Should we fight? A liberal's view.

[Az]

well, don't you think that one less would improve it ? Believe me , I have no selfish reasons to argue for a war against Iraq. I'll probably have to sit in a bomb shelter , and wear a gas mask. But I am willing to take the risk, for the overall improvement of the situation in the region, because I believe that this is the right thing to do. Plus , it (doubtfully) may lead to a change in Arab society. And if that will happen, it would mean prosperety for this region.


btw, Don't get me wrong, I am not saying I am this hero , or something.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

The "War of aggression" point just doesn't make sense to me. As far as I can see, the question should just be "is it justified?". On humanitarian grounds, in this case, I'd argue that it was.

That might seem a bizarre statement, but seeing as this regime uses nerve gas on it's own people, I think it's appropriate.

[orange]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

there was no reason to support Kuwait in the Gulf War either, but at very least we were able to point to a smoking gun.

This may be the dumbest thing I've heard in a while. No reason to support Kuwait? I guess Iraq's waging of an agressive war against another state in blatant violation of international law doesn't qualify as a reason to you...

I'm talking about the United States as an individual nation, International Law aside. Of course Kuwait was a soverign nation, and of course it had the right to exist. The UN did something because Iraq under Hussein violated Kuwait's right to exist.

What I am saying is that the United States as an individual nation had no reason to declare war. I think Bush was too active in the Gulf War...we led a coalition rather than simply sending troops to a UN organized coalition.

It was phrased a bit oddly, sorry for the confusion.

And Iraq did not comply and thus far will not comply.

Though its not on the Hitler level, isn't that appeasement?

Not even close. Hitler 'annexed' other nations. Violating Versailles (which was already a joke...) by having a military, not paying off the war debt, occupying the Rhineland...wasn't really a big deal until Germany took over other nations. That's where appeasment goes wrong. You never sell out someone's soverignty just to avoid war, at least, if you do, you don't express this to the aggressor in the way that Munich did to Hitler.

Hasn't Iraq been more or less compliant in the last year? Moreso than in the past? Why aren't we looking at that favorably?

Face it...if this is really a war on terror and rogue states with WMD, it wouldn't be Iraq, it would be Saudi Arabia and Iran.

[orange]

Originally posted by Ron Jeremy
The "War of aggression" point just doesn't make sense to me. As far as I can see, the question should just be "is it justified?". On humanitarian grounds, in this case, I'd argue that it was.

Why just Iraq then? How about India or China? Pakistan, Iran?

[DinoDoc]

Hasn't Iraq been more or less compliant in the last year?

No.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

India is a democracy. I'd be up for action against China, however.

[Asher]

I'm still undecided on the matter, since I don't know that much about it (bores the hell out of me), but I'm leaning towards not invading.

Iraq is a foreign sovereign country, they're free to do what they want. I don't like setting precedents where the US invades people who have different political agendas, and I'm really suspicious about how Bush is trying to link Iraq to 9-11. That tells me he doesn't really have any reasons, and he just wants to draw people's attention away from the fact that Osama is still AWOL...

[Jaakko]

Ron, legally it would be a war of aggression, should the US go ahead without UN's approval. Getting that approval will make me disapprove an attack a lot less, assuming I get to see some real evidence of wrongdoings, ie. other than defying the UN and being a bad boy.

However, I personally believe an invasion of Iraq at this point would be another gross mistake on the West's behalf, increasing the level of hatred towards it considerably. I also believe it'd lead to just another brand of dictatorship, as I don't for a second trust the current US government to have the will to commit to a proper rebuilding process.

[David Floyd]

I'd be up for action against China, however.

They could throw ballistic missiles at you. Are you sure you'd really support a war with China? Would you be willing to go fight yourself, rather than just sending others?

[Ned]

Asher, I must have missed something. But how is Bush trying to link Saddam to 9/11? I think he simply listed all the UN resolutions Saddam violated. The bit about al Qaida being in Iraq was acknowledged to have occurred after the fall of the Taliban.

[David Floyd]

Oh, and by the way, my opinion on the Persian Gulf War was that it was in no way justified. Not only was it illegal, with no declaration of war, but it wasn't our business in the slightest.

[The Emperor Fabulous]

Originally posted by orange
Not even close. Hitler 'annexed' other nations. Violating Versailles (which was already a joke...) by having a military, not paying off the war debt, occupying the Rhineland...wasn't really a big deal until Germany took over other nations. That's where appeasment goes wrong. You never sell out someone's soverignty just to avoid war, at least, if you do, you don't express this to the aggressor in the way that Munich did to Hitler.

Oh, I see, so we should wait until after the fact...



again

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ned
Asher, I must have missed something. But how is Bush trying to link Saddam to 9/11? I think he simply listed all the UN resolutions Saddam violated. The bit about al Qaida being in Iraq was acknowledged to have occurred after the fall of the Taliban.

Not specifically, it's just part of his "War on Terrorism".

[Jaakko]

The US is supporting regimes with similar violations of UN resolutions BTW, such as Israel (sorry guys). Merely defying the UN can't be a casus belli, or the black helicopter boys will suddenly have a point.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by The Emperor Fabulous


Oh, I see, so we should wait until after the fact...



again

Ah, but there isn't even any pretence on Iraq's part that it will "annex" other nations. It got it's but kicked after invading Kuwait, and it hasn't made a hostile move since.