Necessary Evil

[Japher]

I think Bush could have handled this better diplomatically.

For sure.

He gave the impression that he wanted to go to war no matter what.

I disagree.

As Clinton said, we passed that resolution last fall, and immediately sent over 100,000 troops.

Clinton has no right to talk... Remember Kosovo?

While we all know Iraq would not have gone through with disarmamanet. We didn't do a good job giving him the chance.

12 years wasn't long enough?

I'm not sure if that would have been enough to get France on board though.

France has their minds in the same place we have ours; the interest of National Security.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Dissident
I was unaware we are breaking the law. Maybe I'll have to rethink my arguments. Perhaps I'll become anti-war now

Well if we are breaking the law why doesn't the U.N. do something about it?

Dissident, The US is not breaking the law. It is acting lawfully under Chapter VII of the UN charter with the force of three resolutions authorizing action.

You are neithier evil or wrong. Most religions allow for wartime conflict. Most humanistic viewpoints allow for taking action for the greater good.

The evil ones are the ones who try to twist right into wrong to eithier boost their petty causes or egos. Rest assured that war is sometimes a necessay thing to save lives in the long run. Iraq is a case in point. Saddam has killed over 1 million people in his reign. This must stop. War is apparently the only thing that will accomplish this. There has been over twelve years of diplomacy involved in trying to oust him. Tens of thousands of Iraqis have been brutally murdered during this time.

If you stand against innocent death, you must support this war. To do otherwise simply signals that you accept ruthless murder and potential devastating actions by a dictator who holds none of the morals that anyone in this thread purports to have.

Enough...The war is upon us. It is time to move on to discussing how to make the aftermath the best for the Iraqi people.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Dissident
I think Bush could have handled this better diplomatically.

He gave the impression that he wanted to go to war no matter what.

As Clinton said, we passed that resolution last fall, and immediately sent over 100,000 troops.

While we all know Iraq would not have gone through with disarmamanet. We didn't do a good job giving him the chance.

I'm not sure if that would have been enough to get France on board though.

We, the US!, did not give him a chance? What bullshit!

[Chemical Ollie]

Originally posted by Ned


We shall now see if he responds to an ultimatum.

I always had hoped that a strong UN resolution that left Saddam no choice but to disarm or face war with the World would be effective. But that hope was sabatoged by the French and their lackey Blix.

Blix is lackey to no one. That's why he got this job. He doesn't kiss anyone's ass, not Bush's and not Saddam's. That's why Bush dislikes him, because Bush expect everyone to kiss his ass - "anyone who isn't with us is against us".

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Olaf Hårfagre


Blix is lackey to no one. That's why he got this job. He doesn't kiss anyone's ass, not Bush's and not Saddam's. That's why Bush dislikes him, because Bush expect everyone to kiss his ass - "anyone who isn't with us is against us".

Burying relevant details in reports to the UNSC is kissing France's a$$. Can you honestly say that was not politically motivated? Blix wants to justify his own existence...siding with France does this. And he has.

[Japher]

Blix is lackey to no one.

whew... I haven't laughed that hard all day... Thanks!

[Wernazuma III]

Originally posted by Ned


We, the US!, did not give him a chance? What bullshit!

Since resolution 1441 had been passed - and this resolution should be Saddam's chance to disarm or let him show that he has disarmed - no real proofs have been brought up that Saddam possesses WOMD (which he still might do, but that's not the point). On the contrary: One "secret service paper" has been proved to be a "american student paper" and an alleged paper of Saddam going nuclear shopping in Africa has been proved an open fake. Does someone with ANY proof make such fakes? They had none, so they had to make up some. It seems to be merely a "feeling in the belly"...
When Bush and his gang decided to go to war, there was no chance anymore to prevent it.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Wernazuma III


Since resolution 1441 had been passed - and this resolution should be Saddam's chance to disarm or let him show that he has disarmed - no real proofs have been brought up that Saddam possesses WOMD (which he still might do, but that's not the point). On the contrary: One "secret service paper" has been proved to be a "american student paper" and an alleged paper of Saddam going nuclear shopping in Africa has been proved an open fake. Does someone with ANY proof make such fakes? They had none, so they had to make up some. It seems to be merely a "feeling in the belly"...
When Bush and his gang decided to go to war, there was no chance anymore to prevent it.

Wernazuma, The burden of proof required in 1441 was on Iraq. NOT on the world to find weapons. He was to prove that he destroyed WMD that UNSCOM reported in 1998 that he had. Strangely, he has failed to provide any proof whatsoever that he has destroyed them.

I have posted 1441 more than once for everyone to read. If you do not have the wherewithal to research what it really says, then at least refrain from posting incorrect tidbits as if they were fact.

[Arrian]

Oh ****.

Dissident, wtf?

Thanks for giving the "America sucks" crowd more ammo.

-Arrian

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by PLATO1003


Burying relevant details in reports to the UNSC is kissing France's a$$. Can you honestly say that was not politically motivated? Blix wants to justify his own existence...siding with France does this. And he has.

If you want to "bury" a "relevant detail" you simply don't put it in a report. It ends up (if you have a liability for mentioning it) out of order and unlabeled in some appendix that never gets circulated directly with the report.

The UAV as found didn't qualify as a "weapons" program, despite US hopes for a "smoking gun." Nothing indicated the UAV could carry an ordnance payload, so oops, range is irrelevant.

[Dis]

I hate to go to war. But we cannot let Saddam Hussein win diplomtically. He has played the world like a deck of cards.

Am I the only one who can see this?

Yes I know what your reaponse will be. Bush has played the american public like a deck of cards.

But I have yet to see any proof of this. I have completely ignored all the crap Powell put out a few weeks ago. I supported the war even without that.

Suddam Hussein is in open defiance of the U.N., The U.S., and the entire world

and it's time for someone to put a stop to that.

I don't think anything else needs to be said.

[HershOstropoler]

The US jumped on every Blix criticism of Iraq as a case for war now, so Blix became very cautious on that. Simple as that.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by HershOstropoler
The US jumped on every Blix criticism of Iraq as a case for war now, so Blix became very cautious on that. Simple as that.

So you are saying that Blix modified his comments on Iraq in order to not provide a justification for war.

So much for the impartial Blix.

[PLATO]

The UAV as found didn't qualify as a "weapons" program, despite US hopes for a "smoking gun." Nothing indicated the UAV could carry an ordnance payload, so oops, range is irrelevant.

as found

The key words here. Are you entirely convinced that the aircraft description that got UNMOVIC's attention in the first place is really the balsa wood toy Saddam showed the world?

Don't you even wonder why Blix took this at face value?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Since I know a little bit about the subject of UAV's (one of the things I'm currently doing is working on flight control software for a privately funded one), yes. I didn't pay attention to whether Saddam showed a balsa wood toy to the world, I was more interested in the 7.5 meter wingspan one mentioned by Blix.

There was a thread about that specifically where I went into some detail about all the aerodynamic and flight control issues peculiar to UAV's and their flight envelopes. The basic deal is setting one up to deliver CW is quite complex, requires integration of the CW system into the UAV in a very obvious way in order to not compromise flight stability, payload and range. Beyond that, flight control in a profile for even near ideal conditions for CW agent dispersal is very problematic - UAV's aren't really set up for NOE flight, and don't have instrument packages sensitive and responsive enough to allow them to automatically maintain flight stability at their low operating speeds in the sorts of dynamic turbulence you get with NOE flight.

The types of adaptations you'd have to make for a low-altitude CW delivery platform on a 7.5 meter wingspan UAV are very sophisticated, and very obvious to anyone who knows about aeronautical or ordnance engineering. Had there been those types of adaptations in the UAV reported on, that fact would have been reported by UNMOVIC.

It's a different story if you're talking about a spray tank strapped onto a Mirage 2000 set up as an autopilot drone, but that wasn't what Blix saw or reported, or what the US tried to claim was a "smoking gun."

[Ben Kenobi]

Dissident:

You can't be a darwinist and a pacifist.

Just not possible.

Would you step on an ant? Darwinism makes no distinction for values of a species, in that the best species is the one best adapted to the situation. If one needs to kill in order to survive, there is nothing wrong with killing.

I want to hear your WW2 argument.

Why was WW2 an unjustified war?

[PLATO]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Since I know a little bit about the subject of UAV's (one of the things I'm currently doing is working on flight control software for a privately funded one), yes. I didn't pay attention to whether Saddam showed a balsa wood toy to the world, I was more interested in the 7.5 meter wingspan one mentioned by Blix.

There was a thread about that specifically where I went into some detail about all the aerodynamic and flight control issues peculiar to UAV's and their flight envelopes. The basic deal is setting one up to deliver CW is quite complex, requires integration of the CW system into the UAV in a very obvious way in order to not compromise flight stability, payload and range. Beyond that, flight control in a profile for even near ideal conditions for CW agent dispersal is very problematic - UAV's aren't really set up for NOE flight, and don't have instrument packages sensitive and responsive enough to allow them to automatically maintain flight stability at their low operating speeds in the sorts of dynamic turbulence you get with NOE flight.

The types of adaptations you'd have to make for a low-altitude CW delivery platform on a 7.5 meter wingspan UAV are very sophisticated, and very obvious to anyone who knows about aeronautical or ordnance engineering. Had there been those types of adaptations in the UAV reported on, that fact would have been reported by UNMOVIC.

It's a different story if you're talking about a spray tank strapped onto a Mirage 2000 set up as an autopilot drone, but that wasn't what Blix saw or reported, or what the US tried to claim was a "smoking gun."

Its amazing what you learn when someone with specific knowledge speaks. I stand corrected.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by obiwan18
Why was WW2 an unjustified war?

What makes a war just?

[BeBro]

I have to say that I find this thread rather amusing, and the "you are a murderer/criminal" accusations somewhat childish....

[Dis]

when did I say I was a pacifist?

Only in that other thread. I was joking about that

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Dissident
If we are to remain an elite superpower or hyperpower, we cannot surrender diplomatically to nations like Iraq. Iraq has beaten us diplomatically. They have outsmarted us. Saddam has done just enough to make him look like he's trying to follow the regulations. And I also believe it is highly unlikely they have any nuclear program whatsoever.

All thanks to this administration's blunders of course, with its massive experience in international relations no less.

Right after WWII, the US accounted for 70%+ of the world's production. Today, around 20%. More than ever, the US needs to work with other countries. This is what diplomacy is.The US simply cannot expect that it will announce something and have the rest of the world fall in line.

[Ben Kenobi]

when did I say I was a pacifist?

So don't give me the excuse that this war is unjust. All war is unjust. And this includes WW2. Organized killing is wrong no matter how you see it. It has nothing to do with civilian deaths. Do you think it is right to kill all those military personnel who are not responsible for the war?

This is generally a pacifist position.

Nothing wrong with being a pacifist, it's just one or the other.

[Dis]

I see.

Well that was to show that war is not right. But that doesn't mean I don't support it. I do support war. The rest of that post shows why. It is to ensure the U.S. remains strong as a nation and does not get conquered. Don't laugh it could happen in 50 years or so.

And I agree that Bush jr. has deficiencies in diplomacy. But we are stuck with him. We will just have to do the best we can under the circumstances.

[Dis]

WW2 is a tricky issue. That almost deserves its own thread.

WW2 is the closest you can come to being just. But it still involved the murder of millions of people by the allies. The allies intentions were not pure. The U.K. was still an imperialist power, as was the U.S. The definition of unjust is: Violating principles of justice or fairness; unfair. The war was not fair for all the territories under allied control.

There are still questions circling around pearl harbour. I'm not a conspiracy theorist, so I won't even touch that one.

Basically because I'm saying all war involves murder, it cannot be just. But that doesn't mean it wasn't necessary. Obviously ww2 was necessary.

[Ben Kenobi]

Dissident:

Don't laugh it could happen in 50 years or so.

You're letting the Eurocoms get to you.
No need to apologise for Bush, I actually think he has done a good job in avoiding war so far.

Obviously ww2 was necessary.

The tough question is this:

Can war be justified in the case of genocide perpetrated by the oppressors, as was the Holocaust?

Even Christians don't agree on this point.

I'd go as a medic, after I got the proper training, rather than citing a conscientious objection. This way I help with the war while not being directly responsible for the death of another enemy soldier.

I may be a pacifist, but I hope that I fall under CS Lewis' definition of an honest pacifist.

[Ned]

Originally posted by obiwan18



Can war be justified in the case of genocide perpetrated by the oppressors, as was the Holocaust?

Even Christians don't agree on this point.

Are you kidding, Christians, at least some Christians, doubt whether World War II was justified?

[Spiffor]

Answer to the first post :

I am not American, and I think the American hyperpower is a very bad thing. I'm glad to see the world beginning to be multipolar. Americans have shown how eager to adaptation they are, so I'm sure the US will remain a decent place even when its administrtaion will stop to force its will and its interests to the rest of the world.

This war is an unnecessary evil, which only tries to postpone the unavoidable multipolarization of the world. This is the very wrong direction.

[Japher]

[Spiffor]

Japher : are you confused with my post, or one above ?

If you're confused with mine, I unserstood Diss would have been opposed to the war, if the American hyperdominance wasn't at stake.
To me, the end of the American hyperdominance would be very good news to the world, so this war, and its objective of maintaining America as the only hyperpower, is not necessary. At the opposite, it goes in the wrong direction.

[Ellestar]

Dissident
And no, socialism would not work on a nation this large.
One word - Chinese.
This is not a matter of size, it's a matter of nation psychology IMHO.

Iraq has beaten us diplomatically. They have outsmarted us. Saddam has done just enough to make him look like he's trying to follow the regulations.

Well, you showed him that he can't win by force. What else he can do?

And I also believe it is highly unlikely they have any nuclear program whatsoever.

Well Iraq has scientists (also in nuclear fields) - so they automatically have nuclear program. Hussein don't demand nuclear weapons from his scientists? This is highly unlikely.

Our economy is based on service industries and telecommunications and such. It is very fragile.

USSR economy was based on heavy manufacturing industry and it seems it was even more fragile.

This war is a necessary evil if we are to remain a superpower and not an impotent nation with a military we cannot use. Having a miltary is worthless if you cannot use it. When you are #1, people will continue to push you off the top. We have to be able to prevent that.

Well, then fight powerful nations instead of poor regimes. And choose one with nuclear weapons. Well, if USA wins vs. all countries with nuclear weapons, then USA will be ¹1 (in military).

Now USA as strong in military as Russia because noone can attack one another w/o committing suicide. Any other country with good delivery platforms for nuclear weapons equally strong, even with much less nuclear weapons, because it's horribly economically inefficient to attack such a country.