France Surrenders!

[Verto]

Originally posted by DRoseDARs
Not taking sides in this thread's debate, but wasn't it Iraq that drew first blood in its invasion of Kuwait?

You have to understand...it is ALWAYS the US' fault.

Floyd, you sorta remind me of Jane Fonda in Vietnam.

[David Floyd]

Not taking sides in this thread's debate, but wasn't it Iraq that drew first blood in its invasion of Kuwait?

How does invading Kuwait draw "first blood" against the US?

And let's face it - Kuwait was probably stealing Iraqi oil to begin with. Not that that's a valid excuse for Iraq to go to war, just that Kuwait wasn't exactly an innocent party.

The USA was drawn in because of its impromtu role as International Police Force (and the oil fields, of course).

Yes, the US was drawn in as part of the International Police Force, which, of course, polices the world oil supply. Can't let people who don't follow the US line getting their hands on oil, can we?

Iraq lost that war and agreed to terms of surrender, which for ten years has not abided by those terms.

Of course they agreed to the terms of the surrender - the US forced them to. Germany also agreed to Versailles, but I think we can all agree that wasn't really a moral or fair treaty. Neither was the cease fire ending the Persian Gulf War. Granted, Verailles was probably worse, but a treaty that strips a nation of its sovereignty in favor of a more powerful nation, without even giving the people of that nation a say in the matter is inherently unfair.

Imagine what would have happened if Japan hadn't abided by the terms of its surrender after WWII, what the USA's response would have been.

How does that make it right? The US's response throughout WW2 wasn't right - carpet bombing German cities, firebombing Japanese cities, the atomic bombings, all designed to maximize civilian casualties.

[Shi Huangdi]

FLoyd, I am really shocked you would support the destruction of US forces......

DRoseDAR brings up an excllent point, Floyd. Iraq is hardly innocently defending it's soverignity, it brought this on itself by invading Kuwait. You believe an individual has the right to give up some of his rights by contract, don't you? You also believe in national soverignity. SHouldn't nations then also be able to give up their soverign rights by treaty just as you or I can by contract? Iraq did agree to become part of the UN and then to abide by its resolutions.

" What you have to remember, though, was that the cease fire agreement was just as immoral as the entire Persian Gulf War was."

You might not like the cease fire, but Iraq did agree to it.


Also, you support peace in the region don't you? The likely effect of a US plane being destroyed would likely bring about a quick US invasion, and destroy any chance of Iraq giving into UN pressure to abide by the agreement it made after it's defeat in the Gulf War.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
You might not like the cease fire, but Iraq did agree to it.

Did they have any choice?

[David Floyd]

FLoyd, I am really shocked you would support the destruction of US forces......

I fail to see why people seem to think that killing Americans is bad while killing Iraqis is good. It's not good to kill either Americans or Iraqis, but if Americans are being aggressive, the Iraqis should certainly defend themselves.

Iraq is hardly innocently defending it's soverignity, it brought this on itself by invading Kuwait.

What did Kuwait have to do with the US?

SHouldn't nations then also be able to give up their soverign rights by treaty just as you or I can by contract?

Possibly, so long as the rights are given up in an uncoerced fashion, and so long as the people within Iraq agree.

likely effect of a US plane being destroyed would likely bring about a quick US invasion, and destroy any chance of Iraq giving into UN pressure to abide by the agreement it made after it's defeat in the Gulf War.

The only point I see there is that the US acts immorally.

[Drake Tungsten]

What did Kuwait have to do with the US?

By joining the United Nations, Iraq agreed to respect the sovereign existence of other nations, including Kuwait. The Iraqi invasion and annexation of Kuwait was in clear violation of international law, including the UN Charter that Iraq agreed to upon joining the UN. The US got involved as the leader of a Security Council approved coalition to oust Iraq from Kuwait. All members of the UN are theoretically required to provide collective security for threatened members, which is what the US did in the Gulf War. Does that answer your question?

[Shi Huangdi]

"

What did Kuwait have to do with the US?"

That was what started this whole incident, which led to the UNSC resolutions that very much does have to do with us. Now, you may not agree that acting according to collective security is constitutional, but for purposes of international law we are ok. There was a UNSC resolution authorizing our presence here, and both the USA and Iraq agreed to become members of the UN.

"Possibly, so long as the rights are given up in an uncoerced fashion,"

It's generally accepted that an agressor can be coerced to give up rights in revolution. If you beat me up, the state acting in defense of my rights can force you to lose your rights and send you to jail. Similarily, shouldn't a state that was a victim of agression have the rightto dictate the loss of rights on the part of the agressor state?

Say that during the Civil War the Confederacy through superior leadership had won an overwhelming victory over the North, occupied DC and large areas within the North after a long and hard fought war. Now say the CSA had noted that it was only through superior generals they won, and that if there were to be another war they might not have superior generals and the USA's superior industrial base might allow victory. Would the CSA, in this instance, be able to demand the USA limit the size of it's army so that they would be able to stop the Americans from building up an army that could threaten the CSA again?

"The only point I see there is that the US acts immorally."

Yes, as a result of an outcome you would favor, US planes being shot down, the US would take actions you would see as immoral. But irregardless of which side is acting immoral, the result would be a war, which is precisely what you don't what and would lead to casulties on both sides. Shouldn't you then want as a practical manner for the US planes not to get shot down?

[David Floyd]

Drake,

Does that answer your question?

No. The crux of my question was, "Why should the US force Americans to die over the issue?".

Shi,

Similarily, shouldn't a state that was a victim of agression have the rightto dictate the loss of rights on the part of the agressor state?

That's a different argument. As the US was not the victim of aggression, this line of reasoning is irrelevant.

Would the CSA, in this instance, be able to demand the USA limit the size of it's army so that they would be able to stop the Americans from building up an army that could threaten the CSA again?

No, I don't think so.

Shouldn't you then want as a practical manner for the US planes not to get shot down?

No, I want US planes not to be in the region to begin with, and I want other nations to show the US that they can't be pushed around.

[Drake Tungsten]

I thought this was your question:

What did Kuwait have to do with the US?

Not this:

"Why should the US force Americans to die over the issue?"

I answered the first one, but now you don't seem to care about the answer...

[VJ]

I didn't think France had any reputation to protect anymore. They lost all face decades ago.

Seen any news from Ivory Coast recently?

What happened in 1990? Well, lets see: (...)

That's interesting. Could you throw some sources?

[David Floyd]

Drake, the second question is what I really meant by the first one.

When I say, what does this have to do with the US, what I really mean is, why should Americans die or pay for this.

[gsmoove23]

I am against another war in Iraq, never been convinced that it is necessary but I still believe that our actions in the Gulf War were justified and have still not found an arguement to convince me otherwise(I would love to here some). Why should Americans have died for it I think is a moot point since there was no draft and all troops who signed up knew the risks. The real question seems to be why should they pay for it which seems incredibly shortsighted, let-alone selfish.

Practical reasons, I'm sure Americans have profitted from it in the long run, since it certainly wasn't done for purely altruistic reasons. Protecting low energy prices seems to be the main reason called up by skeptics, maintaining world stability for the good health of our economy. These are only pragmatic reasons which I don't think necessary for justifying the 1st gulf war.

Containing aggression, keeping the peace, trying to establish a semblance of "world order" where any nations territorial boundaries are protected by all others. These are the lofty aims of the UN although they are not always followed unfortunately. The existence of ulterior motives does not lessen the impact of the arguement that Saddam resorted to military aggression and thats a no-no. But the suggestion that Kuwait probably deserved it was the funniest thing I've heard on this thread.

Could someone please tell me why Bush #1 decided to keep Saddam in power the first time, why he decided to sign a cease fire after dropping leaflets all across Iraq asking its citizens to rise up that lead to a number of uprisings and later to a number of slaughters? Why is regime change so important now when it didn't seem necessary the first time? Gasing Kurds, Scuds sent to Israel, weapons of mass destruction, we knew it all back then and we could have guessed a weapons inspection program could very easily fail. I'm so confused.

[GePap]

Originally posted by gsmoove23
The existence of ulterior motives does not lessen the impact of the arguement that Saddam resorted to military aggression and thats a no-no. But the suggestion that Kuwait probably deserved it was the funniest thing I've heard on this thread.

Could someone please tell me why Bush #1 decided to keep Saddam in power the first time, why he decided to sign a cease fire after dropping leaflets all across Iraq asking its citizens to rise up that lead to a number of uprisings and later to a number of slaughters? .

I never said Kuwait deserved to be invaded: imagine it as this scenrio:

Rich guy strikes up relation with Local hoodlum that's beneficial to both. Now, Rich guy begins to piss Local hoodlum. Local Hoodlum beats the crap out of rich guy. Now, did the Rich guy deserve to be beaten up by the Hoodlum? NO. Is the Hoodlum guilty of a crime for beating up rich guy? yes. But is it correct to argue that hoodlum beat the crap out of rich guy for no reason, proving that local hoodlum is naturally evil and aggressive? NO, it was wrong for hoodlum to kick the crap out of the rich guy, but he had reasons for doing it.

As for why we didn't let Saddam fall: we had no political alterative to Saddam being in power, thus to allow the Sadda regime to fall would create instability and perhaps a breakup of the country, woith consequences that could have been much worse than anything that could Happen with Saddam in.

[gsmoove23]

Originally posted by GePap
I never said Kuwait deserved to be invaded: imagine it as this scenrio:

Understood

Originally posted by GePap
As for why we didn't let Saddam fall: we had no political alterative to Saddam being in power, thus to allow the Sadda regime to fall would create instability and perhaps a breakup of the country, woith consequences that could have been much worse than anything that could Happen with Saddam in.

I understand the no alternative debate because its the same debate I use now. My question is after making the commitment and stirring up uprisings within the country weren't we morally obliged to support them? and IF it is right to carry out a regime change NOW why was it not in the past?

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by Spiffor
I recall the bombings in Irak started again when Clinton wagged the dog.

The official excuse was because Irak didn't obey the UN resolutions (once again), not because it shot US&UK planes.

No, you recall Operation Desert Fox. American and British airplanes had been responding to Iraqi fire long before that.

Incidently, everyone and his brother saw Desert Fox for what is was, a desperate futile attempt to draw scandel away from Clinton.

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by David Floyd


Good counterargument!

Hey, just showing some compassion for people who, ultimately, are more right than the ones shooting at them.

Try it sometime.

How am I labeling them as "less than human beings"? In any case, YOU are certainly labeling Iraqis as "less than human beings", with the implication that we should be able to bomb them with impunity.

"Bomb them with impunity"?
Are you on crack? I thought you didn't believe in gun control. If someone started shooting at you, would you just ignore it and run away.

Oh yeah, it's you. yep.

Legally, according to a cease fire, maybe. In the spirit of the US Constitution, certainly not.

Bullshit. Our Founding Fathers ran the government in ways against "the spirit of the constitution" all the damn time. And I'm going to believe the people who had say in the creation of the constitution (Madison, Hamilton, and to a lesser degree Washington and Jefferson) over some ***** from Austin.

What you have to remember, though, was that the cease fire agreement was just as immoral as the entire Persian Gulf War was.

How so? A tiger was set out of his cage and we put him
back in, with the understanding we would be aloud to look around said cage to make sure he didn't have a chisel or something to break out. Immoral in no way.

So you want to go kill Iraqis, huh? And that's not even in self defense, either.

I can think of one who deserves to be sent to a federal pound-me-in-the-ass prision for the rest of his life. His sons wouldn't be out of place there either.

Unlike in, say, Afghanistan where there was a substantial military force actively opposing a (dare I say it?) evil regime, there is none here. What does this mean?

Leads me to conclude that those who are armed really couldn't care less if they are ordered to gas a village.

Self defense? Maybe not. I would call it justice though.

So why in the **** are you allowed to say you want to go kill Iraqis (innocent Iraqis, at that), in their own country, but I'm not allowed to say those same Iraqis should be able to successfully defend themselves against aggression?

According to dictionary.com....

aggression

\Ag*gres"sion\, n. [L. aggressio, fr. aggredi: cf. F. agression.] The first attack, or act of hostility; the first act of injury, or first act leading to a war or a controversy; unprovoked attack; assault; as, a war of aggression. ``Aggressions of power.'' --Hallam

So, no you aren't allowed to say that. That's slander. You are lying. The United States was not the one, and, believe it or not, still is not the aggressor.

What authoritarian mother****er said that?

Confederate Lt. General A.P. Hill.

[David Floyd]

Hey, just showing some compassion for people who, ultimately, are more right than the ones shooting at them.

How is some Air Force officer in an F-16 more "right" than an Iraqi conscript?

If someone started shooting at you, would you just ignore it and run away.

No, I wouldn't be provoking them in the first place. If I decide to declare a no-walk zone on my neighbor's front lawn, and patrol it vigorously with an assault rifle, and forbid my neighbor from buying guns, and shoot at him anytime he tries to walk on his lawn or obtain weapons, I probably deserve to be shot at by him.

Our Founding Fathers ran the government in ways against "the spirit of the constitution" all the damn time.

Very true. They certainly did.

They did not, however, make it a habit of going around invading and shelling whomever they pleased.

And I'm going to believe the people who had say in the creation of the constitution (Madison, Hamilton, and to a lesser degree Washington and Jefferson) over some ***** from Austin.

Oh, well, if we are bringing Washington in it, wasn't it him who advised us against "entangling alliances"?

How so? A tiger was set out of his cage and we put him
back in, with the understanding we would be aloud to look around said cage to make sure he didn't have a chisel or something to break out. Immoral in no way.

I'll concede that Saddam Hussein was a tiger if you concede the United States was a T-Rex who was basically responsible for the Cold War, invaded countries at will, tested and used chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons on civilians or in civilian areas,
and overthrew democratically elected governments throughout the Caribbean (and elsewhere) at will.

Saddam gassed the Kurds? Well, that was certainly bad. And I might just give some credence to your arguments if you were consistent with them, and admit to me that the US was in the wrong for dropping the atomic bombs and firebombing Japanese and German cities, and that FDR, Truman, LeMay, and various other people responsible for those actions should have been charged with murdering civilians and executed.

I can think of one who deserves to be sent to a federal pound-me-in-the-ass prision for the rest of his life. His sons wouldn't be out of place there either.

Maybe so. And if you have a way to get them to enter the US, commit a crime on US soil where the US has jurisdiction, and then arrest them, you can send them to prison.

Until then, you're gonna need a stronger argument to convince me it is OK to murder Iraqi conscripts and civilians.

Leads me to conclude that those who are armed really couldn't care less if they are ordered to gas a village.

Right, because the US never slaughtered civilians

\Ag*gres"sion\, n. [L. aggressio, fr. aggredi: cf. F. agression.] The first attack, or act of hostility; the first act of injury, or first act leading to a war or a controversy; unprovoked attack; assault; as, a war of aggression. ``Aggressions of power.'' --Hallam

So, no you aren't allowed to say that. That's slander. You are lying. The United States was not the one, and, believe it or not, still is not the aggressor.

Seeing how Iraqi aggression against Kuwait and US aggression against Iraq were two distinctly separate matters, your definition simply proves my point. The US committed the first act of war against Iraq, not the other way around, and it was an entirely unprovoked attack, at that.

Confederate Lt. General A.P. Hill.

Ah, now I have a name for the authoritarian mother****er.