 |
|
You are not logged in! F.A.Q Log in Register |
 |
|
 |
 Now online (2)dariusgriffin ijonspeches ...and 351 guests Last 5 registered Oplandisks nothingstar N_loop yipe foxtrotromeo Browse members... |
 |
Members 8025Messages 2614263 Today 10 Topics 127551 |
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I know this topic has been covered several billion times, and that everyone is probably a bit bored of it by now (maybe that what Bush is counting on!), but its really starting to piss me off! I still don't see ANY legal or moral justification for this war on Iraq, and I am shitting myself about the consequences for the world when Bush says "fuck the UN, lets go to work". Just to highlight the reason for my concerns, heres some links to some stuff written by Scott Ritter (HEAD of the UN weapons inspection teams in Iraq until the US told him to leave) http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0721-02.htm http://clients.loudeye.com/imc/madison/scott_ritter_imc_ed. mp3 http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/07/17/saddam.ritter.cnn a/ |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
wsws.org |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
many here think like you... lets hope that this war doesnt start... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Bush is definately a rogue! He is more dangerous an arrogant as Saddam. Saddam can wipped out without war. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Bush and Saddam: go home! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I reckon 'fuck the UN' isn't such a bad idea. It's not like the Security Council really has any claim to be any kind of moral authority. Let's look at who's on it. The US and UK are all for war, resolution or not. France and Russia are only pretending to be going along with public opinion because it coincides with their real reason for opposing war, their oil interests. China doesn't have to worry about public opinion so will just abstain. Germany only opposes this because it was the only way Schroeder could get elected and he's now boxed himself in. Syria opposes because it's anti-everybody (except fellow terrorist supporting states) and all the other members are just seeing holding out for the most cash. The Security Council is a waste of time. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
That may be but its no reason to support war. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
The security council is the best we've got, and I'd rather have this sort of decision made by a number of countries with different views and interests, than a single country, particularly when that country is the US. As the worlds last remaining superpower, the US could, and should be a force for peace, and more importantly should serve as an example to the rest of the world as to how things should be done. What Mr Bush is doing, is not how things should be done in a democratic world, and apparently he is fighting for democracy!!!! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I'd say WE are the best we've got. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
WE meaning me n you?... or WE meaning the UK? I'd agree wiv you on the first one! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
didn't resolution 1441 call for "immediate dissarmament"? The UN is scared to enforce its own resolutions. i'd love people who are anti-war give some "real" alternatives to war instead of just saying they hate Bush and war is wrong... its fucking pathetic. If it was up to me I would give them a deadline of about a month. South Africa dissarmed in less time. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
From most (not all) comments from people who are anti-war they seem to know a hell of a lot less about the situation than people who think war may be the only option. Thats just an observation from posts here and statements in the media etc. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
The first one mate. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
But why do you have to go along with what then US wants? Why should our starting point be war, rather than no war? That to me defies logic. They have to prove WHY we need a war, not the other way around. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"Saddam can wipped out without war." wow! that would be great, please do tell! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
As for alternatives, how about lifting sanctions so that the Iraqi people can overthrow their dictator. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Can I point you to the overthrow of the Romania dictator Ceausescu. No war was needed here; just the people. Same with Milosevic, the war strengthened him and slowed his demise. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
jonesy, I would love their to be no war and Saddam to dissarm peacefully but it probably won't happen.... though I do think he should at least have a *realistic* deadline to dissarm to "give peace a chance" If he doesn't dissarm what choice does the world have? just ignore it and hope he doesn't use them, or that they won't get into the hands of terrorists? is there another way that no-one has thought of? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Alternatives to war... Containment - it seems to have worked so far!!!! If we (the US and UK) are so fucking sure that Saddam has got 'weapons of mass destruction' then why have our governments failed to demonstrate this to its own people?! pantalaimon - did you read any of the links posted at the start of this thread? Have you even heard of Scott Ritter? have you questioned the legimacy of this war at all? ... or do you not think it is our place to question such things? How the FUCK does bombing the crap out of a country get rid of its weapons of mass destruction? Particularly as we have no fucking idea where they are! What threat has Iraq posed to our security in this country? It is unprecidented (and illegal) for any state to invade another in order to change the regime in that state... but that is what we are aiming to do... I have every fucking right to object, and kick up as much fuss as fucking possible... its wrong! I don't love Saddam, but the only people that have a right (and are truely able) to get rid of him are his own people. I would have no problem if we said we were sending this or that over to help the people of Iraq overthrow there evil dicator, but we are not doing that, we are invading Iraq and are going to kill the people of Iraq, and impose a 'US friendly' puppet in place of an evil dictator. Very different. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
But dissarm what? The inspectors have found nothing of any real threat. And there is no proven link between Iraq and terrorism. Why is it OK for American and Israel to have WMD but not Iraq? while Iraq has 17 UN resolutions against it, Israel has 68. Why do we not enforce those? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"As for alternatives, how about lifting sanctions so that the Iraqi people can overthrow their dictator." i personally think thats too risky, but i guess its a possibility. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
jonesy I have to say I am glad you know all those things you are mentioning... I am glad to see that people know how unfair this war would be |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"while Iraq has 17 UN resolutions against it, Israel has 68. Why do we not enforce those?" i dont know much about the situation there so i can't really say... as for what to dissarm, wasnt there a list of chemicals and weapons that he had in the early nineties that are unnacounted for, have they just vanished? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Such weapons have a shelf-life. We need proof not speculation. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
its all very well saying how unfair it would be but how about it being unfair for the people of Iraq to suffer under Saddam for years to come. Do you have any idea what he does to his own people? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
But risky or not, it is the right of the Iraqi people to decide, not us. With international support Saddam can be overthrown quite easily. But the sanctions that are crippling the Iraqi people must go first. They are merely warfare by other means. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Yes, we know that. Those calling for no war were the ones highlighting the fact our governments were selling him the weapons before, during and after he gassed his own people. But you do not save people by first killing them. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
there will only be proof if we find them, its not the role of the UN and the inspectors to hunt around for them, Iraq has to give evidence of what has happened to them. If they have been destroyed they should be able to give evidence. I dont understand whats so diffficult about giving the evidence they need to. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"it is the right of the Iraqi people to decide" if we were able to give them a chance to vote wether we go to war and destroy Saddam's regime or not what do you think they would vote for? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
once again I urge you to go to the pages I posted at the start of this thread!! But incase you can't be arsed finding out why we shouldn't be going to kill thousands of innocent people I will paraphrase some of it for you. Scott Ritter was the Head of the inspection teams from 1991-98 when the US government told him and his team to get out before they started bombing. He is an ex-marine and has no love for Saddam, but he has said time and time again that he witnessed the destruction of 90-95% of Iraq WMD potential (including ALL of the factories that could have been used to rebuild Saddams capacity). The remaining capacity consisted largely of chemical and biological agents that have a maximum shelf life of 5 years. So far the inspectors have found NO evidence that Saddam has attempted to rebuild these factories... in fact the best we have been able to come up with is a missile that can fly 30km further than its supposed to (this missile has NOTHING to do with WMD, or any of the resolutions regarding WMD). Find the evidence... then deal with it. Surely thats the only sain way of looking at this? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
anyway it seems like i'm pro-war... i'm not. I just think their should be a deadline, say within 3 weeks and on that deadline the UN come together and discuss wether Iraq has *fully* dissarmed or not. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
...and if it hasn't? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
well thats up to the UN to decide but i think the only choice would be to got to war... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Hey I know, why the fuck doesnt the U.S. disarm? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Why is the only choice war? Where have you got that idea from? How will war get rid of all these weapons that we can't find? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Because they "won" the last gulf war :P |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
because their Nuclear weapons are for defence only and if you have half a brain you would know they wouldn't use them to attack a country without provocation. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"How will war get rid of all these weapons that we can't find" it would get rid of the people who would use them and after that danger has passed we would have all the time in the world to find them. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"Why is the only choice war? Where have you got that idea from?" erm... lack of options? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
A war will lead to fragmentation of the country which is likely to lead to any WMD that are hidden in the desert, either being used, or being sold into the hands of terrorists. At least while there is peace we are able to very carefully monitor the whole country and spot any unusual movement. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"because their Nuclear weapons are for defence only and if you have half a brain you would know they wouldn't use them to attack a country without provocation." The US are the ONLY country in history to use nuclear weapons in anger, and they did it twice!! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"it would get rid of the people who would use them and after that danger has passed we would have all the time in the world to find them." what if we don't find anything? Are you seriously happy to send our boyz in to kill thousands of people on the off chance that at some point in the future we will find a barrel of anthrax buried in the desert (assuming it hasn't already regraded!) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"At least while there is peace we are able to very carefully monitor the whole country and spot any unusual movement." i dont know, i think it would be easier with the country occupied with US and UK forces... anyway i've gotta go, hopefully we'll be able to avoid war... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
degraded even! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"The US are the ONLY country in history to use nuclear weapons in anger, and they did it twice!!" i'm still convinced the US would only use them in retaliation, do you seriously think otherwise? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Why hasn't Iraq provided evidence that it has destroyed it's WMD? Why haven't they answered all those hundreds of pages of unresolved issues that the inspectors published last Friday? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I don't know. But all I do know is that they are the ONLY ones that have used them. I believe that the US are capable of using any and all means at there disposal to acheive there goals. This has been shown time and time again. Who developed and sold most of these chemical/biological agents to the rest of the world (when it suited them)? p.s. Saddam has no nuclear capability |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I hope they will and I think they will... maybe they are dicking around and stalling and being slightly unhelpful... maybe they've lost they necessary documents... maybe said documents were never made... maybe loads of things... but one thing that isn't happening is Saddam using or threatening to use any WMD... and therefore we should not be killing people! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
You don't destroy thousands of tonnes of weapons and not have some form of paperwork to go with it. It's not like they would just write it on a scrap of paper and leave it lying about. Where are the eye-witness testimonies? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Its a good point, but even if they are playing games, does that give us the right to kill people? The way I see it is that we HAVE to prove our case BEFORE any form of military action. Particularly when currently that action has very few clear aims. Aside from the removal of Saddam (which is illegal!). |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Messageboard index
|
|||||||||
