War vs. Iraq - Ousting Saddam?

[Ned]

Originally posted by David Floyd
No, prior to that I don't invite either declaration by sinking German UBoats or putting an embargo on Japan.

David, Would you have been happy with the world that would have resulted had the U.S. not gotten involved?

Ned

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned
And, as I said, you should trust us.

Ned

Yes, because we are such keepers of world peace, going off an attacking a country that has done nothing to us, isn't attacking its neighbors, and isn't committing genocide.

[Tom201]

And, as I said, you should trust us.

We better look at it ourselves bevor we trust a man like Bush

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Tom201
We better look at it ourselves bevor we trust a man like Bush

We've already seen how well the Dutch look after the peace.

[chequita guevara]

Damn, DD, that was harsh.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Ned


David what would your opinion be on the War of Northern Aggression?

Ned

You mean the war the South started?

No it never should have happened. I do wonder what would have happened if the South had the sense not to start it.

[chequita guevara]

We'd still have slavery.

[Ethelred]

Not here in California.

I don't think the South could have kept it up THIS long. Maybe though considering how long it took for them to start letting everyone vote.

I think Lincoln might have a found a pretext to start the war even though he promised not too. He did after all also promise to do whatever it took to hold the Union together.



Personaly I hope Ned is wrong on this. It seems a really bad idea so far.

[Shi Huangdi]

Source regarding the WMD, Che? Iraq severely limited Weapons Inspectors while they were there and Saddam is not allowing their return.

Chegitz is correct however that no Kurdish state would come out of this deal. Any such offensive would be at extreme cost to Turkey and risk a destabilization, and so they probably would not agree without promises to be able to annex large parts of Northern Iraq. Even still, it is not clear Turkey would support the US in such a move due to extreme anti-Israel feeling.

IMO, in order for such an attack to both succeed and in order to replace Saddam with a sigificantly better leader, we would need to stop with our strong pro-Israel stance and start acting more on the behalf of the Palestinians.

[David Floyd]

David, Would you have been happy with the world that would have resulted had the U.S. not gotten involved?

Happy has nothing to do with right and wrong.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Yes, because we are such keepers of world peace, going off an attacking a country that has done nothing to us, isn't attacking its neighbors, and isn't committing genocide.

but who has tried ad is cotinuing to try to get WoMD while being controlled by someone who is against the US (and is a dictator)

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by David Floyd


Happy has nothing to do with right and wrong.

states can do right and wrong also

both Japan and nazi germany were doing wrong

QE ****ing D

Jon Miller

[Ned]

Originally posted by Ethelred
Not here in California.

I don't think the South could have kept it up THIS long. Maybe though considering how long it took for them to start letting everyone vote.

I think Lincoln might have a found a pretext to start the war even though he promised not too. He did after all also promise to do whatever it took to hold the Union together.



Personaly I hope Ned is wrong on this. It seems a really bad idea so far.

Actually, I'm just kidding on that War of Northern Aggression bit. That is what the Civil War is know as in the South.

However tragic the Civil War was to America, it was necessary to end slavery and truly unite American into one nation. Those who are against the war typically are in favor of the right of state to unilaterally succeed. This concept is what the made the our initial conferderacy weak.

Ned

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
Source regarding the WMD, Che? Iraq severely limited Weapons Inspectors while they were there and Saddam is not allowing their return.

Scott Ritter, "former chief U.N. weapons inspector in Iraq says Saddam's weapons of mass destruction are largely disarmed, the "Iraqi threat" is built on a framework of lies and President Bush has betrayed the American people."

[Tom201]

We've already seen how well the Dutch look after the peace.

A bit diffrent from others our officials took consequences... (and no - of course, the election this month has nothing to do with it )
Finally like it was discussed in the other thread - in reality it was the Frenchs fault

[Ned]

Originally posted by Jon Miller


but who has tried ad is cotinuing to try to get WoMD while being controlled by someone who is against the US (and is a dictator)

Jon Miller

Even then the war would not be justified without the additional factors that Saddam has exhibited. He has actually used WoMD against Iran and the Kurds. He has launched missiles on our ally Israel. He has threatened the U.S. repeatedly and has invaded his neighbors not once, but twice. While promising to cooperate with the world on WoMD, he has ejected the inspectors.

After 9/11, we know that the U.S. is no longer immune from attack. We take threats against us with utmost seriousness.

If Saddam were to attack Israel with WoMD, Israel would reply in kind. Millions would die.

If Saddam were to attack the U.S. with WoMD, any president that let that happen should be impeached or worse.

We have no choice but to act.

Ned

[chequita guevara]

Actually, only the really whacko Southerners refer to it as the War of Northern Aggression. More refer to it as the War Between the States. I think most refer to it as the Civil War, these days.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned
He has actually used WoMD against Iran and the Kurds. He has launched missiles on our ally Israel.

Without justifying what he did, these happened in the context of war. He hasn't done any such thing for eleven years now. Nor is he capable, since all of his WoMD and missiles have been destroyed.

He has threatened the U.S. repeatedly and has invaded his neighbors not once, but twice.

The US has attacked three countries in the interveining decade: Somolia, Yugoslavia, and Afganistan. I don't recall Iraq threatening the US, unless you mean be trying to shoot down our planes flying over its territory.

While promising to cooperate with the world on WoMD, he has ejected the inspectors.

This is completely false. Clinton withdrew the inspectors just before the Wag the Dog bombings in Dec, '98, the week before his impeachment.

If Saddam were to attack the U.S. with WoMD, any president that let that happen should be impeached or worse.

Why do people think that Hussein is insane? Any WoMD attack on the US would result in the use of WoMD in retaliation. Hussein knows that. He is not insane. He's evil, but he's also very canny and smart. He wouldn't destroy his own country just to hit the US (assuming somehow he had an intercontinental ballistic missile and a warhead to put on it).

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Why do people think that Hussein is insane? Any WoMD attack on the US would result in the use of WoMD in retaliation. Hussein knows that. He is not insane. He's evil, but he's also very canny and smart. He wouldn't destroy his own country just to hit the US

The concern isn't that he would launch a warhead at the US, so much as it is that he would give a weapon to a terrorist group hostile to the US.

[Jon Miller]

the whole idea of deterrent is old and invalid

I do not see how you can, Che, be pro standing idlely by while another dictatorship gets WoMD

all should be gone, and if any are to remain, they should be in the hands of states that are for the people, not for a single person (ie democracies or republics)

also, for our state defense it is in our best interest to not have weapons of mass destruction in those who claim to be our enemies (while maybe desert storm should not have happened in the first place, not Iraq is our enemy and we cannot give our enemy WoMD)

Che, quit defending those who enslave the working class far more than the west, the west can change, without a violent revolution and much loss of life, Iraq cannot

Jon Miller

[Urban Ranger]

Jon,

Has the US foreign policy changed a tiny bit since WWII? Has the US been interested in something other than expanding its sphere of influence to achieve domination?

[chequita guevara]

There's no evidence to suggest that Iraq is even capable of procuring a WoMD, let alone building one.

Furthermore, the continued US hostility to Hussein only makes him more powerful in his own country.

Furthermore, Iraq, horrible as it is, is one of the more progressive states of the Middle East. Women have equal rights to men, it's not a theocracy or a monarchy. It had one of the highest literacy and education rates for the whole region (only Israel was superior). And it had a very high standard of living for the average Iraqi.

The US changed all that. The US has no intention of fixing it, either. A post Hussein Iraq won't be a democracy. Look at the three colonies the US has recently gained, Bosnia, Kosovo, and Afganistan (hmmm, all three Muslim). None are democracies. In the former two, the property of the state has been privatized against the will of the local inhabitants. In Bosnia, eleceted leaders unfriendly to NATO have been replaced. An anti-NATO tv station was shut down. Yugoslavia is till being starved, even though it gave up Milosovic, because it still wants to be socialist.

If the US replaces the government of Iraq, it will be with people it appoints, not anyone chosen by the Iraqis. It will stop any moves by the Kurdish people to form an independent state (as is their right). And I doubt sanctions would end even then, but would remain in place to ensure Iraqi compliance. Hell, the last thing the US wants in the Middle East is an Arab democracy. It would serve as a bad example to it's dictatorial and monarchal neighbors.

Furthermore, it is the duty of all who stand with humanity against the hegemony of the US. While the US is far better to its own people than the dictatorship of Iraq, it is far worse to the rest of the world than Iraq could ever hope to be. Most of the human rights abuses in the world are done to preserve our hegemony. Stoping the US from yet again doing whatever it feels like might give the people of Earth some breathing space.

[David Floyd]

states can do right and wrong also

both Japan and nazi germany were doing wrong

So it's OK to commit a wrong to "right" a wrong?

[chequita guevara]

My opinion is that had the US actually acted neutrally, neither Nazi Germany nor the Empire of Japan would be around today. However, there would be far less Jews, and most of the world would be socialist.

[Promethus]

Anyone want to sing along?

Cops of the World
By Phil Ochs


E A E A
Come, get out of the way, boys
E A E E7
Quick, get out of the way
G C G C
You'd better watch what you say, boys
G C B7
Better watch what you say
E A
We've rammed in your harbor and tied to your port
E A
And our pistols are hungry and our tempers are short
E B7 E A G#m A
So bring your daughters around to the port
B7 E
'Cause we're the Cops of the World, boys
B7 E
We're the Cops of the World

We pick and choose as please, boys
Pick and choose as please
You'd best get down on your knees, boys
Best get down on your knees
We're hairy and horny and ready to shack
We don't care if you're yellow or black
Just take off your clothes and lie down on your back
'Cause we're the Cops of the World, boys
We're the Cops of the World

Our boots are needing a shine, boys
Boots are needing a shine
But our Coca-cola is fine, boys
Coca-cola is fine
We've got to protect all our citizens fair
So we'll send a battalion for everyone there
And maybe we'll leave in a couple of years
'Cause we're the Cops of the World, boys
We're the Cops of the World

Dump the reds in a pile, boys
Dump the reds in a pile
You'd better wipe of that smile, boys
Better wipe off that smile
We'll spit through the streets of the cities we wreck
We'll find you a leader that you can't elect
Those treaties we sighned were a pain in the neck
'Cause we're the Cops of the World, boys
We're the Cops of the World

Clean the johns with a rag, boys
Clean the johns with a rag
If you like you can use your flag, boys
If you like you can use your flag
We've got too much money we're looking for toys
And guns will be guns and boys will be boys
But we'll gladly pay for all we destroy
'Cause we're the Cops of the World, boys
We're the Cops of the World

Please stay off of the grass, boys
Please stay off of the grass
Here's a kick in the ass, boys
Here's a kick in the ass
We'll smash down your doors, we don't bother to knock
We've done it before, so why all the shock?
We're the biggest and toughest kids on the block
'Cause we're the Cops of the World, boys
We're the Cops of the World

When we butchered your son, boys
When we butchered your son
Have a stick of our gum, boys
Have a stick of our buble-gum
We own half the world, oh say can you see
The name for our profits is democracy
So, like it or not, you will have to be free
'Cause we're the Cops of the World, boys
We're the Cops of the World

[chequita guevara]

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
There's no evidence to suggest that Iraq is even capable of procuring a WoMD, let alone building one.

Furthermore, the continued US hostility to Hussein only makes him more powerful in his own country.

Furthermore, Iraq, horrible as it is, is one of the more progressive states of the Middle East. Women have equal rights to men, it's not a theocracy or a monarchy. It had one of the highest literacy and education rates for the whole region (only Israel was superior). And it had a very high standard of living for the average Iraqi.

The US changed all that. The US has no intention of fixing it, either. A post Hussein Iraq won't be a democracy. Look at the three colonies the US has recently gained, Bosnia, Kosovo, and Afganistan (hmmm, all three Muslim). None are democracies. In the former two, the property of the state has been privatized against the will of the local inhabitants. In Bosnia, eleceted leaders unfriendly to NATO have been replaced. An anti-NATO tv station was shut down. Yugoslavia is till being starved, even though it gave up Milosovic, because it still wants to be socialist.

If the US replaces the government of Iraq, it will be with people it appoints, not anyone chosen by the Iraqis. It will stop any moves by the Kurdish people to form an independent state (as is their right). And I doubt sanctions would end even then, but would remain in place to ensure Iraqi compliance. Hell, the last thing the US wants in the Middle East is an Arab democracy. It would serve as a bad example to it's dictatorial and monarchal neighbors.

Furthermore, it is the duty of all who stand with humanity against the hegemony of the US. While the US is far better to its own people than the dictatorship of Iraq, it is far worse to the rest of the world than Iraq could ever hope to be. Most of the human rights abuses in the world are done to preserve our hegemony. Stoping the US from yet again doing whatever it feels like might give the people of Earth some breathing space.

so you are saying that Iraq would be better to the world given half a chance??

I am against those who oppress the worker in any guise and do not act against the US

I am agianst corportations which are the true oppressors, and governments, like the US are the only things that can save us from the corporations

as for other US actions, some are as the corporations say, but it does no good to fight the symptoms and not the desease and while fighting the systoms weaken thata which is the only hope to fight the desease

in a global world, any nation that has or is trying to have WoMD and is an enemy is a threat that cannot be ignored

you go on sides just because they are against the US wether or not they are for the worker

Jon Miller

[chequita guevara]

There is only one government in the world that is for the worker. All the rest are enemies of the working class. Some are bigger enemies than others.

Power move around. If the US is able to smash the Iraqi state with no opposition, it will become that much more powerful, and that much more able to crush workers elsewhere . . . say in Columbia, where workers are being murdered for daring to organize or in Argentina, where workers are mobilizing in self-defense.

The ideal situation would be for the workers of Iraq to revolt, but the US made sure that wouldn't happen, even as recently as the mid-'90s, when the US set up the Iraqi National Congress to get slaughtered in a insane direct assault on Iraq.

Fainlly, remember, the US has been far more liberal in its use of WoMDs, in WWII, in Korea, in Vietnam, in the wars of the 90s.

[David Floyd]

There is only one government in the world that is for the worker. All the rest are enemies of the working class.

To you, someone who is pro-freedom is an enemy of the "working class", unless he supports freedom ONLY for the "working class".

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
There is only one government in the world that is for the worker. All the rest are enemies of the working class. Some are bigger enemies than others.

Power move around. If the US is able to smash the Iraqi state with no opposition, it will become that much more powerful, and that much more able to crush workers elsewhere . . . say in Columbia, where workers are being murdered for daring to organize or in Argentina, where workers are mobilizing in self-defense.

The ideal situation would be for the workers of Iraq to revolt, but the US made sure that wouldn't happen, even as recently as the mid-'90s, when the US set up the Iraqi National Congress to get slaughtered in a insane direct assault on Iraq.

Fainlly, remember, the US has been far more liberal in its use of WoMDs, in WWII, in Korea, in Vietnam, in the wars of the 90s.

governments are tools

they were created for the people

but have been subverted by the corporations

as such control needs to be regained by the people (the workers)

in the US it is easier (theoretically) for the people to regain control, they are just deluded by the corporations and the wealthy

all we need is to vote to fix the US's troubles, IRAQ is fundamentally more screwed up

the US is (usually more correct in it's use) of WoMD

the US is also protecting (at times) my interests as a worker and so it was proper

(I agree that the US is highly subverted by the corporations and the wealthy, but the tools are there, and it was formed to help my happiness which includes freedom of fear of WoMD)

Jon Miller

(I have been wanting to argue these points for a while)