N
nath
Guest
- Thread starter
- #211
The question is not if Saddam was a bad-guy or not, it's whether the ends justify the means. They simply do not.
The question is not if Saddam was a bad-guy or not, it's whether the ends justify the means. They simply do not.
W
Wij
Guest
- Thread starter
- #212
I'd like to see your cost-benefit analysis for this.
X
xane
Guest
- Thread starter
- #213
That's your opinion and you are entitled to it.
I'd like to hear what you think the "price" of basic human rights should be ?
N
nath
Guest
- Thread starter
- #214
Benefit: Iraqi people free of an evil Dictator. At least a few hundred people are happy about this.
Cost: Well, the cost really remains to be seen. America have their list of countries they want to sort out. They're quite happy to roam around the middle east, enforcing their particular brand of peace and liberty for their own benefit. I'm sorry, but there's absolutely no way that the US went to war to free these people, so it begs the question why. I can assure you, their motives are anything but noble and true: shots of a few hundred people pulling down Saddams statue are there to take your mind off this fact. "Aww, isn't that nice". Pay more attention and you'll find the Iraqi attitude isn't quite as clear cut as it would seem.
Cost: Well, the cost really remains to be seen. America have their list of countries they want to sort out. They're quite happy to roam around the middle east, enforcing their particular brand of peace and liberty for their own benefit. I'm sorry, but there's absolutely no way that the US went to war to free these people, so it begs the question why. I can assure you, their motives are anything but noble and true: shots of a few hundred people pulling down Saddams statue are there to take your mind off this fact. "Aww, isn't that nice". Pay more attention and you'll find the Iraqi attitude isn't quite as clear cut as it would seem.
G
Gumbo
Guest
- Thread starter
- #215
It's obvious, it's far better for Saddam to kill a good few thousand every year, rather than us kill a couple of thousand now to stop it.
Killing a couple of thousand has cost us loads whereas letting Saddam do it didn't cost us anything. Plus he was far more effecient as we used expensive bombs and he killed loads more just by using sticks, and electrocution and stuff. It's a very simple cost/benefit. In fact I'm with nath we should have just let Saddam carry on, his was much the best way of wiping out the damn Towel-heads, heh we might even make a fast buck selling him rubber hose to use for the beatings, win/win
Killing a couple of thousand has cost us loads whereas letting Saddam do it didn't cost us anything. Plus he was far more effecient as we used expensive bombs and he killed loads more just by using sticks, and electrocution and stuff. It's a very simple cost/benefit. In fact I'm with nath we should have just let Saddam carry on, his was much the best way of wiping out the damn Towel-heads, heh we might even make a fast buck selling him rubber hose to use for the beatings, win/win
N
nath
Guest
- Thread starter
- #216
a-typical way to shun anti war ideas is to say, "yeah, you're obviously on saddams side!"
Well done gumbo, yuo aer teh winnar!
Infact it's not a trade off of a thousand iraqi civilians now vs loads more with Saddams continued rule. The consequences of this war will stretch far and wide, it's not just about a few civvies that got killed in the process.
Well done gumbo, yuo aer teh winnar!
Infact it's not a trade off of a thousand iraqi civilians now vs loads more with Saddams continued rule. The consequences of this war will stretch far and wide, it's not just about a few civvies that got killed in the process.
G
Gumbo
Guest
- Thread starter
- #217
I thought my post was dripping in enough sarcasm to be obvious, guess not....
X
xane
Guest
- Thread starter
- #218
That's right, he was just about to capitulate to UN demands when the tanks rolled in
Dream on.
N
nath
Guest
- Thread starter
- #219
And my post is clearly a reaction to that sarcasm?
edit: xane, no obviously he was fucking around with regards to weapons inspections, I never suggested otherwise. I simply said "so the fuck what?" it's not like he was about to attack anyone, was he?
edit: xane, no obviously he was fucking around with regards to weapons inspections, I never suggested otherwise. I simply said "so the fuck what?" it's not like he was about to attack anyone, was he?
X
xane
Guest
- Thread starter
- #221
Why not, he may have been a believer in "third time lucky".
M
Maljonic
Guest
- Thread starter
- #222
when will this thread go too far?
O
old.D0LLySh33p
Guest
- Thread starter
- #223
It's never gonna stop.
moo
moo
M
Maljonic
Guest
- Thread starter
- #224
well they should agree to disagree and give it a rest
M
maxi--
Guest
- Thread starter
- #225
far too much Sky News and Tonight with Trevor McDonald for you
N
nath
Guest
- Thread starter
- #226
Xane: with everyone watching, there's no way he'd attack anyone. Saddam is NOT a fool.
DBs, that's not really our problem. If we want it to be there are other ways to force out dictators. I read a list of a load of ways this can be done without resorting to war, most of them actually seeming sound, not just hippy shit like "try and reason with Saddam". Of course I've forgotten these, so I shall try and find them again but for now you can just take my word for it.. I'm sure that you will
DBs, that's not really our problem. If we want it to be there are other ways to force out dictators. I read a list of a load of ways this can be done without resorting to war, most of them actually seeming sound, not just hippy shit like "try and reason with Saddam". Of course I've forgotten these, so I shall try and find them again but for now you can just take my word for it.. I'm sure that you will
M
mr.Blacky
Guest
- Thread starter
- #227
NOooo it's funny
T
Tom
Guest
- Thread starter
- #228
I would say a few MILLION people are happy about this, and thats just in Iraq. The truth is nath that you're speculating on what might happen now, and you seem to base that speculation on your own opinion of western culture, predominantely the US.
I think we all know that the primary aim of the coalition wasn't to 'free the Iraqi populace', but it was still an aim. You also seem to be comparing the plight of the Iraqi leadership with the deposed elements of Islamic fundamentalism, which is just plain stupid. One of the more likely reasons the US didn't push further into Iraq in 1991 was the large numbers of flags being waved around, showing pictures of the Ayatollah (sp?) Khomeni.
Using the old oil argument is nonsense, as Iraq will very likely become an OPEC member, an organisation which the West cannot really dictate terms to.
The real reasons Iraq was invaded are because the government violated UN resolution after UN resolution, and because they proved to be a demonstrable threat to their neighbours. You can argue the hind leg off a donkey, but until you come up with some hard arguments, based upon evidence, and not speculation, you're not going to sway anybody here.
G
Gumbo
Guest
- Thread starter
- #229
Originally posted by nath
DBs, that's not really our problem. If we want it to be there are other ways to force out dictators. I read a list of a load of ways this can be done without resorting to war, most of them actually seeming sound, not just hippy shit like "try and reason with Saddam". Of course I've forgotten these, so I shall try and find them again but for now you can just take my word for it.. I'm sure that you will
If you do find them, please put them here or a link, cos I'm yet to see any and really do want to.
M
mr.Blacky
Guest
- Thread starter
- #230
It wasnt Ayatollah it was a Iraqi leader.
Also Iraq is allready an OPEC country, but if the oilfields are denationalized and given to the USA oil companies it really doesnt matter.
N
nath
Guest
- Thread starter
- #231
I'm not trying to sway peoples opinion, Tom. It'd be a little naive of me to think that I could do such a thing. Either a) you firmly believe what you're saying because you've evaluated the facts for yourself and have come to a conclusion, or b) you've decided that the US couldn't possibly be as bad as all that and that the anti-war rabble must be chatting rubbish and finding out a load of things to the contrary would not matter as it's too daunting to admit you may be wrong or misinformed.
Either way, opinions on this matter aren't gunna change.
Tom, there's no way in hell this war is about those weapons. Not a chance, nada. America using 9/11 to say "but we feel all vulnerable now!" is akin to Israel using anti-semetism to get a way with (mass) murder.
Either way, opinions on this matter aren't gunna change.
Tom, there's no way in hell this war is about those weapons. Not a chance, nada. America using 9/11 to say "but we feel all vulnerable now!" is akin to Israel using anti-semetism to get a way with (mass) murder.
T
Tom
Guest
- Thread starter
- #232
Wrong.
T
Tom
Guest
- Thread starter
- #233
More speculation.
M
Maljonic
Guest
- Thread starter
- #234
b. up untill just after 'rubbish'
- Joined
- Dec 11, 1997
- Messages
- 9,077,008
Eh?
it is a known fact he gasses the iraqi people be they Kurds or anyone else.
So what about all the Iraqi exiles who also claim the bloke is an evil person? They been watching too much tv as well?
X
xane
Guest
- Thread starter
- #236
So how do you invade a country without anyone watching then ?
N
nath
Guest
- Thread starter
- #237
What I mean is, the spotlight was on him. He wasn't gunna suddenly attack anyone as there's no way he could get away with it.
D
Durzel
Guest
- Thread starter
- #238
This whole "illegal" thing (again). I can't really see how that word can be banded about at all. Simply put, the UN is a body that oversees international events and attempts to instigate rules and regulations to the general acceptance of the majority of members. That said, the UN is ultimately nothing more than a altruistic entity that attempts to make order and rules out of chaos. There is certainly nothing "special" about the UN that makes what it says or advises "lawful" or not.
Plenty of member countries (including the US) break UN resolutions routinely. You can call that "illegal" in the context of the UN if you like, but its not an unlawful act. The UN is not a law making body. No entity in the World has the power to make unilateral Laws that apply to "the human race".
I think the problem here is that people confuse morally reprehensible acts with "law". Calling this war "illegal" is about as logical as calling Saddam's defiance of 1441 "illegal". Neither event is unlawful in the slightest - simply because no law has been broken.
My main beef with anti-war protestors in general is that it seems (and is evident from this thread really in some cases) that the anti-war folk disagree with the war because they perceive the notion of war, in any circumstance, to be wrong. Comments like "the end justifying the means" et al illustrate this perfectly. There is no "winning" in wars, only degrees of losing - and to that end they are completely justifiable as long as you are prepared to accept that the human rights, conditions and welfare of the Iraqi people as a whole are likely to be immeasurably better off as a result of this action.
If these rabid anti-war folk took off their rose-tinted glasses for a few seconds perhaps they would realise this.
(For the record - I am neither pro or anti-war, but I am most definitely pro-human rights and am supportive of any action - military or otherwise - that seeks to preserve these rights)
Plenty of member countries (including the US) break UN resolutions routinely. You can call that "illegal" in the context of the UN if you like, but its not an unlawful act. The UN is not a law making body. No entity in the World has the power to make unilateral Laws that apply to "the human race".
I think the problem here is that people confuse morally reprehensible acts with "law". Calling this war "illegal" is about as logical as calling Saddam's defiance of 1441 "illegal". Neither event is unlawful in the slightest - simply because no law has been broken.
My main beef with anti-war protestors in general is that it seems (and is evident from this thread really in some cases) that the anti-war folk disagree with the war because they perceive the notion of war, in any circumstance, to be wrong. Comments like "the end justifying the means" et al illustrate this perfectly. There is no "winning" in wars, only degrees of losing - and to that end they are completely justifiable as long as you are prepared to accept that the human rights, conditions and welfare of the Iraqi people as a whole are likely to be immeasurably better off as a result of this action.
If these rabid anti-war folk took off their rose-tinted glasses for a few seconds perhaps they would realise this.
(For the record - I am neither pro or anti-war, but I am most definitely pro-human rights and am supportive of any action - military or otherwise - that seeks to preserve these rights)
D
Durzel
Guest
- Thread starter
- #239
That didn't stop Osama, what's to stop Saddam having a go?
You have to wonder whether or not the Iraqi regime was beginning to think that they could get away with any and every form of human rights abuse, and "baiting", and direct action/support of anti-Western action.
N
nath
Guest
- Thread starter
- #240
I have said several times that I'm *not* one of those people who is anti war in general. I'm anti *this* war because it's wrong, and illegal. It *is* illegal.
Reason being: as maxi said, the US has it's OWN rules that say it is not allowed to attack anyone unless retaliating from an attack on them, or there's definite evidence of them being about to be attacked. Can't remember the specific wording but it amounts to as much.
Also, they countries that have joined the UN have agreed to be a part of the rules. The UN didn't sanction this war. It's illegal.
Reason being: as maxi said, the US has it's OWN rules that say it is not allowed to attack anyone unless retaliating from an attack on them, or there's definite evidence of them being about to be attacked. Can't remember the specific wording but it amounts to as much.
Also, they countries that have joined the UN have agreed to be a part of the rules. The UN didn't sanction this war. It's illegal.