Full Version: Justification of the US-Iraqi War
Gengari and Muztard will argue about whether or not the US has enough reason to war on Iraq. Gengari will defend the US rights to war, and Muztard will attack the rights to war.
I was waiting for Gengari to start his justification of the war. I am meant to be playing devils advocate.
Fuck you muztard, that was my plan 
What we have here is is a madman on the loose, whom will kill his own people to instill fear in those that survive, or to play on their hatreds for that group to gain loyalty. Recently he's doing humanitarian acts to get more loyalty, and is playing the oppinions of all great nations and their people against eachother.
While I cannot find direct proof that he has nuclear capabilities (I wouldn't doubt it, but that's not a good reason for war in my eyes anyway), he has more than enough times proven incapable as a leader, and a dictator whom has proven his cunning time and time again.
Yes, there are more dictators out there, and their time will come. Now, though, is saddam's time.
What we have here is is a madman on the loose, whom will kill his own people to instill fear in those that survive, or to play on their hatreds for that group to gain loyalty. Recently he's doing humanitarian acts to get more loyalty, and is playing the oppinions of all great nations and their people against eachother.
While I cannot find direct proof that he has nuclear capabilities (I wouldn't doubt it, but that's not a good reason for war in my eyes anyway), he has more than enough times proven incapable as a leader, and a dictator whom has proven his cunning time and time again.
Yes, there are more dictators out there, and their time will come. Now, though, is saddam's time.
Who is to say that Saddam can be considered a "Madman on the loose" for starters? Unless you have stone cold facts, this is a subjective assessment at best, and you don't. What does he do that is crazy? From what I have observed, most of his actions are brilliantly thought out and well exectuted.
The release of prisoners, some only hours from death, provided for the loyalty of them and their families that won't be fast forgotten. Whilst scoffed at by the world, America especially, this will still have an effect of strengthening the people behind "Saddam the merciful." Tricks like this are incredibly cluey and make any coming invasion that much harder.
But why invade Iraq? Surely there are little tin pot dictators, those who treat their people a lot worse, a lot closer to home for America. There are other nations that America can stick its collective nose in, some of which they may accomplish something other than death and cheaper oil. Let us think back to other dictators that have killed their own people and not only avoided the wrath of US righteousness, but received US support. These people he kills, mainly Kurds, are freedom fighters in Iraq, yet in Turkey, a US ally, they are considered terrorists. Let's get this straight shall we?
The release of prisoners, some only hours from death, provided for the loyalty of them and their families that won't be fast forgotten. Whilst scoffed at by the world, America especially, this will still have an effect of strengthening the people behind "Saddam the merciful." Tricks like this are incredibly cluey and make any coming invasion that much harder.
But why invade Iraq? Surely there are little tin pot dictators, those who treat their people a lot worse, a lot closer to home for America. There are other nations that America can stick its collective nose in, some of which they may accomplish something other than death and cheaper oil. Let us think back to other dictators that have killed their own people and not only avoided the wrath of US righteousness, but received US support. These people he kills, mainly Kurds, are freedom fighters in Iraq, yet in Turkey, a US ally, they are considered terrorists. Let's get this straight shall we?
Ah yes. The hypocracy of politics.
So you are using politics as an excuse, saying that they are all dirty liars and therefore we shouldn't do this? I agree, they are, but it's amazing that sometimes these liars actually get something right sometimes: Yes, there are other dictatorships, and they will get their collective asses reamed soon enough. There must be a start to the domino effect, and why not start with the most well known dictator? Once that happens, we mustn't stop at just him. I admit though, the reason that iraq is the first choice is out of PR considerations. The ironies of politics.
Albert Einstein was surely not sane in the most common sense of the word, and was regarded as a loose minded as a little kid by his teachers, yet he is revered as one of the smartest humans in record.
Insanity != stupidity
Anyone with intelligence and power must play their cards right or be forced out of the "game".
Stone cold facts? Let's be real here, what facts do you have that he isn't one? He has pursecuted his own people, instilled fear into them, then turned right around and offered them false hopes and freedom. Insanity backed by intellect is far more dangerous than insanity alone.
So you are using politics as an excuse, saying that they are all dirty liars and therefore we shouldn't do this? I agree, they are, but it's amazing that sometimes these liars actually get something right sometimes: Yes, there are other dictatorships, and they will get their collective asses reamed soon enough. There must be a start to the domino effect, and why not start with the most well known dictator? Once that happens, we mustn't stop at just him. I admit though, the reason that iraq is the first choice is out of PR considerations. The ironies of politics.
| QUOTE |
| From what I have observed, most of his actions are brilliantly thought out and well exectuted |
Albert Einstein was surely not sane in the most common sense of the word, and was regarded as a loose minded as a little kid by his teachers, yet he is revered as one of the smartest humans in record.
Insanity != stupidity
Anyone with intelligence and power must play their cards right or be forced out of the "game".
Stone cold facts? Let's be real here, what facts do you have that he isn't one? He has pursecuted his own people, instilled fear into them, then turned right around and offered them false hopes and freedom. Insanity backed by intellect is far more dangerous than insanity alone.
| QUOTE (Gengari @ Oct 27 2002, 02:56 AM) |
| Ah yes. The hypocracy of politics. So you are using politics as an excuse, saying that they are all dirty liars and therefore we shouldn't do this? I agree, they are, but it's amazing that sometimes these liars actually get something right sometimes: Yes, there are other dictatorships, and they will get their collective asses reamed soon enough. There must be a start to the domino effect, and why not start with the most well known dictator? Once that happens, we mustn't stop at just him. I admit though, the reason that iraq is the first choice is out of PR considerations. The ironies of politics. Albert Einstein was surely not sane in the most common sense of the word, and was regarded as a loose minded as a little kid by his teachers, yet he is revered as one of the smartest humans in record. Insanity != stupidity Anyone with intelligence and power must play their cards right or be forced out of the "game". Stone cold facts? Let's be real here, what facts do you have that he isn't one? He has pursecuted his own people, instilled fear into them, then turned right around and offered them false hopes and freedom. Insanity backed by intellect is far more dangerous than insanity alone. |
The subjective morality of international politics. If you positioned a Catholic state and a homosexual state side by side. The Catholic state irradicates homosexuals within its own borders as the actions of said people breach their moral code in what they consider to be an executable offense (Somewhere in Exodus I think) and the homosexual state clearly objects to this course of action and takes steps to interfere. Would the Catholic state be justified in invading and destroying the homosexual state due to it's ideological foibles, and likewise would the homosexual state be justified in invading the Catholic state in a bid to stamp out what it considered to be a wrongful action against likeminded people? In this situation, Saddam is the fag without the intent to attack the Catholic state, merely threatened because they are ideologically different and offensive to the (self-)righteous state.
My point is, what right does America have to interfere with the internal affairs of a sovereign state? Sweet fuck all. Iraq poses no real threat to America as a people, only the squid like tenticles of American "Interests," easily read as corporate hedgemony in the region. If a foreign power grew to outstrip the US, how would you feel about sanctions and bombings?
Surely someone must remember the whole Cuban bullshit? You know, don't like the leadership because they nationalised exploitative American business assets for the betterment of the people. Try to get rid of said leadership, get egg all over their faces? Only difference is that there is no superpower on the other side, America is just playing the bully.
Now, let's talk domino effects:
Vietnam war, "If we don't stop 'em in Vietnam, they'll spread all throughout South East Asia down into Australia, they'll spread to India, one falls, each will fall in turn until the whole region is under the red stain. Well guess what? The Commies won Vietnam (A fact not realised by most Americans, "What? We got our arses handed to us by a bunch of rabble? Never, we won that war and drove the Commies all the way back into... where is it again? I forgot, I know nothing of geography outside the US..."), many boys died in a shit hole of a country and still the red menace went no further South or East or West in the region for that matter.
You want to get rid of world wide tyrants, let's start with trigger happy, execution happy little redneck George W. Retard, take John Howard too while you're at it, he is just a little gimp. (P.S. don't give me that democratically elected crap anyway, both hold less than 50% or a two party popular vote)
Living in glass houses and throwing stones is a good way to fuck yuorself up and I believe that the stones should stay in the pockets on this one.
| QUOTE (Muztard @ Nov 10 2002, 07:23 PM) |
| "Would the Catholic state be justified in invading and destroying the homosexual state due to it's ideological foibles, and likewise would the homosexual state be justified in invading the Catholic state in a bid to stamp out what it considered to be a wrongful action against likeminded people?" |
Let's make this more related to what is happening now by throwing htis in:
The fag state has broken it's peace treaty by not letting the group of nations (catholic state, lesbian state, jewish state, hindu state, etc) send neutral people to inspect whatever WMDs they have.
It is true that there were no real set reprocussions for not following the agreement, but as it was a PEACE AGREEMENT, not following it would lead to war, am I correct?
| QUOTE |
| "In this situation, Saddam is the fag without the intent to attack the Catholic state, merely threatened because they are ideologically different and offensive to the (self-)righteous state." |
Wrong, they are more like the catholic state taht you meantioned. If the US was to attack nations ith different ideologies, most of europe would be part of the union by now.
| QUOTE |
| "My point is, what right does America have to interfere with the internal affairs of a sovereign state?" |
Not when there isn't a legit reason for them to that includes the agreement of the other country.
| QUOTE |
| "Sweet fuck all. Iraq poses no real threat to America as a people, only the squid like tenticles of American "Interests," easily read as corporate hedgemony in the region." |
I have no real argument with that, except for that the reprocussions for not following a peace agreement is war, in one form or another.
| QUOTE |
| "If a foreign power grew to outstrip the US, how would you feel about sanctions and bombings?" |
If we were forced to sign a peace treaty that would make us have inspections, then no, I would have no problem with having those inspections, and be open about it. That is assuming we would break the peace treaty.
| QUOTE |
| "Surely someone must remember the whole Cuban bullshit? You know, don't like the leadership because they nationalised exploitative American business assets for the betterment of the people." |
I do have a problem with the US gov's actions in cuba, however it is not as direct a relationship as you might like.
| QUOTE |
| "Try to get rid of said leadership, get egg all over their faces?" |
Something like that.
| QUOTE |
| "Only difference is that there is no superpower on the other side, America is just playing the bully." |
And America shouldn't be doing that, I agree.
| QUOTE |
| "Now, let's talk domino effects: Vietnam war, "If we don't stop 'em in Vietnam, they'll spread all throughout South East Asia down into Australia, they'll spread to India, one falls, each will fall in turn until the whole region is under the red stain. " |
Red scare... but I see the correlation. People are paranoid about terrorism. What color would this be considered?
| QUOTE |
| "Well guess what? The Commies won Vietnam (A fact not realised by most Americans, "What? We got our arses handed to us by a bunch of rabble? Never, we won that war and drove the Commies all the way back into... where is it again? I forgot, I know nothing of geography outside the US...")" |
A folly of the american education system, sure, conceded.
| QUOTE |
| "many boys died in a shit hole of a country and still the red menace went no further South or East or West in the region for that matter." |
Yes, because they were not strong enough to go further.
| QUOTE |
| "You want to get rid of world wide tyrants, let's start with trigger happy, execution happy little redneck George W. Retard, take John Howard too while you're at it, he is just a little gimp." |
I'm all for that, fuckin authoritarian pig he is. Dunno who john howard is.
| QUOTE |
| "(P.S. don't give me that democratically elected crap anyway, both hold less than 50% or a two party popular vote)" |
He wasn't democraticallly elected, he was elected due to an electoral colledge. But I agree.
| QUOTE |
| "Living in glass houses and throwing stones is a good way to fuck yuorself up and I believe that the stones should stay in the pockets on this one." |
The window is open and we're letting the world see us screw up with our elections. We can easily change. What about Iraq?
You've got a real point for all this I assume Gengari, please make some sense.
Damnit. I would say something about your intelligence but there's no need for me to be throwing around insults in a serious debate.
The main(or rather best) point I have is that iraq violated it's cease fire treaty, mainly by firing at us planes crossing no fly zones imposed by the treaty. Attempting to destroy government property would be considered an act of war by any country you can name, we have no reason not to continue where we left off except that we want to give iraq another chance.
A cease fire treaty is an agreement to stop fighting, therefore if it is violated by one side it is null for the other as well, giving the US rhe right to continue it's war that was stopped long ago.
The main(or rather best) point I have is that iraq violated it's cease fire treaty, mainly by firing at us planes crossing no fly zones imposed by the treaty. Attempting to destroy government property would be considered an act of war by any country you can name, we have no reason not to continue where we left off except that we want to give iraq another chance.
A cease fire treaty is an agreement to stop fighting, therefore if it is violated by one side it is null for the other as well, giving the US rhe right to continue it's war that was stopped long ago.
And what of violating sovereign airspace? The Northen no-fly zone was designed to rob Iraqi troops of close air support in the north and make it more difficult to deal with rebels. If you read your American history books (The only ones that seem to exist in the US) you will see that the US has no issue with putting its own rebellions down through use of force.
The plan here was to allow the rebels breathing space to demoralise Iraqi troops and weaken Saddams grip on power, yet another violation of the rights of a nation state.
If a plane, especially in the current climate, was to violate American airspace then it would most likely be shot down. Does not a nation state have the right to determine what occurs within its own borders?
It is therefore NOT an aggressive action against the United States, last I saw the Iraqi air DEFENSE sites cannot shoot at Americans in American or international airspace.
The plan here was to allow the rebels breathing space to demoralise Iraqi troops and weaken Saddams grip on power, yet another violation of the rights of a nation state.
If a plane, especially in the current climate, was to violate American airspace then it would most likely be shot down. Does not a nation state have the right to determine what occurs within its own borders?
It is therefore NOT an aggressive action against the United States, last I saw the Iraqi air DEFENSE sites cannot shoot at Americans in American or international airspace.
You didn't read my post very careful did you?
An unauthorised violation of sovereign airspace is grounds for forcing down or shooting down. The no-fly zones IMPOSED by the US are over iraqi sovereign airforce, therefore the aggressive action is on the part of the US.
[/CODE]China
Whilst this refers to the landing of a USAF E3C over China, it has implications for the Iraqi theatre as well.
The US planes are endangering the sovereignty, security and national interests of Iraq and are therefore in violation of international law. Tray another form of validation because the firing on American warplanes is justified.
| QUOTE |
According to Article 58 of the convention, foreign planes, while enjoying the freedom of overflight, should also take into consideration the rights of the country concerned, observe both the law of the specific country and international law, and are not allowed to engage in activities endangering the sovereignty, security and national interests of the specific country...[/B] |
Whilst this refers to the landing of a USAF E3C over China, it has implications for the Iraqi theatre as well.
The US planes are endangering the sovereignty, security and national interests of Iraq and are therefore in violation of international law. Tray another form of validation because the firing on American warplanes is justified.
Do you have any common sense to put two words together and see what they mean together?
Cease: to end
Fire: (in this case) to use a weapon
So a cease fire agreement is therefore an agreement in which both sides agree to stop firing their weapons.
By the VERY DEFINITION of the agreement, the iraquis have committed an act of violating that cease fire, giving the US no obligation to uphold it's end of the bargain.
Sovereign air space has no implications when the Iraqui government agreed to the no fly zones in order to get a cease fire.
They should have thought about that when they signed the document.
[edit: I've been looking for the text of the US-Iraq peace agreement for about an hour, to clear things like this up and make our debates have a little bit more base to them. Could you help? I probably shouldn't look on a government website though... but here I am.]
Cease: to end
Fire: (in this case) to use a weapon
So a cease fire agreement is therefore an agreement in which both sides agree to stop firing their weapons.
By the VERY DEFINITION of the agreement, the iraquis have committed an act of violating that cease fire, giving the US no obligation to uphold it's end of the bargain.
Sovereign air space has no implications when the Iraqui government agreed to the no fly zones in order to get a cease fire.
They should have thought about that when they signed the document.
[edit: I've been looking for the text of the US-Iraq peace agreement for about an hour, to clear things like this up and make our debates have a little bit more base to them. Could you help? I probably shouldn't look on a government website though... but here I am.]
You fail to understand or comprehend, the initiation an maintainence of no fly zones over iraq countermands international law.
Resources by the way gengari? It's a nice way to vaildate what you say, yet you provide nothing. I at least posted a link to a precidential source.
A cease fire is an agreement to abstain from hostile actions and the invasion of airspace is a hostile action in itself as I have said previously, it isn't just the firing of a weapon.
Resources by the way gengari? It's a nice way to vaildate what you say, yet you provide nothing. I at least posted a link to a precidential source.
A cease fire is an agreement to abstain from hostile actions and the invasion of airspace is a hostile action in itself as I have said previously, it isn't just the firing of a weapon.
I am looking for the text of the cease fire agreement, however I've had no luck in finding it.
This Desert Storm Cease-Fire Agreement that the politicians talk about all the time is extremely elusive.
This Desert Storm Cease-Fire Agreement that the politicians talk about all the time is extremely elusive.
Keep looking and let me know
I concede this dual then, because of lack of evidence....
And besides, I'm tired of arguing for something I don't believe in.
And besides, I'm tired of arguing for something I don't believe in.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.