Thread for pro-War Arguments

[Japher]

Thank you Thrawn!!!

[orange]

Chris - I hate most of his views too. But he asked a question in a nice tone and gave you all an opportunity to speak on it. So why does everyone automatically snap?

[orange]

Thrawn - Congress never declared war. There was never a war where US declared war on Iraq. Bush just sent troops to restore Kuwait.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by orange
Thrawn - Congress never declared war.

Can you show me, in the Constitution, what form a DoW is supposed to take and how it compares to the resolution Congress passed in Gulf War: Round 1?

[orange]

there's a difference between a declaration of war and a resolution to send troops.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by orange
there's a difference between a declaration of war and a resolution to send troops.

1) You didn't answer my question.

2) What is the substantive difference between the two?

Edit: If you really want to hang a President out to dry for an illegal war, it would be Clinton.

[Japher]

Who really cares if it was "technically" a war? The point Thrawn has made, and I made towards the begining of the thread, is that Sadam violated his terms for peace/cease fire/whatever you want to call it (but not the oppisite of "war", I guess). And, for that reason he should pay...

War, n - a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations

usually? Well we did tell him that those were our boys stompin' his butt. Any ways, I don't see anything about congress here. Thus, it was a war. Legal or not. And, the war had terms by which it ended. Terms, which, Sadam did not keep.

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by orange
Chris - I hate most of his views too. But he asked a question in a nice tone and gave you all an opportunity to speak on it. So why does everyone automatically snap?

For the very reason that we know we will see David (Whom is an OK kid with dopey ideas) say the same things he always says, no matter what reason you post, he will post the same isolationist postion, so it becomes a lesson in futillity.

I HAVE stated my postion a number of times, a leagal attack, based on Saddam showing his normal disdain for inspectors and such, he did this for years, I believe he will do exactly the same.

Also, people on Apolyton often say Bush is doing this wrong and that, but if you look at athe record, he has followed international law every step of the way, he is requesting authority from Congress, petitioning the UN, consulting the allied and Arab powers, at no time has he acted unilaterally, it's only the assumption he might in the future that people seem to react on.

Look at Bush's war record on Afghanistan, people here thought that after 9/11 the US would bomb at random all kinds of civilian targets, yet the Bushies waited, planned, then launched a precision and effective attack, all withen the law.

I find it annoying that NOBODY EVER gives this man the benifit of the doubt, from his record he certainly has earned it.

But many here react as if he committed a number of war crimes and wants to commit more, and based on what?

There own personal hatred of him, not the record.

I'm not saying that's everybody, but it is the majority, or so it seems.

[JCG]

It would be interesting to compare it with the original Gulf War and/or Afghanistan, as far as warfare goes.

And Saddam's regime has been making too much noise lately, it needs to be shut up.

[The Vagabond]

What are you guys talking about? Inspectors, WMD... Pro-war arguments are simpler than that and reduce to the question of whether you want cheap and reliable oil or not.

[Chris 62]

A simplictic and inacurate thing to say, Vagabond.

If Oil was the determining factor, all the US need do is pronouce Saddam has complied with all resolutions, and lift all sanctions, and buy all it wants.

Iraq has said numerous times it would sell all US companies wanted to buy if sanctions were lifted.

The "Oil" argument goes against both logic and US self interest, and can be dismissed out of hand.

[The Vagabond]

Originally posted by Chris 62
If Oil was the determining factor, all the US need do is pronouce Saddam has complied with all resolutions, and lift all sanctions, and buy all it wants.

Iraq has said numerous times it would sell all US companies wanted to buy if sanctions were lifted.

If the US agreed to that, it would have lost its face. Therefore, realistically, the US didn't have such an option. War is currently the only possible path to Iraqi oil for the US (unless Saddam is ousted in a different way).

[Chris 62]

This nation isn't overly concerned with "face", if you believe that greed is the determining factor.

It will have lot no face whatsoever, in fact, it would gain prestige, as many don't want Iraq molested in any way, so again, that argument simply doesn't hold water.

[The Vagabond]

You disregard one important circumstance, Chris. Namely, the fact that "face" costs a lot of money (indirectly though) -- even more than Iraqi oil.

And after what had been said and done by you about Iraq, you WOULD have lost face.

[Chris 62]

I disagree, Bush would look like a hero, having "forced" Saddam to comply, yet sparing the Iraqi people a war, he probaly would win the Nobel Peace prize, and it wouldn't cost the US a cent.

In fact, it would SAVE billions in war costs.