolution authorizing a war. I don't think the threat of "serious consequences" is enough to justify the massive military buildup by the US in the gulf region. or the loss of lives that will result.

I think we set a dangerous precedent when the most powerful country in the world is allowed make the decision to premptively attack another country irrespective of international concerns.

And i think those concerns are valid, given the fact that the US has obvious ulterior motives for being in the gulf, and that saddamn is only one of many world leaders that disregard it's people.

if doing nothing is making a choice (which i agree it is) then the US is choosing to let millions die in africa from poverty and aids, choosing to let the entire economy of south america fall apart, choosing to let china, thailand, singapore etc commit human rights violations on a daily basis. choosing to let NK violate their treaties.

in my opinion these are not choices made, but yet to be made.

___________________

Visit my site Antiwar Homepage

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter To be honest I think it's a sad reflection of the country that the anti-war movement is so strong. I think it is a manifestaion of our short-sighted, materialist culture. But I also think doubts about the U.S. government's motivations are legitimate (although they are a fallacious argument against the war in principle).

Are you serious with that paragraph? That’s some hard core 1984 doublesthink going on there. It’s the pro-war movement that’s the sad reflection of our short-sighted, materialistic culture. This is not a war about higher morals or ethics but one motivated by personal gain and power under the guise of a just war.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter I agree it isn't the job of the US or UK to decide or enforce it. But do you have an alternative to recommend? If not the US or UK, whose job is it?

The UN’s. If the UN was given complete freedom form bullying by the more powerful states, particularly the US though others are not guilt free, and real power to work in the international community as an antonymous body then much more would get done in the world and it would be a much better place.

quote:

When something must be done, must not someone do it? We can't avoid the question of what to do simply by choosing the most passive course of action. By doing so we are deciding that it is acceptable to allow the Iraqi people to continute to live in tyranny. It is not easy to make a decision that will kill many of them. Nor should it be easy to make the decision to allow them to suffer as they do now, merely because we are then able to dissociate ourselves from being the direct cause of the problem by doing so.

That argument holds no ground what so ever. People all around the globe are suffering in countless locations and don’t get any help whatsoever. So answer this, what makes the Iraqi’s more deserving of this selfless and merciful assistance over the other millions of people in the world in distress?

quote:

Whether or not it is our job to decide, we cannot avoid doing so. We are making a decision either way.

Yes we can, give more power to the UN and let them take on the role of world police rather than bully nations.

WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

quote:

Originally posted by Spin Doctor Are you serious with that paragraph? That’s some hard core 1984 doublesthink going on there. It’s the pro-war movement that’s the sad reflection of our short-sighted, materialistic culture. This is not a war about higher morals or ethics but one motivated by personal gain and power under the guise of a just war.

actually i think that was his best paragraph.
if you would just take a step back and disregard specific countries and commadities such as oil, and see it as a fight of one nation representing freedom and liberty agianst another that represents totalitarism, oppression and tyranny, you would realize that yes the sacrafices that needed to be taken are worth it at the end. of course there are many more places in the world where this needs to happen, but just because theres more then one place doesnt mean we shouldnt do any of them at all. even doing just this one is a step in the right direction and better then none at all.

___________________
If God is the answer, it must have been a very stupid question.

I truly do not believe we are doing this for the good of iraqis.

I will let noam chomskys words say it:

quote:

the conjuring up of enemies that are about to destroy us, that's second nature, very familiar. They didn't invent it, others have done the same thing, others have done it in history but they became masters of this art and are now doing it again. I don't want to suggest that they have no reasons for wanting to take over Iraq. Of course they do - long-standing reasons that everyone knows. Controlling Iraq will put the US in a very powerful position to extend it domination of the major energy resources of the world. That's not a small point.

......

quote:

If this is a war aim, why don't they say so? Why are they lying to the rest of the world? What is the point of having the UN inspectors? According to this propaganda, everything we are saying in public is pure farce - we don't care about the weapons of mass destruction, we don't care about disarmament, we have another goal in mind, which we're not telling you, and that is, all of a sudden, we're going to bring democracy by war. Well, if that's the goal, let's stop lying about it and put an end to the whole farce of inspections and everything else and just say now we're on a crusade to bring democracies to countries that are suffering under miserable leadership. Actually that is a traditional crusade, that's what lies behind the horrors of colonial wars and their modern equivalents, and we have a very long rich record to show just how that worked out. It's not something new in history.

and, even if we WERE doing it for the good of iraqis, i fail to see how they will be any better off. we will be destroying their entire country with bombs remember.

___________________

Visit my site Antiwar Homepage

And will basically kill thousands if they really try to defend their homecountry..

___________________
Upcoming:

Michael Andrews Feat. Gary Jules - Mad World (Grayed Out Mix)

quote:

Originally posted by JohnSmith it's no more their decision, or mine to make than it is george bushs. BUT, even if it were, then i would not support it anyway, for the reasons i have mentioned above. I have my opinion, and i am entitled to it, but the decision to attack should be multilateral. Specifically, there should be a second UN resolution authorizing a war.

I agree that, optimally, another UN resolution ought to be made authorizing the war before an attack is made. But the UN is an extremely inefficient, obstructionist organization. I've never really believed the fundamental idea of the UN was a sound one, because I don't think countries trust each other enough that any of the discourse at the UN is really useful in establishing a consensus. Furthermore, China and NK themselves are guilty of a plethora of human rights violations. Should they really be given authoratative power over movements to eradicate the same violations they either are or have been guilty of? You can't defeat tyranny by asking it for permission.

So the question is, should we allow the dysfunction of the UN to condemn the people of Iraq to life without freedom? You're right, you are entitled to your opinion. But my opinion is, "most certainly not!"

quote:

Originally posted by Spin Doctor Are you serious with that paragraph? That’s some hard core 1984 doublesthink going on there. It’s the pro-war movement that’s the sad reflection of our short-sighted, materialistic culture. This is not a war about higher morals or ethics but one motivated by personal gain and power under the guise of a just war.

Are you serious? A war would consume a large amount of resources to no domestically constructive end. This would hardly produce any materialistic advantage. But regardless, your argument is an ad hominem circumstantial fallacy. Rather arguing that the war is not justified by higher morals or ethics (which it is), you throw that argument out the window merely because you suspect the U.S. has other motivations. But in that case, you aren't really arguing about whether war is justified or not, you're arguing about whether a war with additional properties you have arbitrarily ascribed to it is justified. This, of course, has no actual bearing on the question at hand.

quote:

The UN’s. If the UN was given complete freedom form bullying by the more powerful states, particularly the US though others are not guilt free, and real power to work in the international community as an antonymous body then much more would get done in the world and it would be a much better place.

Of course, and if the U.S. government was given complete freedom from bullying by the more powerful political parties, much more would get done domestically and the U.S. would be a much better place. But are either of these phenomena realistic? Unfortunately, the answer is no. Such is the problem with democracy - factionalism is inevitable, and the most powerful factions will inevitably bully others.

quote:

That argument holds no ground what so ever. People all around the globe are suffering in countless locations and don’t get any help whatsoever. So answer this, what makes the Iraqi’s more deserving of this selfless and merciful assistance over the other millions of people in the world in distress?

So, what you're suggesting is that one ought not to solve one problem unless you're going to solve them all? This attitude doesn't seem very conducive to progress. I think we should help other people around the globe. But it would best be done one problem at a time.

Regards,

Arbiter

quote:

So, what you're suggesting is that one ought not to solve one problem unless you're going to solve them all? This attitude doesn't seem very conducive to progress. I think we should help other people around the globe. But it would best be done one problem at a time.

Ok, let's compare, say Iraq and Congo or former Zair, and see in which one of those countries people are in more need of aid. While living conditions in Iraq aren't optimal, people aren't massively starving to death, as is the case in Congo. Furthermore, regardless of how tyranical the regime in Iraq is, it is nowhere close to the one that is currently in charge in Congo (I don't know which one because they change every year or so).
Now let's look at the minorities. It is true they are opressed and often minority members are executed, but let's look at the status of the pigmeys in jungle areas. The rebels are forcing them to hunt for food, and if they don't find any, they kill a few pigmeys and eat them. Also they force other pigmeys to eat their former tribe members as well.
Political situation in Iraq is basically pretty stable, although that is only because it is ruled by the iron fist. In Congo, the only thing government controls are the few major cities and diamond mines, while many of the rebelious groups control all the rest. Not to mention that every once in a while one of those groups defeats the regular government forces, makes a massacre and executes the previous opponents, and then rules the country in the same way the previous one did.

So if it is for humanitarian reasons only, it is a fact that a need for overthrowing Congoan regime, as well as many other african ones of which Congo here is just an example is much bigger than the need to overthrow Saddam.

___________________
1+1=10

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 Ok, let's compare, say Iraq and Congo or former Zair, and see in which one of those countries people are in more need of aid. While living conditions in Iraq aren't optimal, people aren't massively starving to death, as is the case in Congo. Furthermore, regardless of how tyranical the regime in Iraq is, it is nowhere close to the one that is currently in charge in Congo (I don't know which one because they change every year or so). Now let's look at the minorities. It is true they are opressed and often minority members are executed, but let's look at the status of the pigmeys in jungle areas. The rebels are forcing them to hunt for food, and if they don't find any, they kill a few pigmeys and eat them. Also they force other pigmeys to eat their former tribe members as well. Political situation in Iraq is basically pretty stable, although that is only because it is ruled by the iron fist. In Congo, the only thing government controls are the few major cities and diamond mines, while many of the rebelious groups control all the rest. Not to mention that every once in a while one of those groups defeats the regular government forces, makes a massacre and executes the previous opponents, and then rules the country in the same way the previous one did. So if it is for humanitarian reasons only, it is a fact that a need for overthrowing Congoan regime, as well as many other african ones of which Congo here is just an example is much bigger than the need to overthrow Saddam.

In principle, I agree with you, but the argument of where best to start is an entirely seperate argument from whether or not Iraq ought to be attacked at all.

I suppose i can only speak for myself but in my opinion, the reason antiwar pundits point out that there are worse places than iraq as far as human rights goes is not because we think that nothing should be done in iraq. or even that we think other countries should be dealt with first. we may well think that but that's not why we point it out.

The reason we are saying this is to expose the obvious lie that the US is wanting to attack iraq to "liberate" it, this is just a cover for the obvious grab for iraqs oil and control of the middle eastern geopolitical situation.

___________________

Visit my site Antiwar Homepage

quote:

Originally posted by JohnSmith I suppose i can only speak for myself but in my opinion, the reason antiwar pundits point out that there are worse places than iraq as far as human rights goes is not because we think that nothing should be done in iraq. or even that we think other countries should be dealt with first. we may well think that but that's not why we point it out. The reason we are saying this is to expose the obvious lie that the US is wanting to attack iraq to "liberate" it, this is just a cover for the obvious grab for iraqs oil and control of the middle eastern geopolitical situation.

that still doesnt make sense.
techincally, yes, whether it is their excuse or not if america goes to war with iraq they would be liberating the civlians from dictatoriship rule. whether other places exsist that need liberation agian is irrelevant.

___________________
If God is the answer, it must have been a very stupid question.