• 🇳🇿 🇲🇲 🇯🇵 🇨🇳 🇦🇺 🇦🇶 🇮🇳
    Australian & Asian
    Drug Discussion

    Welcome Guest!
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
  • AADD Moderators: andyturbo

Should we go to war with Iraq?

Thoth: you asked who would saddam fire his wmd at? israel....didn't he fire a few scuds at israel and saudi arabia during the gulf war. yet israel had no direct involvement in the gulf war. whats to say that next time he fires his scuds at israel there is something more sinister in the warheads? israel retailates with its own wmd and presto.....millions dead *read millions*.
moreover, iraq hasn't had the shit bombed out of since the end of the gulf war. US and british war planes have returned fire when fired upon whilst patrolling the sanctioned "no-fly" zones. learn the facts mate.
the rest of your arguement is crap, just like the rest of the anti-american brigade here. your arguement is based purely on anti-american sentiment and a view that this war is all about oil not wmd.
again trying to rationally debate this issue with people that have an anti-american mindset is a pointless exercise.
funnily enough not one of you anti-yank people have put forward a sane arguement for the disarming of iraq.
 
Plaz: throwing insults isn't a legit argument?? Heed your own advice at all times, or risk looking like a hypocrite.
[ 03 February 2003: Message edited by: star_beats ]
 
^^^^^^^
Star_beats : If you have a personal problem with me, please take it up with me via email. :)
lorrett: I'm not sure whether I should go off and argue the point with you again, seeing as both of the last times you simply ignored everything I had said.
Trying to rationally debate this issue with people that have an anti-american mindset is a pointless exercise.
From my experience, this is what people say when they are left with no rational debate against the left, it is ALWAYS the right wing, with very few exceptions who start throwing the "you're blinded by anti americanism" line.
Not one of you anti-yank people have put forward a sane arguement for the disarming of iraq.
Could it have occurred to you, that perhaps its because we're viewing it as part of a larger problem, and that's WHY we're opposed to the war in the first place, because we don't believe that disarming Iraq by force, okay, actually lets be honest. We don't want to INVADE Iraq, unlike the right wing, as represented by you. Does this explain why we haven't put forward a rational argument for invasion, its because we're against it.
It is true that Saddam Hussein fired a small number of Scud Missiles at Israel during the gulf war. During peace time, he has not done this, and so I find it a reasonable extrapolation that if you do not invade him, he will not use missiles against Israel. Certainly this has been shown to be true in the past.
The US argument that Saddam is likely to supply terrorist organisations such as Al Quaeda with WMD's is quite far fetched, as I have stated before, due to the conflict between Authoritarian Dictatorship, and Extremist Islam. Wherever the WMD's are, if there are indeed any, we can be assured that Saddam has them under lock and key. The problem lies in the confusion following an invasion by force, during which it is possible that the weapons (if they exist) will fall into terrorist hands.
-plaz out-
[ 04 February 2003: Message edited by: plazma ]
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by lorrett:
maybe some of you anti-war people should offer yourselves up as "human shields" in iraq.
Maybe you can also be on the front line fighting for your beliefs, or will you be watching from the comfort of your lounge room?
baka
Click to expand...
 
/me wanders in with a
"Make drugs, not war"
banner.
I've also decided that I'm not going to get worked up over it cause there's fuck all I can do about it. no really. there is fuck all u can do about it as well.
 
moreover, iraq hasn't had the shit bombed out of since the end of the gulf war. US and british war planes have returned fire when fired upon whilst patrolling the sanctioned "no-fly" zones. learn the facts mate.
No, you learn the facts 'mate'
Your comment on Israel is somewhat more valid. Saddams attacks on Israel were conducted after the US response in 1991. An international task force, consisting also of the numerous surrounding arab states were part of the UN sanctioned force against iraq. Israel was not a part of this force, as the US pursuaded them not to. They were aware that if Israel joined the alliance, this would place the arab states offside and make it impossible for the task forces to use their territories for staging attacks. Saddam knew that by attacking Israel and drawing them into the conflict, he would have a chance at destroying the alliance. To Israel's credit, they didn't take the bait and make any military response. Bombing israel with scuds was not a one off excersise, it was a strategic response to a war being waged upon them. So, I still ask you... Where is the coherent strategy NOW in Saddam using WMD? What is his motivation? Can you actually make points beyond your petty insults?
You want a sane argument for disarming Iraq? Here is one off the top of my head: LET THE WEAPONS INSPECTORS DO THEIR JOBS!
[ 04 February 2003: Message edited by: -Thoth ]
Click to expand...
 
[originally quoted by thoth] LET THE WEAPONS INSPECTORS DO THEIR JOBS [/QUOTE]
At least we can agree on one thing ;) . But what if they find wmd?
[originally quoted by thoth] So, I still ask you... Where is the coherent strategy NOW in Saddam using WMD? [/QUOTE]
maybe we could get the Kurds to answer that one.
 
But what if they find wmd?
Then at least you would have a basis for calling for Iraqi disarmament, evidence of violation of the UN Security Council resolutions, and grounds for perhaps other action. In my mind, this doesn't make war any more of an attractive and self serving notion, but at least you have the 'smoking gun.'
As I write this, there are UN inspectors with entirely free reign in Iraq working to uncover the real story of what is going on. So far they have turned up nothing of substance, nor reccomended action. If the emphasis is on WMD, then why is Bush prepared to wage war without any evidence? Why the rush? Why the embargo on all the documentation they say proves Saddam is still armed? This 'war' is a joke.
Click to expand...
 
plus, isn't it important to account for (assuming i understand things properly...) the fact that all of saddam's weapons -if he has any- were provided by the american government a decade and a half ago anyway?
and if that's right, well it just seems fucking stupid to me.
"here, take these weapons"
"NO FUCK OFF YOU CAN'T HAVE THEM, DIE DIE DIE!!!1"
:/
 
Just a small tangent on the debate, I know most people think we are insulated from a War in the Gulf down here in Australia but I’ve been thinking, (dangerous I know). We are already facing a global economic slow down, recession, depression or however our politicians put it next time. War will further destabilise the world economies, even American interests are hurting from the threat of War. When the US coalition strike Iraq the Muslim World will erupt, and they will be rightly pissed. It won’t be like last time. One atom bomb won’t make everyone go “WHAT THE FUCK WAS THAT!” and surrender, they’ll start playing nuclear ping-pong with each other, and everyone’s fucked. I don’t usually get worked up about this kind of thing but all the wrong ingredients just keep getting thrown in at the right time, and it’s really got me worried. So I’m going to be marching on the 16th, and I’ll be at Town Hall when War breaks, then I’ll be coming home to find that “When war breaks out, I'm heading bush... who's coming” thread!
 
1) Should there be a war in Iraq, led by the US, even without UN approval?
No WAY!
2) Should there be a war at all?
No WAY! Iraq is getting DONE, I can't believe some people don't see this. Look back to the start of this performance, the US had no support. They've bullied everyone in to falling in line, even the UN for God sake.
The Iraqi's have taken the inspectors back in, and I can honestly say the way they have behaved has been refreshing!
The supporters of this war talk about 12yrs of lies and deciet by Iraq, but theyve been bombed throughout the 90s for that, remember that.
 
I am so depressed by America's transparent rhetoric. There doesn't seem to be any attempt being made by 'leaders' to offer a deeper explanation for this seemingly unprovoked aggression. Bush's foreign policy decisions since coming into power have thrown diplomacy put the window! (eg relations with korea were becoming favorable during clinton years, but bush basically ostricized and treated with hostility - but i digress)
Bush's intense desire to make war is an attepmt to draw attention away from a disgustingly ill economy/ finish daddy's war /get his grubby hands on oil, and the only reason it hasn't happened yet is because Hussien has stuck it to him by complying to US forced UN resolutions.
If the US leads a non-UN-endorsed attack on Iraq, it may as well be invading New Zealand, in terms of international legality.
the giant dimensions of hypocracy hurt my brain. Not to mention the reason UN inspectors (led by richard butler) last left iraq was BECAUSE THEY WERE SPYING TO THE U.S.
John Howard. well he's just a fuckwit - end of story. unfortunately the no confidence motion against the PM has no real ramifications, we need the GG to step in - little johnnie is a bigger threat to australia than whitlam ever was.
it is reassuring to know that majority of american public, as well as australian are opposed to military action.
well its prolly all been said before, but i feel cleansed
 
A small glimpse of some good ol' home built American sentiment. Quite scarey.
Check out iFilm and search for 'Message to Bin Laden' (We're not gonna take it anymore!)
Tell me if you spot the patriotism
 
I don't want to buy into the whole war debate because.. well...
But anywho, there's an interesting flash page on the Sydney Morning Herald site that maps out the deployment of both sides and plots the Iraqi capabilities against a map of the region.
Check it out here
Interesting viewing...
 
hmmm... Little johnny howard is more than likely kissing bush's trailer-trash arse because theres a big free-trade meeting between au and usa coming up soon, and wants to get some brown-noser points.
unfortunately, if theres no-one on the planet to buy anything, then a trade agreement isnt really worth shit is it?
for howard, this war isnt about dead fish, its about keeping up with the bushes (i.e joneses)
Andromeda :)
 
If Saddam has mobile weapons of mass descruction that are small enough to fit in a truck, then what the hell is a war going to do. How the hell is a war going to make the difference. Does any iraq-war advocate realise just what is involved in finding all these and destroying them. It means soldiers in Iraq hunting down items that can easily be hidden. Millions of willing people in Iraq are armed and are ready to serve Saddam. We are potentially talking about sacrificing hundreds of thousands of people to achieve what must be seen as a near impossible cause. Are the war-with-Iraq advocates prepared for that sort of human cost? Can they picture a 'Black Hawk Down' style incident on about 1000 times larger scale. Malitia don't carry out their wounded or dead, they fight to the bitter end. Are you advocates prepared for that.
Or then again, it may never get that far. It may be just about the oil?
nezo, you display wisdom beyond your years... "Make drugs, not war." Classic! :D
[ 09 February 2003: Message edited by: Raving Loony ]
 
^^^
Actually there are some fairly compelling reasons to believe that most of the Iraqi civilian population and a large part of the army would simply lay down arms in the face of overwhelming odds.
Not that I'm justifying war mind you, simply saying that your above scenario would probably be better applied to North Korea rather than Iraq.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top