quote:

Originally posted by ShellSh0ck PEACE

yessir, it's so easy to say it, isn't it?

But let's step aside, and consider the situation for a moment...

If you think this is a "war of convenience," a "war of choice," think again. Biochemical weapons have not been used by anybody since WWI -- except Iraq. Even Hitler did not use WMDs although he had some chemical ones. Iraq overstepped all boundaries and by using WMDs in the 1980s/90s he showed the world that he is a menace to the international community. When someone develops biochemical weapons this is no longer a matter of the sovereign nation, but one of the international community. And in this case the world must interfere.

___________________

Download all my EuroHardTrance traxx & learn more about me ("Kompulsor"):
www.kompulsor.com

quote:

When someone develops biochemical weapons this is no longer a matter of the sovereign nation, but one of the international community. And in this case the world must interfere.

Agreed totally! Nice one..

quote:

Originally posted by RWC0412 Agreed totally! Nice one..

see, a lot of people posting here think they have a pretty good handle on the situation and dangers to the world, but in reality they're fucking clueless

it's too easy to express your opposition to war, of course war is bad because it brings casualties, but unfortunately war is sometimes inevitable in the face of a deceitful and brutal menace to the world.

___________________

Download all my EuroHardTrance traxx & learn more about me ("Kompulsor"):
www.kompulsor.com

quote:

Originally posted by Eugene yessir, it's so easy to say it, isn't it? But let's step aside, and consider the situation for a moment... If you think this is a "war of convenience," a "war of choice," think again. Biochemical weapons have not been used by anybody since WWI -- except Iraq. Even Hitler did not use WMDs although he had some chemical ones. Iraq overstepped all boundaries and by using WMDs in the 1980s/90s he showed the world that he is a menace to the international community. When someone develops biochemical weapons this is no longer a matter of the sovereign nation, but one of the international community. And in this case the world must interfere.

Very good point, Eugene.

People who are fully opposed to the war, in the sense of blindly spewing out, "war is bad! We need peace!" hold fundamentally correct ideas, but kind of lack context, which you have outlined in the post I've quoted. But hold your horses! Read on.

The reason I am against the war is that I believe that solutions to these kinds of crises may be found without the recourse of violence. Of course, Saddam has used violence to devastating ends, but this does not justify the use of "reciprocal violence." Why? Because what else is reciprocal or retaliatory violence than revenge? And this just fuels further aggressions and wars. Then how else are we going to get rid of him, you say? Well, let me answer with a question myself - Are not the current inspections working? Progress is being made. Disarmament can occur without violence. Just the danger to so many thousands of civilians' lives vastly outweighs any advantage that war might pose in this regard (disarmament).

As for Saddam being an evil menace that must be killed, one must remember that he is, after all, human! Killing him to right this matter, even for revenge, is utterly immoral and inhuman. What's the difference between the murderer and the murderer's murderer?

To quote some very wise words (respect goes out to anyone who correctly identifies the speaker):

"Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement."

(This is incidentally why I oppose the US death penalty - but I digress...)

On the other hand, "removing" Saddam from power is a little controversial as it infringes on the sovereignty of nations. Effecting "regime change" in Iraq would encourage other countries to do the same, and point to the US act for justifying theirs. For example, what's to stop China from deciding to enact "regime change" in any of the countries that it dislikes, for example Tibet?

In any case, disarming Saddam of any and all weapons is absolutely the correct thing to do (arguably the only "correct" thing to do?) and should have been done a long time ago.

So in this regard, I totally support Bush's push to finally correct this problem. It's just that I don't support his motives, as they are really shifty and unclear - good motives need never be hidden. The outward appearance of, "we must remove the threat of Saddam as he has been insulting the world in his outright violation of UN mandate" is empty as this should have been said 10 years ago when Saddam first started doing so. Why the sudden attention? That's my concern.

Indeed it kind of strikes me as surprising that this "menace" was totally ignored once he started flagrantly violating UN resolution 1441. This is why the arguments of those supporting war, and why your argument about biochemical weapons, Eugene, lacks weight. The same thing I said about the antiwar purists applies here - the idea is fundamentally sound, but loses its punch after so much time ignoring the danger. Saddam was wrong to use WDM's, but that was long ago, and should have been corrected when he used them! Waiting 'till many years later will, naturally, raise questions about the real motives of the war.

If the world could "tolerate" Saddam's injustices for such a long time, then why can it - all of a sudden - not "tolerate" it now? What has changed? (9/11 does not count because Iraq bodes no threat whatsoever to the US itself in any way)

This is also why, incidentally, I dislike mucking about in politics (hidden agendas, etc). But too late to pull out now!

Last edited by Alccode on Mar-16-2003 at 01:46

i just have to say this...

not being in the us... almost every other nation feels insecure...

not IM NOT PRO-SADDAM, but put urself in his shoes... alright u made a mistake ... fucked with the states.... are u just gonna bend over and let the world fuck you??

if i was in his place, i prolly would have resigned or something after the first fiasco ... he's prolly just power hungry right now and has the support of the rest of the arab states...

i dont think anybody wants a war... assassinating saddam should solve the problem... well there'd be another saddam, admitted but then alteast he'd have his hands full covering his ass 24/7

lol

peace...

quote:

Originally posted by Alccode Very good point, Eugene. People who are fully opposed to the war, in the sense of blindly spewing out, "war is bad! We need peace!" hold fundamentally correct ideas, but kind of lack context, which you have outlined in the post I've quoted. But hold your horses! Read on. The reason I am against the war is that I believe that solutions to these kinds of crises may be found without the recourse of violence. Of course, Saddam has used violence to devastating ends, but this does not justify the use of "reciprocal violence." Why? Because what else is reciprocal or retaliatory violence than revenge? And this just fuels further aggressions and wars.

So are you saying that war in general is bad? So the Kuwaiti and American response to the Iraqi invasion was not justified because it was enacted in a spirit of vengeance? How about WW2 ... that was in the spirit of reciprocal violence as well. How about preemptive strikes ... sometimes I wonder what would have happened if france had escalated hostilities wehn germany remilitarized the rhineland in 1936. France had a significantly larger army and I'm sure that they would have take a lot of critisism for such a strike but it would have adverted alot of deaths.

quote:

Then how else are we going to get rid of him, you say? Well, let me answer with a question myself - Are not the current inspections working? Progress is being made. Disarmament can occur without violence. Just the danger to so many thousands of civilians' lives vastly outweighs any advantage that war might pose in this regard (disarmament).

I think that progress is in the eye of the beholder. To you progress is concessions made i the 11th hour. To me, progress is complete and utter compliance and cooperations with UN inspections. To this date I have yet to see a UN report that is unconditionally praising Iraq in tehir committment to disclose weapons agreements.

quote:

On the other hand, "removing" Saddam from power is a little controversial as it infringes on the sovereignty of nations. Effecting "regime change" in Iraq would encourage other countries to do the same, and point to the US act for justifying theirs. For example, what's to stop China from deciding to enact "regime change" in any of the countries that it dislikes, for example Tibet?

Please see previous arguments I have made with regards to the legality of the situation. To this date nobody has properly replied to refute what I have said. Essentially, my arguments are that we are in a state of hostilities with Iraq stemming from the 1991 war. That cessation of hostilities is dependant upon the truce agreement. Since that truce is being violated ... a return to a state of war is warranted.

quote:

So in this regard, I totally support Bush's push to finally correct this problem. It's just that I don't support his motives, as they are really shifty and unclear - good motives need never be hidden. The outward appearance of, "we must remove the threat of Saddam as he has been insulting the world in his outright violation of UN mandate" is empty as this should have been said 10 years ago when Saddam first started doing so. Why the sudden attention? That's my concern. Indeed it kind of strikes me as surprising that this "menace" was totally ignored once he started flagrantly violating UN resolution 1441. This is why the arguments of those supporting war, and why your argument about biochemical weapons, Eugene, lacks weight. The same thing I said about the antiwar purists applies here - the idea is fundamentally sound, but loses its punch after so much time ignoring the danger. Saddam was wrong to use WDM's, but that was long ago, and should have been corrected when he used them! Waiting 'till many years later will, naturally, raise questions about the real motives of the war. If the world could "tolerate" Saddam's injustices for such a long time, then why can it - all of a sudden - not "tolerate" it now? What has changed? (9/11 does not count because Iraq bodes no threat whatsoever to the US itself in any way) This is also why, incidentally, I dislike mucking about in politics (hidden agendas, etc). But too late to pull out now!

I've said in the past and I'll say it again since I got no response last time. The laziness and inaction of past Presidents is poor justification for the negative support to the actions of our current president.

quote:

FAMED NAZI HUNTER SIMON WIESENTHAL'S STATEMENT ON IMPENDING IRAQ WAR The Simon Wiesenthal Center today issued the following statement on behalf of famed Nazi hunter Simon Wiesenthal: "As a survivor of the Nazi Holocaust who lost 89 members of my family, I have experienced firsthand the horrors of war and bloodshed. I know that in any conflict many innocent lives will be lost. But history has taught us that the consequences of ignoring evil and terror pose an even greater risk for mankind. The world has confronted Saddam before, but for twelve years he has refused to listen. President George W. Bush, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, and Prime Minister Jose María Aznar of Spain, do not seek to conquer Iraq but rather to confront a dictator who has used weapons of mass destruction and committed genocide against his own people. I have spent a lifetime pursuing the perpetrators of evil, not for revenge, but in search of justice and in order to protect future generations from the horrors that I have lived through. My experience has taught me that you cannot wait indefinitely on dictators. Adolf Hitler came to power in 1933, but for six years the world did not act. Had he been taken seriously then, the lives of innocent millions may have been spared. We must remember that freedom is not a gift from heaven, we must fight for it every day."

___________________
Signature Suspended as it was deemed offensive.