Thread for pro-War Arguments

[James Adams]

I think that as Saddam has used Mass Destroy weapons on Iraq's people, he will not delay using nuclear weapons on his enemies, so we must crush him before Iraq get Nuclear Weapons.

[MRT144]

i was aluding to GWB's stance towards saddam

and i think saddam would use weapons of mass destruction if only intimidated by america...because if he knows hes gonna die then he has no reason not to use them.

i think saddam is actually a very shrewd person and is more concerned with his own preservation than power...thats how hes been able to stay in power all these years yet have only one massive confrontation with america all these years.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by MRT144
i was aluding to GWB's stance towards saddam

Dubya's seem more based on fear than on reason. There may good reasons to attack Sadam. For instance Sadam has clearly violated the peace treaty in his efforts to evade inspection. The question is whether that is enough reason to start killing people. I don't see where Bush has shown that is the only option at present. It doesn't help that Bush has a dangerous radical in charge of the Defense Department which shows a lack of judgment on his part.

[DaShi]

I say that we should give Europe to Saddam to appease him.

[Jack the Bodiless]

Serious answer: because it could save the lives of millions starving in Iraq. The only other way to do this is to drop all economic sanctions, which would destroy what's left of the UN's credibility and reward Saddam for his defiance.

Flippant answer: there's not enough to watch on television at the moment.

[Ramo]

because it could save the lives of millions starving in Iraq. The only other way to do this is to drop all economic sanctions, which would destroy what's left of the UN's credibility and reward Saddam for his defiance.

Lots of people should die so we can save face?

Chris did leave out that David is an Anarchist

[SlowwHand]

"One person commits suicide about every 40 seconds, one person is murdered every 60 seconds and one person dies in armed conflict every 100 seconds".

[Jack the Bodiless]

Originally posted by Ramo

Lots of people should die so we can save face?

Well, lots of people ARE dying as a result of stiff-necked pride on BOTH sides.

I don't want this to continue indefinitely.

[Ramo]

How is war possibly a better solution than ending sanctions?

[SlowwHand]

Hussein has had longer than you've known about your male appendage to comply with inspections.

[Ramo]

I don't see that as particularly relevant. I don't see Saddam (with nukes) as more dangerous than, for instance, Musharraf.

My main problem with war is that its aftermath likely won't be handled responsibly; Iran is part of the axis of evil so we probably won't see Shiite autonomy and Shrub et al. are too chicken**** to piss off Turkey so we'll almost certainly see an end to Kurdish autonomy (whether from Baghdad or Anakara).

[Jack the Bodiless]

Originally posted by Ramo
How is war possibly a better solution than ending sanctions?

Because of the obvious hazards in allowing Saddam to re-arm, and because the UN is backed into a corner. If it goes down, the long-term effects are likely to be even more negative than those of a war with Iraq (especially as high-tech wars don't kill as many civilians as they used to).

...Though a badly-conducted war with Iraq, with no UN backing or international support, would be a political disaster for the whole Middle East. It's a dicey situation. I'm not exactly enthusiastic about war.

[Japher]

No one wants war...

Might certainly does make right.

I still don't see how Morality has anything to do with a decission to declare war. All because ppl are going to die? This makes no sense. Morals are personal issue and I really don't see either side using them in a decision to declare war, ever.

It may just be schemantics but I see the justification of war more as an issue of humanity, and not of politics, sanctions, and definitly not morals. Politics, sanctions, and morals may cause war but the most certainly do not justify it.

I agree with Jack the Bodiless

[Ramo]

Because of the obvious hazards in allowing Saddam to re-arm,

As far as I can see, the primary problem with Saddam acquiring WMD's is that he'll have more political clout in the regional stage. As the Gulf War demonstrated, he's not stupid enough to actually use them, given the consequences.

and because the UN is backed into a corner. If it goes down, the long-term effects are likely to be even more negative than those of a war with Iraq (especially as high-tech wars don't kill as many civilians as they used to).

Again, civilian deaths during the war will probably be far less than civilian deaths due to mismanagement of its resolution, which is my primary concern. I have no doubt many Kurds will be slaughtered after the war is over...

[Thrawn05]

Okay, this is the only reason why the UN and US should take out Saddam:

The Gulf War ended in a cease fire treaty. In this treaty, Saddam agreed to dismantle WMDs and limit LRM range. When Saddam kicked the Weapons Inspectors out in '98, he VIOLATED THIS TREATY! Therefore, since '98, the US and UN WERE AT WAR WITH IRAQ. However, because of buracracy and Clinton more worried about polls then the treaty, Iraq was left alone.

BY EVERY LEGAL RIGHT, BUSH CAN SEND GROUND TROOPS DOWN ON IRAQ NOW.

However, Bush is not doing that, and allowing congress to debait about this issue. Be GLAD he is going this.

Just my little voice.