What's the Difference?

[Ben Kenobi]

But should the Americans be the ones to oust Saddam?

'Regime change' in my mind is insufficient justification for war against Saddam.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Ned
I would just like to point out that Iraq is the one who made the unprovoked attacks - twice. Of course this is wrong. This is why the world put Saddam on probation.

I find it amazing how so many can ignore the facts in their determined propagandistic effort to blame the US for every world problem.

I was unaware Saddam had ever attacked the US? He has been attacked and punished for those transgressions. I'm not blaiming the US, I'm pre-emptively saying they shouldn't do it.

saddam needs to be ousted. can we all agree to that?

Well, no, not really. I don't see how what the United States will put there will be any better than Saddam. However, more importantly, I think using military force to change a ruler because you don't like them is wrong. We (the whole of the Western World, but mostly directed at the US and Britain) have no business forcing countries to change their rulers. It is not our decision to make. Moreover, that is not enough justification for war, as obiwan said.

[SlowwHand]

The viewpoints of the author of this thread get odder by the day.
Really, David. At first, when you started your rambling crap, I was only half-serious that you should leave.
Now, let me help you with your bags.

[Drogue]

He has a right to be hear and air his views. Do you have a counter-argument. For an American maybe it is a little strange, but many many people I've met are so vehemently anti-war that they would side with him. Why do you have a right to spew patriotic, warmongering crap, yet somebody else can't say that it's wrong and we shouldn't be doing this? Because he has odd views he is not allowed to express them?

[Demerzel]

I'm not anxious to see British troops go to the gulf and die for Bush's political agenda. If Bush was really serious about stopping countries with non-democratic governments from having WMDs then he'd need to attack China & Pakistan & North Korea too. Somehow I suspect that won't be happening.

I'd prefer to see no-one die then have to say who'd I prefer to die. Naturally in ideal circumstances you'd hope the aggressor in any combat should be the one to pay the price and lose. Of course being British, British lives being lost is abhorrent to me.

Calling someone a traitor because they would prefer any aggressor to die rather than the defender is just farcical. Oh no what a cad! Stone him, he'd like to see the end of aggressive wars! B*stard!

Surely patriotism shouldn't require you to be a slave to your government? I'm patriotic but that doesn't mean I'll cheer the government for causing lives to be lost in a pointless act.

Saddam does indeed need to go but who would replace him? I believe the reason that he was not removed at the end of the gulf war was twofold.

a) The UN mandate did not ask for it and thus the coalition would have fallen apart if the US had tried

b) Remove Saddam and you have a massive power vacuum. He's spent the last X years removing any possible challenger to his leadership, pretty much no-one is left who wants/could handle the job.

Any external leader imposed by the US on the Iraqis will need to be protected by US force or risk being overthrown. Then you're looking at a real long term US presence in the region. Will the US honour that? Will they want to keep their troops there if the Iraqis inflicted heavy casualties through guerilla tactics? I suspect the cost might well be too high and the US would leave.

If that happened, who'd be the ones who would have to sort it out? The EU would, as we'd be stuck with a highly dangerous problem on our borders. Now can you see why most of the EU doesn't exactly trust Bush in his actions?

Finally trying to get someone to quit the forums for their opposing views is pathetic. You don't have to read what they say but as long as you claim to be an intelligent rational person you have to accomodate other's views as more often than not they have a valid point of view too.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Demerzel
I'm not anxious to see British troops go to the gulf and die for Bush's political agenda. If Bush was really serious about stopping countries with non-democratic governments from having WMDs then he'd need to attack China & Pakistan & North Korea too. Somehow I suspect that won't be happening.

On that note, why stop with "non-democratic" nations? Surely "democratic" nations have a chance to become "non-democratic" one day.

[tandeetaylor]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
The viewpoints of the author of this thread get odder by the day.
Really, David.

Maybe you should stop opening his threads.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Demerzel
I'm not anxious to see British troops go to the gulf and die for Bush's political agenda. If Bush was really serious about stopping countries with non-democratic governments from having WMDs then he'd need to attack China & Pakistan & North Korea too. Somehow I suspect that won't be happening.

I'd prefer to see no-one die then have to say who'd I prefer to die. Naturally in ideal circumstances you'd hope the aggressor in any combat should be the one to pay the price and lose. Of course being British, British lives being lost is abhorrent to me.

Calling someone a traitor because they would prefer any aggressor to die rather than the defender is just farcical. Oh no what a cad! Stone him, he'd like to see the end of aggressive wars! B*stard!

Surely patriotism shouldn't require you to be a slave to your government? I'm patriotic but that doesn't mean I'll cheer the government for causing lives to be lost in a pointless act.

Saddam does indeed need to go but who would replace him? I believe the reason that he was not removed at the end of the gulf war was twofold.

a) The UN mandate did not ask for it and thus the coalition would have fallen apart if the US had tried

b) Remove Saddam and you have a massive power vacuum. He's spent the last X years removing any possible challenger to his leadership, pretty much no-one is left who wants/could handle the job.

Any external leader imposed by the US on the Iraqis will need to be protected by US force or risk being overthrown. Then you're looking at a real long term US presence in the region. Will the US honour that? Will they want to keep their troops there if the Iraqis inflicted heavy casualties through guerilla tactics? I suspect the cost might well be too high and the US would leave.

If that happened, who'd be the ones who would have to sort it out? The EU would, as we'd be stuck with a highly dangerous problem on our borders. Now can you see why most of the EU doesn't exactly trust Bush in his actions?

Finally trying to get someone to quit the forums for their opposing views is pathetic. You don't have to read what they say but as long as you claim to be an intelligent rational person you have to accomodate other's views as more often than not they have a valid point of view too.

1) The UK has been in the Gulf since '91, supporting the UN mission there. The UN demanded that Iraq disarm as a condition for a cease firm. The UK supported that UN resolution.

2) In retrospect, the Coalition's commander in chief's offering a cease fire to Saddam was a gigantic mistake. Had the Coalition gone on to Bagdad, it is unclear that the Coalition would have collapsed.

3) David Floyd's advocacy is protected by the 1st Amendment. However, his sentiments are treasonist. Thirty years ago, Jane Fonda went to Hanoi and said she stood with them against the US. Many of us opposed the war. But, so long as our opposition remained in the form of public protests, our opposition was protected by the First Amendment. But going to Hanoi like that during the middle of the war and advocating an American defeat was treason. There are many in the US who continue to be angry that the government did not file charges against her.

4) Demerzel, to the extent you personally agree with David Floyd, you too have declared yourself the enemy of the UN, the United States and the UK. It is one thing to protest the war or policy. But when war starts, to urge that the enemy kill your fellow citizens and defeat on your own country militarily is treasonist. I hope you understand the distinction.

If any member of the Senate or House, or any member of Parliament were to rise and say what David said, I have no doubt they would be expelled from those august bodies. What he said is way beyond the pale.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Demerzel
If Bush was really serious about stopping countries with non-democratic governments from having WMDs then he'd need to attack China & Pakistan & North Korea too. Somehow I suspect that won't be happening.

To the best of my knowledge the Pakis, North Koreans, and Chinese are not in violation of any U.N. resolutions. Iraq is in violation of (last I heard) 15 of them.

[David Floyd]

Slowwhand, I'm still waiting for a counterargument. You can bring your buddies along and team up on me, even.

[FrostyBoy]

As long as the innocent people aren't killed, the US should step in and end it once and for all.

But America is probably just as screwed up. It's fall will come, but it won't happen like any other empire has fallen, it will fall from the inside out. America has got to be the vainest country of all time; it's sickening.

[Dinner]

[FrostyBoy]

see?

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Ned
1) The UK has been in the Gulf since '91, supporting the UN mission there. The UN demanded that Iraq disarm as a condition for a cease firm. The UK supported that UN resolution.

2) In retrospect, the Coalition's commander in chief's offering a cease fire to Saddam was a gigantic mistake. Had the Coalition gone on to Bagdad, it is unclear that the Coalition would have collapsed.

3) David Floyd's advocacy is protected by the 1st Amendment. However, his sentiments are treasonist. Thirty years ago, Jane Fonda went to Hanoi and said she stood with them against the US. Many of us opposed the war. But, so long as our opposition remained in the form of public protests, our opposition was protected by the First Amendment. But going to Hanoi like that during the middle of the war and advocating an American defeat was treason. There are many in the US who continue to be angry that the government did not file charges against her.



If any member of the Senate or House, or any member of Parliament were to rise and say what David said, I have no doubt they would be expelled from those august bodies. What he said is way beyond the pale.

Actually, they have. Many politicians have said in the House of Commons that they oppose the war, and some have gone as far as to say they hope it is unsuccessful. How has he declared himself an ememy of the UK? Most UK Citizens do not want to go to war, by all our latest polls. Even many politicians do not wish to go to war. He is not saying he wishes the enemy to kill fellow citizens, he is saying he wishes the aggressor to lose, whoever that aggressor may be. That is what David said aswell. Indeed, David asked what the difference between killing US soldiers and killing Iraqi soldiers is. He is not advocating fighting for Iraq, he is advocating not fighting at all.

While you keep saying the UK, or the US supports a certain resolution, I am unsure what you mean. The UK government may support something that the people do not. It is not treasonist to go against the government.

Originally posted by Ned
4) Demerzel, to the extent you personally agree with David Floyd, you too have declared yourself the enemy of the UN, the United States and the UK. It is one thing to protest the war or policy. But when war starts, to urge that the enemy kill your fellow citizens and defeat on your own country militarily is treasonist. I hope you understand the distinction.

Has anyone said they wish to kill their fellow citizens? All David, Demerzel, and myself have done is publicly protested against the war. And while I see the distinction, I also see a distinction between killing your fellow citizens and hampering your countries forces from killing others. Nobody (to my knowledge) has said we should all fight for Iraq. We are saying we shouldn't be fighting Iraq in the first place.

[DinoDoc]

Most UK Citizens do not want to go to war, by all our latest polls.

How does UN sanction effect the numbers?