| Is the war in Iraq really necessary? | |
|
Lord Exar Kun - Student  |
Hey, with a war in Iraq comming up, I just wondered what you guys have got to say about Bush and his war-politics. I personally think Bush is goin way too far with his war-on-terrorism. _______________ -Retired april the 19th 2004 |
| < Recent Comments | Login and add your comment! | Previous Comments > |
| Comments |
|
Fizz of Belouve - Student 
|
Might sound like a weirdo's conspiracies theory, but who cares 
To my mind, that whole war is just bogus. It's not necessary. It is about to be inscened by the U.S. arms industry to 'try out' some new toys they have and, maybe to 'remove' the old ones from the arsenal. _______________ One of the Belouve boys, founder of the mighty FiZZsters Midbie council #20 - Fizz - #1933 - Jan '03 - Aug '04 "Renfield, you idiot!" |
|
Gabba - Ex-Student 
|
This will be my last comment on this thread because I find a few comments on me offensive,
I made the quote because I wanted to refer to the main point, War, I did read all of your post and simply found that all you were prepared to say was that war is needed, and yes you know the answers but we would not understand. I happen to be an educated man not perhaps on the subject of Iraq but I am educated and I have also been an active member of British and Irish politics. And guess what I followed that last war with great interest. I found your remarks made towards me nothing more than the condescending view of someone who believes that you are above me and that I should just bow down and agree with your educated viewpoint. If you think that will not annoy others with that attitude as well then you are mistaken, I have shown your post to a friend who is a psychologist, apart from your obvious arrogance, he suspects some personal interest in the Islamic states and possibly right wing, should I listen to him, he is educated, better educated than me. Well it’s a good thing I was brought up with a liberal viewpoint (and with manners) so I choose to have my own viewpoint on you, Now you have me on a rant, I have work to do and really should not be wasting time with this _______________ Sit vis nobiscum. This comment was edited by Gabba on Jan 22 2003 09:07am. |
|
Jedi Al Khalaas - Student 
|
Saddam is a monster that the US created to fight the Iranians, and then 'released' into the wilderness when he was of no more use. If the US government had taken care of him then, there would have been no need for a 1st Gulf war , let alone a second. |
|
Bubu - Hubbub 
|
Ulic for President!!  _______________ make install -not war |
|
Ulic Belouve - Student 
|
Another good point Hector brought up was the issue with North Korea. Seeing as how N. Korea is an autarky (look up that word, OK?), they might have a couple nukes, but they won't risk too much, so negotiation is a valid point here.
However, if we did enter into conflict with them and there was some form of nuclear exchange, it would freak the hell out of Japan. They have this "odd relation" (best way I can put it) with anything radioactive/nuclear. They don't even allow nuclear subs to get near the country. So fallout would be a bad thing for them. What this will do, is possibly freak them out to the point of lessining trade with us. To make up for this lack in trade, we would have to up our trade with China or Taiwan (more likely Taiwan, which would work better.) Of course, China wouldn't much care for us because we went after N. Korea. So we have two options: Increase trade with Taiwan, to a level that would be read as "official" trading (we're currently "unofficially" trading with them, long story, research it yourself). If we are read as officially trading with them, China will go ballistic, and there goes California. Or...we can NOT increase trade with Taiwan, and watch the economy go even MORE down the toilet. So, we opt not to get involved with N. Korea yet. It has all its complexities and such, so really, again, make sure you have something to back up your argument. _______________ Jedi do not fight for peace. That's only a slogan, and is as misleading as slogans always are. Jedi fight for civilization, because only civilization creates peace. |
|
Ulic Belouve - Student 
|
Good.
I knew Hector would come up with a good point. Yes. Now, some brief stuff on beginning of WWII. Let's hope you all see some parallels. German could not rearm due to the Versailles Treaty. Starts to secretly rearm. Economy of Germany turns around because people find work in these armories. In 1935, Hitler reveals the secret of his rearmament. What is done about this? Well, the Americans are not going to participate in another League of Nations. Britain and France do not want a 2nd World War. When Hitler reveals rearmament, Britain and France do nothing. When Hitler says he will not continue to pay Britain and France back (another violation), they do nothing. Next, Hitler takes control of Austria. Britain and France protest. Hitler claims that Austria wanted to join, and that this is his LAST anexxation, his LAST territorial demand. Then, Hitler invades Czechoslovakia. Britain and France meet with him in protest, again, in 1938. Hitler say, well, this is his LAST territorial demand. (Didn't he say that for Austria?) But Hitler PROMISES to knock it off. Takes over Czechoslovakia. Britain and France STILL do not want war. Hitler breaks promise, threatens Poland in 1939. Thinks Britain and France won't stand up to him (did they yet?) But they do stand up to him. Hitler doesn't care. So he invades Poland, and WWII starts on Sept. 1st, 1939. So, well, we see where one guy (Hitler) broke his promises, like another guy (Saddam). And we did nothing then, and it turned out to be a good idea that we didn't, right? Oh wait, we intervened. I forgot. So, we have another person who has broken many promises over 12 years. Do we just continue to sit back? What might have happened if we didn't intervene with Germany back then? Appeasement is not a great option here. When we do use military intervention, it will be justified, just like it was back then. I doubt anyone can say now that "We shouldn't have intervened with Germany then." Although back then, people WERE opposed to the idea. Then came Pearl Harbor. Now, people are opposed to THIS idea. Do we need a Pearl Harbor? Did we get one because we were sitting around on our butts? More than likely, we will intervene. 30 years from now, when all the history of 2003 is written down, we will say "It was a good move." Similar to the intervention in WWII. _______________ Jedi do not fight for peace. That's only a slogan, and is as misleading as slogans always are. Jedi fight for civilization, because only civilization creates peace. |
|
Hector Thrawn - Ex-Student 
|
also (i didnt read all of the post so slap me if i repeat anything) to not attack iraq even after we know they are breaking the rules set down by the Un would be considered appeasment. this also happpened with germany right before WWII. although iraq does not have the man power to recreate that scenario, if they decide to ally with North Korea on a nuclear strike (given we only know that NK had nukes and low yeild) this could cause alot of problems. so by attacking iraq we deter any other countries from breaking the rules. which begs the question why not attak NK? the problem there is interests first there is China, they probably wouldnt go to war over it, but do we want to take that big a risk? second NK has nukes, even if they hit themselves the fall out would have a huge effect, especially in Japan, a country I would like to hold onto (i am sure bubu would agree with that).
to sum up my argument: the best way to deal with this sort of situation is to let the profesionals handle it and if you dont like the proffesionals try researching before doing anything rash like voting for one of those tree-huggin, hippie, bleeding-heart, evil liberals.(sorry i had to say that ) |
|
Ulic Belouve - Student
|
....sigh....
If you want to refute quotations and/or citations, use your own citations, not just a "I think this" approach. I would hate to think that any of our own personal thoughts are more reputable than Israel’s deputy chief of mission at the UN, Aharon Yaakov, which was the quote Gabba refuted. And Iraq, did not invade Kuwait just over the oil aspect. If you want me to write a CITED report on the Gulf War, I can do that too. And if you think that we are merely opting to go to war over the possibility of Iraqi WMD, Gabba, then you obviously don't understand what I wrote below, and just picked out a quote that you thought you were qualified to refute. Reread, look up all the large words I may have used, find some reputable sources, and then come back to the table. An edit: Each person is entitled to state their own EDUCATED opinion, not just any old opinion. _______________ Jedi do not fight for peace. That's only a slogan, and is as misleading as slogans always are. Jedi fight for civilization, because only civilization creates peace. This comment was edited by Ulic Belouve on Jan 21 2003 07:31pm. |
|
Gabba - Ex-Student 
|
quote--------------------------------------------
Iraq is a brutal dictatorship that attacked its neighbors and violates human rights, including the use of chemical weapons against its own citizens.” ------------------------------------------------- It once was a Republic fighting islaminc fundermentalsm, It was at war with Iran to stop the thret of islaming fundementalsm spreading, then Kuwait becoz it was stealing oil from them. No excuse for useing chem and bio wepons against his own citizens, then again Turkey were orderd into N Iraq to supress the Kurdish upriseing, this was done by force. If we went to war with Iraq just for the reason of wepons of mass descruction, going to war with others, killing citizens, then we would proberbly have to also ask about other countrys, democracy or not, nukeler wepons are a violation of internationl war, yet the US and UK possess them. i know people from countrys bombed by US and UK forces, citizens have been killed and a hell of a lot more will die again. this will esculate, Islamic states will fall one by one it will be all out war, others will get involed and it well get nastyer. NOT IN MY NAME _______________ Sit vis nobiscum. |
|
Jello` - Student 
|
psst... nuke em _______________ Brady Brothers: Orion-Greg, Furi0us-Peter, Me-Bobby. Long lost cousin to Flash. Midbie Council #007. Ex-JAK. |
|
Ulic Belouve - Student
|
And here is the start of all of my semi-research:
Regarding the impending war with Iraq, and its justification or necessity, one needs to factor in a significant amount of context for the use of force. I believe that when the use of force comes, it will be justified. One needs to examine the resolutions, both those passed by the UN and agreed to by Iraq, and those resolutions passed by Congress to grant the President powers in this matter. One also needs to look at this in the context of support and rationale, and the best lens to do this is through Weinberger’s tests to be used when weighing use of military intervention. We shall get to those in a moment. We also take into account the context of an elaborate history in American Foreign Policy, where the development of policy by past Presidents heavily influences the decision-making process of today. Other contexts are those of success, for the public will stand behind the use of force if the success guarantee is high, yet there are substantial fears from the American public that this war will drag out. And there is also the context of the composition of forces. This includes the makeup of coalition forces, and the support of varying countries, as well as current force structure. The force structure is an issue currently, as we do not want the Iraqi force structure to consist of Weapons of Mass Destruction. This is just an overview of concerns, and as one can see, the complexity of this question is far greater than one would have surmised. I may continue to include the context of Arab culture, the Islamic religion, and the mindset of the Iraqi regime. First off, I will assume most know of the UN Resolutions as well as Saddam’s violations of those. I will put off discussion for later in this paper. However, it could be noted that in a study by Steven Zunes, Israel tops this list in number of resolution violations, in which, since 1968, Israel has violated 32 resolutions that included condemnation or criticism of the governments’ policies and actions. Turkey is in second place (24) and Morocco third (17). To respond to why the US and Britain are assaulting Iraq and not Israel, Israel’s deputy chief of mission at the UN, Aharon Yaakov, stated that, “Israel is the only democracy in the region and is fighting for its existence, while Iraq is a brutal dictatorship that attacked its neighbors and violates human rights, including the use of chemical weapons against its own citizens.” This issue with Israel factors in heavily to Saddam’s mindset. His rationale for acquiring unconventional warheads is a need to deter Israel. In Saddam’s view, Iraq’s acquisition of specifically nuclear weapons would lead to a state of mutual deterrence. According to the Iraqi News Agency, 7 April 1990, Saddam did emphasize to the visiting U.S. delegation that Iraq had the right to obtain any weapon already in the Israeli arsenal. An added note from me, if you ask any expert “What about Israel’s nuclear weapons?”, they will respond “Israel does not have nuclear weapons, nod, nod, wink, wink.” Israel will not admit that they have nuclear weapons, which leads to an intelligence paradox that I will detail in a bit. The Iraqi media (which is held to reflect official Iraqi government desires, due to ownership and such) also hinted at Baghdad’s apparent possession of biological weapons. The Al-Jumhurriyah newspaper noted that Iraqi missiles and chemical weapons could inflict “terrible losses on the enemy if it dares attack Iraq. This is IN ADDITION TO its ability to mount decisive retaliation to inflict perhaps further losses on the enemy, SOMETHING IRAQ LACKED IN THE PAST.” (emphasis added). Now, while the UN is looking for evidence in Iraq, I will get to the intelligence paradox. The Foreign Policy expert I just spoke with (who I won’t name here) made it clear that more than likely the US has intelligence that states exactly what Iraq has (and Israel for that matter), else they would not be pressing matters so much. But the paradox lies in the fact that the US DOES know what Saddam has, but cannot reveal that they know. If they did reveal that they knew, they would have to state HOW they know, thus compromising their intelligence contacts. Hence, they have weapons inspectors looking for items that the US probably already knows that they have. Thus, Iraqi violations can be revealed without having to compromise US intelligence. It is a paradox because the intelligence we gain cannot be used. Iraq likewise agreed to a new resolution with the UN Security council, about a month ago, of which France and Germany are a part of. The recent findings by the UN show a clear violation of those agreements with Iraq, yet Germany and France do not wish to bring retribution to Iraq. It’s almost like a judge telling a criminal, “You break your parole, you go back in jail. Do you agree to behave?”, and the criminal agrees. The criminal violates that agreement (breaks parole), yet no one pursues the criminal. Instead, they say “OK, new agreement, but don’t break this one.” Yet the criminal goes at it again. If, after 12 years, someone finally decides to hold the criminal accountable for breaking these legal agreements, it should seem rational. Likewise, Iraq has a 12 year history of breaking agreements without any retribution. Likewise, Iraq has been willing to suffer a $130 billion loss on oil exports, money in which Iraq has near total reliance on. This loss comes though economic sanctions, which Saddam is not even blinking at, despite the major hit to the Iraqi economy. Saddam chooses to make his country suffer for his ideals, and has likewise continued to violate agreements. <<<I will post this now, and get to the Foreign Policy context, WMD context, Weinbuger’s tests, and the religious context later, need to eat now>>> <<<But if anyone can see that this is a much larger issue than one ever thought, you are only getting the tip of the iceberg.>>> <<<Added note: I have a reliable source that says when to look for the war to begin. I will not list the rationale or the narrowed-down date, as I do not wish to compromise anything.>>> _______________ Jedi do not fight for peace. That's only a slogan, and is as misleading as slogans always are. Jedi fight for civilization, because only civilization creates peace. |
|
Ulic Belouve - Student
|
....
Do know that my weigh-in is coming, and you will hear my comments on this... But I am working on consulting scholarly sources and personell (I just got off the phone with a Foreign Policy Researcher). So I'll have good stuff when it comes. If you can even bear to read it, for it will have references, statistics, definitions...almost like a report. But I will not mean for it to be a definitive answer, but it WILL challenge you to think of this in more scholarly and educated terms. _______________ Jedi do not fight for peace. That's only a slogan, and is as misleading as slogans always are. Jedi fight for civilization, because only civilization creates peace. |
|
Ulic Belouve - Student
|
Do you REALLY want somone who attained an A in American Foreign Policy to weigh in on this subject?
Do you REALLY want someone who has studied the Iraqi stance from a religious viewpoint weighing in on the subject? Do you REALLY want someone who is currently studying terrorism to weigh in on this subject? Do you REALLY want someone who is studying Weapons of Mass Destruction weighing in on the subject? Do you REALLY want someon who has a security clearance to weigh in on the subject? All I can say is that, yes, the war is necessary, if it isn't averted by the processes in place already. We don't have war yet, and we could have easily had it a year ago. If you want to know why, really want to know, without me taking 3 hours to even BEGIN to get you to grasp it... Then take about 5 courses and get a Security Clearance too. Then you'll understand. Until then simply trust that the people making the decisions know a helluva lot more than you or even me, and that you should let it sit. The biggest pet peeve for me is for people to debate a political issue when they REALLY only know about 10% of what is going on. You don't know very much history of Foreign Policy, little War Doctrine, little Religious History of that area, and little knowledge of Saddam's own history and strategy. Until you even know HALF of those items, don't even START to argue a side. Because I can come in here with the knowledge I have and smash your opinions to pieces. But I will leave it at this: When it happens, it will be necessary. Leave the President and decision makers alone, you don't know what they are really trying to do. _______________ Jedi do not fight for peace. That's only a slogan, and is as misleading as slogans always are. Jedi fight for civilization, because only civilization creates peace. |
|
ioshee - Student 
|
You are right Exar. After Bush kills all the Iraqis he will help the emporor hunt down and destroy all the Jedi. But then we can always look forward to some kind of "New Hope" or something.
*LOL @ cHoSeNoNe _______________ One of the Belouve boys This comment was edited by ioshee on Jan 21 2003 02:29pm. |
|
Lord Exar Kun - Student 
|
nothing at all, except that Bush will finally be happy....though I doubt if he stops after killing the iraqi's.
*edit* I indeed call myself a Jedi _______________ -Retired april the 19th 2004 This comment was edited by Lord Exar Kun on Jan 21 2003 11:10am. |
|
Jedi Al Khalaas - Student 
|
I want people to think this through.
What will wiping out the Iraqi's achieve? (and you people call your selves Jedi?) |
|
Lord Exar Kun - Student
|
lol, somehow I don't think that's such a good idea.... _______________ -Retired april the 19th 2004 |
|
Jedi Al Khalaas - Student
|
All of who? You want to wipe out all of the Iraqi's? |
|
cHoSeN oNe - Retired 
|
Wipe them out....All of them!! _______________ Get busy living, or get busy dying. |
|
Jedi Al Khalaas - Student
|
Why Jedi Master , should 'we' have taken them out ? |
|
Darth Revan - Ex-Student 
|
The war is much needed. We should of taken them out when we had the chance all those years ago _______________ formally known as jedi master, vanished and returned as the new sith lord |
|
Jedi Al Khalaas - Student
|
The reason for this whole conflict is one man, one man only , Saddam Hussein. If I was Saddam (just pretend for a minute!), I would sit in my strongest bunker with all my chemical weapons and nuclear weapons and biological weapons aimed at my nearest enemies, (eg Israel, US Forces, Saudi, Kuwait, maybe Iran, Maybe Egypt) and think If I am going down , I am taking the f$$#$#s with me. Forget fighting a war , I would do that on Day 1 , since I am going to die anyway , go out with a bang! and that is, my friends, why there should be no war! It will all end in tears.  This comment was edited by Jedi Al Khalaas on Jan 20 2003 04:56pm. |
|
Sniya - Student 
|
none in perticular just the stuff in iraq _______________ The real question is not whether machines think but whether men do. Bertrand Russell http://www.thejediacademy.net/forums_detail_page.php?f_id=970 |
|
Gabba - Ex-Student
|
what site's could you be more specific _______________ Sit vis nobiscum. |
|
Sniya - Student
|
Woo:looks at shiny platnim medal:
There is the ocassional argument that if the U.S. did go to war they may lose.Think about here are just a few reasons the americans are on difficult terrain its not like the gulf a clear canvas were the americans superior technology will defeat them easily.Secondly the americans will need to avoid destroying sites of heritige,arcelogical worth etc _______________ The real question is not whether machines think but whether men do. Bertrand Russell http://www.thejediacademy.net/forums_detail_page.php?f_id=970 |
| < Recent Comments | Login and add your comment! | Previous Comments > |