Is War Ever Justified and What are the Aternatives?

[Imran Siddiqui]

It's funny but during World War II, a TRUE war of liberation, US operations were given names reflecting overwhelming force: Dragoon, Overlord, Cobra. Now, when public opinion is not so favorable, you change the names to something only Stalin would have made up: Operation Iraqui Freedom. Jesus, what a cheap propaganda tool AND THE US POPULATION BUYS IT!! hilarious. Even Gulf War I, a true war to stop aggression, was named Desert Storm.

Ever wonder why they do that? What's in a name? Because when you name an operation like Desert Storm it's because you are so damn sure that world opinion, righteousness and truth are behind you, so you don't mind if it has a kick-ass name. When you KNOW that it is a blatant war of aggression to satisfy Georgie Jr's urges then you have to give it an "ethical" sounding name. Pathetic. As cheap as propaganda can get. What more proof do you need than this!

So, wait, one of your reasons why this war is unjustified is because of the NAME?! What are you, retarded?! Either that or you have waaay too much time on your hands and a conspiracy theory complex.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
So, wait, one of your reasons why this war is unjustified is because of the NAME?! What are you, retarded?! Either that or you have waaay too much time on your hands and a conspiracy theory complex.

* here comes an arrogant deity who claims to know everything and begins calling others retarted...

Then give me one good reason why it wasn't called "Endless Thunder" or something like that? Too PC are we today? Trying to shield reality under a name? You'd be surprised at the things you find in apparently meaningless details. Then again, I doubt you even bother to scratch the surface of things.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Master Zen
Then give me one good reason why it wasn't called "Endless Thunder" or something like that?

George Bush sucks at coming up with cool names. God, look at Operation Enduring Freedom if you need a better example.

[Imran Siddiqui]

You are looney toons!

After that statement (of the name), I'm not sure anyone would ever take you seriously!

Do you also believe George Bush was sent by aliens to destroy the world too?

[Master Zen]

If you know you are going into a war which has not been morally justified, you won't put a war which implies massive destructive power now will you? You'll try and shield the operation under a "reasurring" name, probably assuming that the US public is dumb enough to think, well if its called "Iraqui Freedom" then it must mean the main intent of this is to free Iraq...

Frankly Imram, I don't expect you or many others to take me seriousy any more than I don't take you people seriously either.

What should surprise you is that people from the US are the only ones who argue with that PoV. I would trust my country were perhaps doing the right thing if at least the majority of two or three other countries believed so too (and that's still way off). 5% of the world population does not the truth make, sorry.

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by Master Zen
There are no good solutions?? Thank heavens you are not in elected office...

I suppose you, Mr. High and Mighty Know It All knows a good solution to this mess? I would REALLY like to hear it...

And I suppose the people of every other country the US has invaded believes the contrary... ok, right...

uh... yeah... i mean, Germany and Japan seem to have turned out ok...

Wishful thinking. Wishful thinking that's going to get alot of people killed. Ever wonder that the rest of the world does not agree with the way most USians thinks? Ever bother to care why?

Wishful thinking!? WTF do you call doing nothing about Saddam and blindly denying he is a threat? That would get much, much more people killed in the long run. Dont you understand how many people needlessly die everyday under his regime, cause he would rather sqaunder the food for oil money to build palaces rather than build his infrastructure and feed his people? Do you know the possible effects of a hypothetical future war where Saddam seizes a neighboring country and holds coalition forces at bay with WoMD? Why put the threat off to a later date when it could be much more easily and less bloodily dealt with now?

So you are admitting that it is not necessarily good, and past experience shows that toppling dictators does not leave countries in the right hands forever. I am amazed that 90% of all people from the US I've ever talked to think as you do. It's a shame because with such an educational system I would expect people to open their minds a bit, stop believing all the crap their government dishes out and realize once and for all that the war in Iraq is being waged for less than moral reasons.

talk about close minded Germany seems to still be in good hands... Japan still seems to be in good hands... more recently Panama seems to be doing pretty well... what past experiences are you talking about that so distictly show that toppling dictators fail? Pretty poor for one that criticizes American intellegence...

It's funny but during World War II, a TRUE war of liberation, US operations were given names reflecting overwhelming force: Dragoon, Overlord, Cobra. Now, when public opinion is not so favorable, you change the names to something only Stalin would have made up: Operation Iraqui Freedom. Jesus, what a cheap propaganda tool AND THE US POPULATION BUYS IT!! hilarious. Even Gulf War I, a true war to stop aggression, was named Desert Storm.

it is a gay name...

Ever wonder why they do that? What's in a name? Because when you name an operation like Desert Storm it's because you are so damn sure that world opinion, righteousness and truth are behind you, so you don't mind if it has a kick-ass name. When you KNOW that it is a blatant war of aggression to satisfy Georgie Jr's urges then you have to give it an "ethical" sounding name. Pathetic. As cheap as propaganda can get. What more proof do you need than this!

I REALLY hope this isnt a serious arguement.

Kman

[Kramerman]

5% of the world population does not the truth make, sorry.

well, disregarding the suspiciously low figure...

about 7% of Americans are admitted atheists/agnostics... by your logic since the vast majority believes in a God in some shape, way or form, than they must be right. My God! i better find religion quick, or ill be goin to hell, because im obviously wrong, if the majority believes in some sort of God!


The "majority is against the war so it must be wrong" arguement doesn't cut it.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Kramerman


I suppose you, Mr. High and Mighty Know It All knows a good solution to this mess? I would REALLY like to hear it...

Solution: stop sticking your neck in where it doesn't belong. 20 years down the road and I'm willing to bet the world will be a better place.

uh... yeah... i mean, Germany and Japan seem to have turned out ok...

Do you even want me to start listing the 73 armed interventions made by the US in Latin America alone? And that's just one region...

The only incentive to prop up Germany and Japan was to use them as major cold war allies. No other victim of US invasion or regime change has had that luck.

Wishful thinking!? WTF do you call doing nothing about Saddam and blindly denying he is a threat? That would get much, much more people killed in the long run. Dont you understand how many people needlessly die everyday under his regime, cause he would rather sqaunder the food for oil money to build palaces rather than build his infrastructure and feed his people? Do you know the possible effects of a hypothetical future war where Saddam seizes a neighboring country and holds coalition forces at bay with WoMD? Why put the threat off to a later date when it could be much more easily and less bloodily dealt with now?

Today Saddam, tommorow let's see who's next. And let's forget about possible consequences down the line 10-20-50 years from now about having the entire Arab world despise the US, let alone forget that fact that most people in the world are anti-US these days. From being the most envied and loved country in the world to being the most hated. There's got to be a reason right?

Now, considering all the nutcase dictators in the world, the arguments that you people give to attack Iraq are the same which can be used to attack many other countries. As I said time and again, the only difference is that those "other" dictators mostly have played by US rules, does the US give a hoot about the Saudi people living in that other despotic regime which squanderes billions in oil for their own palaces too? Nope. Because they are "allied". Thats the only difference.

talk about close minded Germany seems to still be in good hands... Japan still seems to be in good hands... more recently Panama seems to be doing pretty well... what past experiences are you talking about that so distictly show that toppling dictators fail? Pretty poor for one that criticizes American intellegence...

Since you have given 3 examples, I'll give you a couple of examples of US invasions and regime changes which did not leave a pleasant aftermath:

1) Chile 73 - left it with 16 years of dictatorship
2) Iran 53 - installs Shah pro-western corrupt regime
3) Guatemala 54 - overthrows anti-US government installs military junta
4) Vietnam 60s-75 - need I mention?
5) Cambodia 72 - paves the way for Pol-Pot & friends
6) El Salvador 80s - aids right-wing government during civil war, leaves country devastated
7) Nicaragua 80s - same
8) Libya 86 - Kaddafi's still there...
9) Somalia 93 - still dirt poor...
10) Dominican Republic 63 - didn't help much either.

That's just 10 to your 3. I can list many many more... As you can see, the overall record isn't particualry favorable.

I REALLY hope this isnt a serious arguement.

Kman

Guess what, IT IS!!!

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Kramerman

well, disregarding the suspiciously low figure...

about 7% of Americans are admitted atheists/agnostics... by your logic since the vast majority believes in a God in some shape, way or form, than they must be right. My God! i better find religion quick, or ill be goin to hell, because im obviously wrong, if the majority believes in some sort of God!


The "majority is against the war so it must be wrong" arguement doesn't cut it.

So if I ask a mathematical question that only 7% of the population knows then it's wrong because most people get it wrong?

YOUR logic is a little flawed here, because unlike a political argument, a religious one has scientifical basis behind it to prove or not that god exists. Politics are ultimately opinions which by default MAY be wrong and to which there may not be one correct answer. So what really surprises me is that 5% of the world population believes this one subjective piece of so-called truth while the other 95% believes another.... sorry but since neither sides are backed up by science or math or any other exact form of measurement then I will tend to side with the majority when it is just so overwhelming, even more so when the minority is confined to just one major political or national group.

When so many people from different countries, religions, ethnic groups, social classes, genders, etc. disagree with you, GET THE PICTURE.

And funny...it seems only USians are arguing against me... (maybe a brit will pop up...) why am I not surprised

[Kramerman]

Solution: stop sticking your neck in where it doesn't belong. 20 years down the road and I'm willing to bet the world will be a better place.

Wrong. that solves nothing. There are those who hate the US and are actively trying to destroy it. If we just do nothing about it, they might succeed. Not doing anything is perhaps the worst thing we could possiblely do. This is a bad idea, and by all means, it is definately not a good idea. As i said before, there is no 'good' solution, and what you presented is a terrible one.

Do you even want me to start listing the 73 armed interventions made by the US in Latin America alone? And that's just one region...

hmm... with the exception of very few, i dont remember any of those being about the US going in to change the regime into a democracy... that is the arguement i clearly stated . Toppling a dictator is one thing. Toppling him and replacing him with a democracy is another, which i argue has been quite successful in the past.

1) Chile 73 - left it with 16 years of dictatorship
2) Iran 53 - installs Shah pro-western corrupt regime
3) Guatemala 54 - overthrows anti-US government installs military junta
4) Vietnam 60s-75 - need I mention?
5) Cambodia 72 - paves the way for Pol-Pot & friends
6) El Salvador 80s - aids right-wing government during civil war, leaves country devastated
7) Nicaragua 80s - same
8) Libya 86 - Kaddafi's still there...
9) Somalia 93 - still dirt poor...
10) Dominican Republic 63 - didn't help much either.

1) dunno much about this one
2) not an installed democracy, so it is irrelevent to my arguements
3) same as 3
4) we installed no government here, we merely were supporting a favored one, regardless of its indecency, we were not responsible for its existance. no regime change to democracy, thus another irrelevant point
5) did not install a failed democracy. another irrelevant point
6) did not change regime to democracy, so irrelevent to my arguement
7) same as 6
8) cause we failed to remove him in the first place, not that we fully tried anyway. you could use this arguement for saddam after '91, hes still there...
9) Somalia had no government to begin with. we merely tried to get rid of General Aidid because he hoarded food aid to the starving country. After the Battle of Mog, the US public wanted out. No failed democracy was ever installed. yet ANOTHER irrelevent point
10) dunno much about this one

That's just 10 to your 3. I can list many many more... As you can see, the overall record isn't particualry favorable.

Most anytime the US has installed a democracy, as we plan to do in Iraq, it has been quite succesful, yet you have argued differently. The points you use here however are completely irrelevent to counter my arguement and dont support yours either, as you mention many that had absolutely nothin to do with democracy, let alone even regime change. 8 of your 10 points were irrelevent. The other 2 i dont know enough about to make any judgement, they are probably irrelevent too, if i follow the pattern.

try again

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by Master Zen


So if I ask a mathematical question that only 7% of the population knows then it's wrong because most people get it wrong?

what?

YOUR logic is a little flawed here, because unlike a political argument, a religious one has scientifical basis behind it to prove or not that god exists.

that is the most rediculous thing ive ever heard. Please inform me, when did science ever prove/disprove the existence of God?

Politics are ultimately opinions which by default MAY be wrong and to which there may not be one correct answer.

religion is the exact same way One's spiritual views are merely their opinion on spirituality, no? Religion is ultimately opinions

So what really surprises me is that 5% of the world population believes this one subjective piece of so-called truth while the other 95% believes another.... sorry but since neither sides are backed up by science or math or any other exact form of measurement then I will tend to side with the majority when it is just so overwhelming, even more so when the minority is confined to just one major political or national group.

again, i believe those numbers are rather flawed...

you have not countered my analogy at all. your arguements failed. try again.

And funny...it seems only USians are arguing against me... (maybe a brit will pop up...) why am I not surprised

hmm, well it seems like a whole 3 people are argueing against you, adn considering this forum has a slight majority of Americans on it, its not unprobably at all that they might encounter your posts and argue with it.

I find it interesting that NO ONE is backing up your arguements...

[DinoDoc]

8) Libya 86 - Kaddafi's still there...

This wasn't an invasion or a regime change. It was an attempted assassination. It achieved the objective of making Lybia less of a pain in the ass though.

[Velociryx]

Good plan! Let's do nothing.

Let's make the USA an isolationist stronghold and see how long it is till the rest of the world comes whining for the USA to get involved somewhere.

When we do nothing, people complain.

When we act, people complain.

Conclusion - People will complain no matter what we do, so we're better off doing the best we can, with the cards we have.

Rocket science?

-=Vel=-

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Kramerman

Wrong. that solves nothing. There are those who hate the US and are actively trying to destroy it. If we just do nothing about it, they might succeed. Not doing anything is perhaps the worst thing we could possiblely do. This is a bad idea, and by all means, it is definately not a good idea. As i said before, there is no 'good' solution, and what you presented is a terrible one.

Have you ever thought that perhaps the US is hated BECAUSE of its interventionist tendencies and not the other way around? Other than in latin-america, the US had not been hated before WW2 when it was just as prosperous. See any relation?

hmm... with the exception of very few, i dont remember any of those being about the US going in to change the regime into a democracy... that is the arguement i clearly stated . Toppling a dictator is one thing. Toppling him and replacing him with a democracy is another, which i argue has been quite successful in the past.


1) dunno much about this one
2) not an installed democracy, so it is irrelevent to my arguements
3) same as 3
4) we installed no government here, we merely were supporting a favored one, regardless of its indecency, we were not responsible for its existance. no regime change to democracy, thus another irrelevant point
5) did not install a failed democracy. another irrelevant point
6) did not change regime to democracy, so irrelevent to my arguement
7) same as 6
8) cause we failed to remove him in the first place, not that we fully tried anyway. you could use this arguement for saddam after '91, hes still there...
9) Somalia had no government to begin with. we merely tried to get rid of General Aidid because he hoarded food aid to the starving country. After the Battle of Mog, the US public wanted out. No failed democracy was ever installed. yet ANOTHER irrelevent point
10) dunno much about this one

Most anytime the US has installed a democracy, as we plan to do in Iraq, it has been quite succesful, yet you have argued differently. The points you use here however are completely irrelevent to counter my arguement and dont support yours either, as you mention many that had absolutely nothin to do with democracy, let alone even regime change. 8 of your 10 points were irrelevent. The other 2 i dont know enough about to make any judgement, they are probably irrelevent too, if i follow the pattern.

try again

So all failed points are when the US actually didn't even bother to install democracy...hmmm...so now you are actually accepting the fact that those interventions were done with utter disregard to the victims.

What I see though is that the main critique of this operation has been forgotten: that regardless of the eventual outcome (and I for one truly hope for the sake of the Iraqui people that they do end up in a democracy), the REASONS behind this war are not to "give the Iraqui people freedom". The US wouldn't give a hoot if Saddam were the tyrant he is if he didn't pose a threat to US interests (WMD) and if George Jr. didn't wan't to avenge his daddy's lost chance.

So now saying that this is a war to liberate the Iraqui freedom is just pure crap. The "liberation" is a sideshow, used to make good out of an otherwise rotten idea.

Answer me this truthfuly:

If Saddam didn't have WMD, and if he sucked-up a little more to the US like the Saudi's do, would the US have bothered to invade Iraq even though he is a tyrannical despot? NO and you know it, and that proves the fact that liberating the Iraqui people is not the main objective of this conflict and never will be.

Is it just too much a coincidence that this sabre-rattling, the labeling of countries into an axis-of-evil, comes AFTER 9/11. Saddam has been the same SOB since gulfwar1 and yet only now do we hear this sudden urge to free the Iraquis. Even before 9/11 this same Bush administration didn't give a hoot.

Nice try but no cigar.

[Sava]

I'll support some of Zen's points (whatever that's worth ). This is not about liberating Iraq. It's about installing a government that we can control. Zen is right, if Saddam were like the Saudi's, took Bush's bribes, and listened to the US, then this war wouldn't be happening. None of the "Arab Allies" are Democracies (the Turks maybe, but even they were bribed). In fact, they are all about as oppressive as Saddam, if not more. This isn't about freedom... you may have been conned into believing it is, but its not.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Good plan! Let's do nothing.

Let's make the USA an isolationist stronghold and see how long it is till the rest of the world comes whining for the USA to get involved somewhere.

When we do nothing, people complain.

When we act, people complain.

Conclusion - People will complain no matter what we do, so we're better off doing the best we can, with the cards we have.

Rocket science?

-=Vel=-

People complain when there are no grounds for acting, understand the big difference? No one said nothing during gulfwar1 since it was a legit war.

If the US acted when it was called for and with a good moral base to act upon, no one would complain, trust me. But you can't just meddle in every friggin world affair when you THINK you have the right to, and I don't understand why some of you fail to get the picture of why this pisses people off. If it one day happens that the US is on the receiving end, I sincerely doubt people like you will argue in favor of another's intervention in your own affairs.

Common sense?

[Sava]

If the US acted when it was called for and with a good moral base to act upon, no one would complain, trust me. But you can't just meddle in every friggin world affair when you THINK you have the right to, and I don't understand why some of you fail to get the picture of why this pisses people off. If it one day happens that the US is on the receiving end, I sincerely doubt people like you will argue in favor of another's intervention in your own affairs.

Well, let's be honest here. There are some hippie peaceniks that protest every military action, just and unjust alike. I fully supported the first Gulf War.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Sava

Well, let's be honest here. There are some hippie peaceniks that protest every military action, just and unjust alike. I fully supported the first Gulf War.

I did too. I still do. In that one it was Iraq the agressor, clear as crystal, and proof of how overwhelimingly in favor the world was that the UN acted very quickly to condemn it and a troops were sent from over a dozen countries. THAT's a coalition.


Hippie peaceniks have nothing better to do in life than to protest. What scares me is that right-wingers like many people in this forum who support military action just and unjust alike seen to come from all walks of life (but they share the same flag...)

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Master Zen
No one said nothing during gulfwar1 since it was a legit war.

Where did you get that idea from? che can tell you better than anyone that there was a popular anti-war movementbefore that one started as well. Hell there was even one in response to the Afghan invasion.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by DinoDoc

Where did you get that idea from? che can tell you better than anyone that there was a popular anti-war movementbefore that one started as well. Hell there was even one in response to the Afghan invasion.

didn't someone just say that there will be anti-war movements no matter how just or unjust the war is?

on the aggregate however, the world showed MUCH MUCH more support then than now. The average person not counting the extreme left and right did feel that was a just war.

[Ned]

Master Zen, if you could get your focus off the US for just a moment and focus instead on Saddam's Iraq, are you in principle in favor of getting rid of Saddam's tryanny and liberating the people of Iraq?

[Kramerman]

Have you ever thought that perhaps the US is hated BECAUSE of its interventionist tendencies and not the other way around? Other than in latin-america, the US had not been hated before WW2 when it was just as prosperous. See any relation?

what Vel said...
and pre WWII the US was in an economic depression, I wouldnt call that prosperous.

So all failed points are when the US actually didn't even bother to install democracy...

Well actually most are becasue we didnt even change the regime to begin with, actually... and the few times we did, we didnt install a democracy as a new regime.

hmmm...so now you are actually accepting the fact that those interventions were done with utter disregard to the victims.

WTF? I never said otherwise... here, lemme readress my arguement one more time, for those of us that are slow. Mind you, this has been the one thing ive ben argueing for quite awhile because you said something to the effect of the Iraqis would be upset and hate america after the war. I said they most likely wouldnt, because we were going to eventually install a democracy after occupation, as we did in Japan and Germany.
WHEN THE US SETS UP A DEMOCRACY AFTER A REGIME CHANGE, AS IT HAS DONE A SEVERAL TIMES IN THE PAST, IT IS LIKELY GOING TO BE A SUCCESSFUL AND PROSPEROUS STATE. Do you now see how your points fail to adress this, as most have absolutely nothing to do with regime change, let alone installing a democracy. They just donet have anything to do with my arguement, whether meant to refute or confirm.

What I see though is that the main critique of this operation has been forgotten: that regardless of the eventual outcome (and I for one truly hope for the sake of the Iraqui people that they do end up in a democracy), the REASONS behind this war are not to "give the Iraqui people freedom". The US wouldn't give a hoot if Saddam were the tyrant he is if he didn't pose a threat to US interests (WMD) and if George Jr. didn't wan't to avenge his daddy's lost chance.

what does this have to do with anything? are you slow? I never said anything about any of this. Of course, WoMD is the major reason for war. Never did i say otherwise. Never did I say this was a war to 'free the iraqi people'.
You are obviously either slow, or desperate to change the arguement, because you now are trying to change the subject.

So now saying that this is a war to liberate the Iraqui freedom is just pure crap. The "liberation" is a sideshow, used to make good out of an otherwise rotten idea.

Nothing is rotten about looking out for the long-term defense of the US. The liberation is not a side show, it is a perk of the war. Your insane bias and hipocrisy against the US is very frustrating and poorly reflects on your part. Would you complain so much if this war were about liberating the Iraqi people? Would it be an unjust war then? If so, then what makes that different from the war now if the end result is the same?

If Saddam didn't have WMD, and if he sucked-up a little more to the US like the Saudi's do, would the US have bothered to invade Iraq even though he is a tyrannical despot? NO and you know it, and that proves the fact that liberating the Iraqui people is not the main objective of this conflict and never will be.

Where the **** did i say the main objective of the war was to liberate the iraqi people? By skewing my arguements, you are only making yourself look desperate.
The war has nothing to do with sucking up, it has almost entirely to do with Saddam having possession of WoMD. If Saudi Arabia was actively persueing WoMD, it would probably be in the same position. But maybe not, as Saudi Arabia is not a belligerent enemy to the US as Iraq is. Why would we let a bitter enemy like Iraq get a hand up on us?. Iran is in much the same situation as Iraq, so soon it may be facing the same consequences.

Is it just too much a coincidence that this sabre-rattling, the labeling of countries into an axis-of-evil, comes AFTER 9/11. Saddam has been the same SOB since gulfwar1 and yet only now do we hear this sudden urge to free the Iraquis. Even before 9/11 this same Bush administration didn't give a hoot.

Total BS. Many have wanted to go after Iraq ever since they failed to disarm their WoMD just 45 days after the cease-fire of GWI was signed, as they agreed to do. Clinton wanted to do something also in 1998, but was restricted to bombardments because he didnt have the political spine to stand up to the oppostion as Bush has.

Nice try but no cigar.

what are you talking about? Your ramblings have still failed to even address any thing close to my arguement. Refute it, or admit defeat, adn then we can move on. All you have done with this post is change/skew the arguement and make up stuff that i said. It is quite frustrating, like im argueing with a child or something.

Kman

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Master Zen
didn't someone just say that there will be anti-war movements no matter how just or unjust the war is?

Didn't you just say that no one said anything about it?

I reserve the right to ignore posts of my choosing until my response to your stupid name arguement is dealt with.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Ned
Master Zen, if you could get your focus off the US for just a moment and focus instead on Saddam's Iraq, are you in principle in favor of getting rid of Saddam's tryanny and liberating the people of Iraq?

To answer your question truthfuly and forgetting the whole war business: YES.

I would also love to get rid of the saudi, chinese, north corean, cuban and venezuelan regimes.

I would love even more to get rid of the Bush regime too and liberate the US population from its ignorance.

Hell, get rid of my own government for all I care.

However, I don't think I have to repeat that the original intent of this invasion is not to free the iraqui people so there you have it.

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by DinoDoc

Didn't you just say that no one said anything about it?

I reserve the right to ignore posts of my choosing until my response to your stupid name arguement is dealt with.

As I hold my right to ignore your irrelevent arguements until you address mine or admit that US imposed democracies are largely happy and successful.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by DinoDoc

Didn't you just say that no one said anything about it?

"No one" as in general population - metaphor, get it?

I reserve the right to ignore posts of my choosing until my response to your stupid name arguement is dealt with.

Good excuse when you have nothing intelligent to say about it anyway. I explained my name argument very clear, whether you like it or not that's your business.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Kramerman

what Vel said...
and pre WWII the US was in an economic depression, I wouldnt call that prosperous.

Read a little, the US had the highest standard of living in the world since the post-civil war years. And in case you wonder, the economic depression hit the world too so it wasn't just the US in the doldrums

Well actually most are becasue we didnt even change the regime to begin with, actually... and the few times we did, we didnt install a democracy as a new regime.

and you give even more proof of US wrongdoings! Amazing! Talk about shooting yourself in the foot...

WTF? I never said otherwise... here, lemme readress my arguement one more time, for those of us that are slow. Mind you, this has been the one thing ive ben argueing for quite awhile because you said something to the effect of the Iraqis would be upset and hate america after the war. I said they most likely wouldnt, because we were going to eventually install a democracy after occupation, as we did in Japan and Germany.
WHEN THE US SETS UP A DEMOCRACY AFTER A REGIME CHANGE, AS IT HAS DONE A SEVERAL TIMES IN THE PAST, IT IS LIKELY GOING TO BE A SUCCESSFUL AND PROSPEROUS STATE. Do you now see how your points fail to adress this, as most have absolutely nothing to do with regime change, let alone installing a democracy. They just donet have anything to do with my arguement, whether meant to refute or confirm.

And as I said, unlike in WW2 there's really no big incentive to do it so most likely it won't happen (I could be wrong of course). Look at Afghanistan, that model democratic state which it is today still has assasinations, tribal warfare etc. with the US hardly doing anything to make the government work, instead it's just protecting its military installations and searching for Osama...

what does this have to do with anything? are you slow? I never said anything about any of this. Of course, WoMD is the major reason for war. Never did i say otherwise. Never did I say this was a war to 'free the iraqi people'.
You are obviously either slow, or desperate to change the arguement, because you now are trying to change the subject.

Well then, the title of this tread is "is war ever justified". I'm obviously saying some are and some aren't, and THIS ONE AIN'T.

So if you are saying that this in fact isn't a war to free the iraqui people (which as you know I 100% agree) then why does your government insist that that is the main reason in all of Ari Fleicher and Dubya's propaganda speeches? If that's not the main reason why bother to mention it so much as if it were?

Nothing is rotten about looking out for the long-term defense of the US. The liberation is not a side show, it is a perk of the war. Your insane bias and hipocrisy against the US is very frustrating and poorly reflects on your part. Would you complain so much if this war were about liberating the Iraqi people? Would it be an unjust war then? If so, then what makes that different from the war now if the end result is the same?

I'm no more biased than yourself, thank you, and my hipocracy pales against that of your government.

Give me just one example of a war started to "liberate" a people in the most un-selfish and paternalistic way possible.

Where the **** did i say the main objective of the war was to liberate the iraqi people? By skewing my arguements, you are only making yourself look desperate.
The war has nothing to do with sucking up, it has almost entirely to do with Saddam having possession of WoMD. If Saudi Arabia was actively persueing WoMD, it would probably be in the same position. But maybe not, as Saudi Arabia is not a belligerent enemy to the US as Iraq is. Why would we let a bitter enemy like Iraq get a hand up on us?. Iran is in much the same situation as Iraq, so soon it may be facing the same consequences.

Israel has WMD, has never signed the NPT etc. How come we are not seeing the same pressure applied to them? Of course, because they are allies...

Another shot in the foot. You're admitting that even if an ally had WMD the US wouldn't care.

Total BS. Many have wanted to go after Iraq ever since they failed to disarm their WoMD just 45 days after the cease-fire of GWI was signed, as they agreed to do. Clinton wanted to do something also in 1998, but was restricted to bombardments because he didnt have the political spine to stand up to the oppostion as Bush has.

And Clinton was smart enough to realize the dangers of having the world against the US. Have you heard the phrase "with great power comes great responsiblity"? Bush should hear it. He has made US foreign policy a total fiasco and a huge damage to your country's reputation. Get out of your suburban home and visit a foreign country to see what the world really thinks about the US these days. EVEN your allies.

what are you talking about? Your ramblings have still failed to even address any thing close to my arguement. Refute it, or admit defeat, adn then we can move on. All you have done with this post is change/skew the arguement and make up stuff that i said. It is quite frustrating, like im argueing with a child or something.

Kman

Funny how I feel the same... stop arguing the argument and argue the facts. If you can...

[Kramerman]

Read a little, the US had the highest standard of living in the world since the post-civil war years. And in case you wonder, the economic depression hit the world too so it wasn't just the US in the doldrums

Yes, most of teh world was hit by the depression, but among the hardest hit was the US and Germany. You should take your own advice. Considering the conditions that the hoardes of immigrants lived in from the late 1800s up thru the depression, i find that very hard to believe.

and you give even more proof of US wrongdoings! Amazing! Talk about shooting yourself in the foot...

skewing what I say but again! Did I ever say the US never did any wrong doings? Lemme answer that for you... no, i didnt, anywhere, ever say this.

And as I said, unlike in WW2 there's really no big incentive to do it so most likely it won't happen (I could be wrong of course). Look at Afghanistan, that model democratic state which it is today still has assasinations, tribal warfare etc. with the US hardly doing anything to make the government work, instead it's just protecting its military installations and searching for Osama...

It happened in Panama, and Haiti, and perhaps others too. The US also defended the democratic regime of S. Korea, which seems to be a pretty prosperous place.
Afghanistan is a **** hole. God couldnt make that into a fully functioning regime in 2 years. It will take time. And why do you say the US is hardly doing anything? That is complete BS.

Well then, the title of this tread is "is war ever justified". I'm obviously saying some are and some aren't, and THIS ONE AIN'T.

Yes, that is the title of the thread. Regardless, i made an arguement, and you insulted it but have said nothing to refute it, and instead you have spewed ramblings and come up with new arguements and claiming i have said things that im not even discussing.

So if you are saying that this in fact isn't a war to free the iraqui people (which as you know I 100% agree) then why does your government insist that that is the main reason in all of Ari Fleicher and Dubya's propaganda speeches? If that's not the main reason why bother to mention it so much as if it were?

What is your news source? NEVER has ANYONE in the administration said that liberating the Iraqi people is the main objective. Removing WoMD from Iraw has always been the main objective. Its mentioned often becasue it is a perk of removing Saddam's regime. Its to show the anti-war camp that the war is justified by the ends, if they dont think it is justified by the means.

[QUOTE]I'm no more biased than yourself, thank you, [QUOTE]

then why are your arguements so irrational (ie having little or nothing to do with what im saying)

Give me just one example of a war started to "liberate" a people in the most un-selfish and paternalistic way possible.

Why? There is no such thing. I never said there was.... oh god... have you read i thing ive said? i lack the time and the patience...

Israel has WMD, has never signed the NPT etc. How come we are not seeing the same pressure applied to them? Of course, because they are allies...

This is the dumbest arguement ever. The invasion isnt justified by the fact that Saddam merely has WoMD, its justified by the fact htat he can potenetially threaten us with them, as he is a bitter enemy of the US.... Why ever would the US invade an ally? They do not threaten us, so we could care less if they had WoMD. This is a reduiculous attempt to make the US into a hipocrit, when in actuality there is no relevance between enemies and allies having these weapons. We dont care that France has 'em, we dont care that Britain has 'em. We care that N.Korea does, but as they have ALREADY developed nukes, there isnt much we can do about that unless we are prepared to face the chance that they might use 'em.

Another shot in the foot. You're admitting that even if an ally had WMD the US wouldn't care.

Thats exactly right, the US wouldnt care if an Ally has them. Why should we? they dont threaten us with them, so why wage and expensive and costly war to remove them?
How is this shooting me in the foot?

meh... i lack the time and patience to continue this... maybe later. you havent yet answered many of my questions, adn havent adressed my arguement either, so i wont bother.

[Frogman]

War against Iraq is justified on the basis that Saddam is a brutal criminal who tortures and kills his own people and threatens his neighbors. I am disappointed that the UN can't come together and do something about criminals who run countries. The UN would have been perfectly justified in bringing about a regime change. France, Germany and Russia sold out their obligation to the UN and as a result the UN is irrelevant.

On the other hand, the US has little justification to be the one to decide who stays in power and who does not. We have legitimized first strike against anyone we think is a threat. We were justified in Afghanistan and if Iraq had actually attacked us, we would have been justified in this war.

First strike justification is a much higher threshold than retaliation. We lowered the bar. If other countries adopt our standard for justification of first strike, the world will soon be ablaze.

[Master Zen]

To conclude then,

1) The US has not admitted that having WMD is good only if you are our allies. No, the rhetoric is that WMD are bad, period so I find it rather hypocritical that it blasts one country because of this and not another. If WMD are bad, they are bad no matter what dictator has them.

2) South Korea was a dictatorship for various decades after the Korean war. So technically you supported a dictatorship there too.

3) with a history of 200 years of wrongdoings, what makes you think that something has changed? ESPECIALLY when the US far less restrained now than it ever was.

4) re-read any of Fleicher or Bush's speeches and count how many times the word "liberate" and "free" is used.

In the end you have said it yourself. The war is being waged because an anti-US dictator has or may produce WMD which may hurt US interests in the future. For that reason the US is waging a pre-emptive war. Is that not a blatant war of aggression?

Look how easy it is to re-word it: the war is being waged because an anti-german dictator has or may produce WMD and other sophisticated weaponry which may hurt German interests in the future. For that reason Germany is waging a pre-emptive war. June 22, 1941. Was it justified then too?

The argument of waging pre-emptive wars to protect your interests in the future is the same which every aggressor has used in the history of mankind.

Guess what? I still have patience, too bad I lack time.

See you all in the next war (or if someone else comes with an argument worth countering)