Author Topic: Good Antiwar Argument (Read 2328 times)

Dowding · « **Reply #15 on:** February 27, 2003, 06:56:44 AM »

The UN is the nations that form it - not some arbitrary, faceless organisation. There was no UN madate to go to Baghdad last time, because the nation-states that make up the security council would not have supported it. A certain US general was against going to Baghdad, back then.

The UN was NEVER designed to involve itself in regime change. It was designed to provide humanitarian aid, allow nations to discuss issues in order to find a peaceful resolution, supply peace-keepers to unstable regions to allow humanitarian aid to get through or to prevent conflict. But if the members of the UN want to reshape it into a political tool for removing disliked world leaders, they could.

I saw the SAS program last year and it looked like it hurt. The feigned torture thing with the white noise and blind-folds would probably kill me, never mind the physical aspect. I think you'd have to be super-fit (capable of being a competitive athlete) to even think about applying to that program. I was very fit once, but I doubt I could do the things they've been doing.

I like it how the women often out perform the men on the training.

Eagler · « **Reply #16 on:** February 27, 2003, 07:09:30 AM »

it's only 350 a person if every person pays taxes

the majority of the freaks in the peace rallies do not fall into "pay taxes" category

Eagler · « **Reply #17 on:** February 27, 2003, 07:11:13 AM »

ps

I say split up the cost, add 50% and invoice the surrounding countries - tired of carrying the world's burdens/expense on our backs - when we can't even take care of our own ...

Dowding · « **Reply #18 on:** February 27, 2003, 07:12:34 AM »

Quote

the majority of the freaks in the peace rallies do not fall into "pay taxes" category

Most of the British protesters were ordinary people with a home, house, job etc.

But then the foundations of a black and white world are comfortable assumptions.

Fishu · « **Reply #19 on:** February 27, 2003, 07:18:01 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by crowMAW
If Israel knew of a hostile country that had missiles capable of hitting their country and had a facility working on developing nukes, how long do you think it would be before that facility would be dust?

Well they did it already like we all know so thats not a question anymore..

However Iraq has never had chinas or russians backing

(or a country full of fanatics... Iraq has it better with white flags than the french)

JB42 · « **Reply #20 on:** February 27, 2003, 07:45:12 AM »

If shortly after his election, President Bush went before the American people and said he tought we should go to war with Afghanistan because he believed they were helping terrorist organizations we would have similar anti-war sentiments and demonstrations. Of course thousands of now dead people would still be alive and we would still have the World Trade Center, but I'm sure the protests and accusations of some more underlying reason for an attack would still circulate.

Well now we have Iraq. A country admittedly supportive of some terrorist organizations, blantently defiant of UN resulotions, and stone cold busted about lying about their weapons capability. And now everyone wants to reduce this to a war on oil? Thats like saying we helped all those Central American countries so we can get better prices on bannanas. Not sure about Somalia, maybe our countries sandboxes were getting a little low. Hmmm lets see, Bosnia, hmmmm, no, no not for the women, nope not a war for Eastern European cooking either. Boy this is a tough one. Wait I got it, maybe we acted there on behalf of the people involved.

Fatty · « **Reply #21 on:** February 27, 2003, 08:02:40 AM »

It is a lot of money, you're right Funked. But as long as it pisses France off that's money well spent in my opinion. If you want me throwing my support against the war, then get France to endorse it and I'm there.

Toad · « **Reply #22 on:** February 27, 2003, 08:10:45 AM »

I'm aware of the Iraqi uprisings.

I still say you can't "give" a people their freedom.

No Revolution ever had bleaker prospects than the American Revolution. Your country was the "superpower" of the time and the 13 colonies were insignificant in comparison. The Revolutionaries lost battle after battle with horrendous (for that time and that source population) losses.

But they didn't give up.

Would the troops of Saddam Hussein shoot their own families if the families were all out in the street?

Against my personal beliefs and judgement, the US & Britain probably will "liberate" Iraq and depose Saddam.

I'll wager you right now that the US/British post war attempt to initiate a democracy in Iraq is going to cost more soldiers lives than the actual "war phase". You've already outlined the reasons why this is going to be extremely difficult in another post and I agree with your reasoning.

This is the wrong war at the wrong time, even though the reason behind it is basically correct. IMO.

JB, as for the Balkans, I believe you'll find the "anti" crowd pointing to Caspian oil, approximately five billion in mineral deposits and the second largest European deposit of lignite coal (17 billion tons) in Kosmet. To a cynic, there is no honorable intent.

Naso · « **Reply #23 on:** February 27, 2003, 08:36:05 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Toad
To a cynic, there is no honorable intent.

The road to hell is paved.....

of honorable intents.

Toad · « **Reply #24 on:** February 27, 2003, 08:38:22 AM »

That other road to hell is paved with the corpses of those killed by dictators.

Pick your road.

Naso · « **Reply #25 on:** February 27, 2003, 08:49:26 AM »

Eh, good point.

lazs2 · « **Reply #26 on:** February 27, 2003, 09:08:25 AM »

funked.... being pragmatic myself... I can't help but think that the "example factor" for future terrorist and despot nations is worth the expense... I look at it like "an ounce of prevention".

If we pulled out of korea the u.n. would beg to have us back there in no time. Would love to see someone else take care of it for a change.
lazs

SirLoin · « **Reply #27 on:** February 27, 2003, 09:14:40 AM »

Yeah,I'd say $100 billion is way too much...It would be much cheaper to re-invade Panama and Grenada...

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #28 on:** February 27, 2003, 09:26:20 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
The reason the gas has increased in price today has nothing to do with Iraq and everything to do with Venezuela.

Who's the fool?

Dude invading socialist mexican countries is so cold war outdated - join the new times when the CIA is out to destroy islam!!

Dowding · « **Reply #29 on:** February 27, 2003, 10:21:59 AM »

Quote

I'm aware of the Iraqi uprisings.

I still say you can't "give" a people their freedom.

I agree. I've never said otherwise.

Quote

No Revolution ever had bleaker prospects than the American Revolution. Your country was the "superpower" of the time and the 13 colonies were insignificant in comparison. The Revolutionaries lost battle after battle with horrendous (for that time and that source population) losses.

But they didn't give up.

Would the troops of Saddam Hussein shoot their own families if the families were all out in the street?

Iraq isn't a colonial war, and I think to compare a genocidal maniac to the British government is a huge stretch that simply doesn't work.

I hope the American public can accept US soldiers remaining in Iraq for the long haul and being sniped at by all sides, in their desperation to murder each other. Because I'm afraid that that is what it will all boil down to.