Thread for pro-War Arguments

[Japher]

Invading Iraq is the only responsible thing to do.

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by David Floyd
No, I can say Saddam is no threat by looking at facts. Saddam has no missiles that can reach the United States. I can also use logic. It makes no logical, rational sense for Saddam to attack the US in the absence of US provocation.

I wasn't aware that the lack of balistic missles makes you harmless.
Suppose you put say, a 80 foot boat in NY harbor and let off a Dirty bomb, would that be a threat?
Under the definition you gave, no it wouldn't.
Your not safe Floyd, sticking your head in the sand won't work.

I suppose on that level I DO believe Saddam, in that he is implying that in the absence of US provocation he is no threat. But that's pretty much a self-evident statement in this case.

Like I said, it's whom you believe, and now you see it.

[DaShi]

Saddam does have missiles that can reach our allies.

[Japher]

Sorry about the confussion David, as I said I am ignorant.

Yet, I find when you start to bomb the crap out of another country, then, it is technically a war. Either way the old issues still remain, and he has violated terms that he agreed upon. I don't know about you but I didn't see him crossing his fingers, not take backs.

[David Floyd]

Suppose you put say, a 80 foot boat in NY harbor and let off a Dirty bomb, would that be a threat?
Under the definition you gave, no it wouldn't.

Why should Iraq set off a dirty bomb in NY harbor, if the US was not already provoking them, through the enforcement of no fly zones, embargos, etc.?

Like I said, it's whom you believe, and now you see it.

Fine, I believe Saddam because his position is backed up by logic and reason. But that has nothing to do with Saddam, it has to do with logic and reason.

DaShi,

Saddam does have missiles that can reach our allies.

So does Russia.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by DaShi
Saddam does have missiles that can reach our allies.

So does China, and they are far more significant a threat to U.S. interests, particularly concering Taiwan (although why Taiwan is of interest to us, I don't know).

Iraq poses less of a threat to us today than N. Korea does, IMO. Saddam's capacity to wage war was decimated ten years ago and has not recovered by any significant measure.

[David Floyd]

Yet, I find when you start to bomb the crap out of another country, then, it is technically a war. Either way the old issues still remain, and he has violated terms that he agreed upon.

But the point is, the US was not fighting a legal war according to our own Constitution. We were fighting an illegal, undeclared war, and I fail to see how any agreements stemming from that illegal action can be valid.

Further, even if a war were fought, I fail to see how any peace treaty or cease fire based upon anything other than peace amongst equals is moral.

[DaShi]

Originally posted by David Floyd

So does Russia.

I'll take Strawmen for $100 Alex.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by David Floyd


Wrong-o.

We were never even AT war, as Congress never declared war. Bush basically usurped the exclusive powers of Congress in order to go kill people.

But there was never any war.

Lot of people died for there not being a war. Of course it was a war. It simply wasn't a declared war.

Neither did Bush usurp the powers of Congress. That isn't even close to true, David. Bush was required to and did get funding for military actions up to an including invading Iraq. That Congress did not have the cajones to call it a declaration of war does not change the fact that it was a war and Congress chose to fund it.

[David Floyd]

I'll take Strawmen for $100 Alex.

OK, fine.

Iraq has missiles that can reach our allies. But who are these allies?
Turkey, who killed more Kurds than Iraq?
Saudi Arabia, an authoritarian dictatorship?
Israel, a "democracy" with racist immigration laws that goes around killing civilians in response to terrorism?

Pardon me if I don't give a ****.

[Ramo]

We have to invade because the Kurds haven't been ****ed over enough these past decades, so we ought to **** 'em over some more.

[David Floyd]

Lot of people died for there not being a war. Of course it was a war. It simply wasn't a declared war.

Fine. But an undeclared war is not a legal war.

Neither did Bush usurp the powers of Congress. That isn't even close to true, David. Bush was required to and did get funding for military actions up to an including invading Iraq. That Congress did not have the cajones to call it a declaration of war does not change the fact that it was a war and Congress chose to fund it.

Wrong. Only Congress can declare war. They can't pass this power off to any other branch of the government - it is an exclusive power of Congress. They can pass a Constitutional amendment to change this, but that was not done.
If they choose to fund a military action without declaring war, then it seems to me that they are simply funding what boils down to murder, based on the argument that killing an enemy combatant in war is not murder, killing a foreign soldier without a declared war is murder.

[Japher]

You have some valid points there Floyd.

"Good, bad, what does it matter? I'm the one with the gun."

Funny, huh?

That is exactly what Saddam did to Kuwait, and what sucks is that there is always a bigger fish (should that be in quotes too?).

Do we need to wait for Saddam to repeat his actions, only this time with bigger missles then scuds?

Do you honestly think that he is just going to sit idle? He is a calous, greedy, man... (In some sense he should just defect to America, he would have better luck)

When evil rears it's ugly head one must leash it. And if it breaks leash what do you do? Nothing? Laugh? What? I would releash it, and I would shorten the chain.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by David Floyd


Fine. But an undeclared war is not a legal war.

There is nothing in the Constitution that makes an undeclared war illegal. The requirement is that Congress do authorize it. If they don't want to call it a war that didn't make it illegal.

Wrong. Only Congress can declare war. They can't pass this power off to any other branch of the government - it is an exclusive power of Congress. They can pass a Constitutional amendment to change this, but that was not done.

They did declare war. They just chose not to call it one.

If they choose to fund a military action without declaring war, then it seems to me that they are simply funding what boils down to murder, based on the argument that killing an enemy combatant in war is not murder, killing a foreign soldier without a declared war is murder.

A rose by any other name would still smell as sweet and a war that is not officialy called one is still a war. There is no special requirement in the Constitution for declaring war. All that is needed is a simple majority and Congess gave Bush much more than a simple majority.

Now IF the Constitution required a two thirds majority to declare war you would have a point.

[David Floyd]

That is exactly what Saddam did to Kuwait, and what sucks is that there is always a bigger fish (should that be in quotes too?).

Yes, but two points:
1)Kuwait very possibly WAS actually stealing Iraqi oil.
2)We did the same thing to Iraq

Do you honestly think that he is just going to sit idle? He is a calous, greedy, man... (In some sense he should just defect to America, he would have better luck)

I think he's gonna die pretty soon, if you want my opinion.

When evil rears it's ugly head one must leash it. And if it breaks leash what do you do? Nothing? Laugh? What? I would releash it, and I would shorten the chain.

The US has done some very evil things in the past couple of hundred years. Shall I list them for you?